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.
A: Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party.
Q: If socialism is mainly left-wing and they called themselves socialists in their name, why is this being ignored?
A: Historically several right-wing figures used the term "socialism" to mean something very different from what would be understood by traditional left-wing socialism, referring simply to the broader concept of collectivism and anti-individualism. For instance, "conservative socialism" was promoted by Austrian political figure Metternich. The prominent French reactionarymonarchistCharles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand". Mauras' views influenced fascism. Oswald Spengler's ideal of "Prussian Socialism" directly influenced Nazism, and Spengler promoted it as a member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement.
Q: Were the Nazis actually a capitalist movement?
A: The answer depends on the context and definition of capitalism. Hitler in private was just as opposed to the ethos of capitalism as he was in public as a politician, he regarded the capitalist ethos as being self-centred individualism that was incompatible with patriotism. Furthermore in both public and private Hitler regarded capitalism as being created by the Jews for their own interests. Hitler promoted effectively mercantilism through policies of colonial expansion in Eastern Europe to gain access to natural resources to make Germany self-sufficient and no longer dependent on international trade. The Nazis in public and in private held contempt for bourgeois culture in liberal capitalist societies - as they associated such bourgeois culture with a cosmopolitan, liberal, and decadent lifestyle that was incompatible with the Nazis' ideal of a nationalist martial ethic of disciplined soldiers who were collectively committed to the Fatherland above any individual interest. So ideologically, Nazism held strong antipathy to capitalism. However at the same time Hitler and the Nazis endorsed private property and private enterprise and did not challenge the market economy, which was important to their accrual of power because it avoided antagonizing industrialists and aristocrats. The Nazis themselves claimed that "true socialism" did not involve the Marxian opposition to private property. But if capitalism is defined in a minimum way as involving the support of the existence of private property, private enterprise and a market economy, then from that minimum definition, the Nazis could be considered as endorsing a capitalist economy.
A: No, Nazi Germany did not invent universal health care. It was first implemented in Germany, but in the German Empire under Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s. Bismarck implemented universal health care in response to address growing demands for social welfare policies by socialist movements such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany, as well as studies and government reports that declared the need for universal health care.
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. There are about 5600 registered Neo-Nazis in Germany (in 2010) which are approximately 0.01% of the German population.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article puts a lot of emphasis on saying the Nazis and their form of socialism is right wing. In reality, on the far right would be laissez-faire capitalism, not socialism.
Does this come out as logical?: Communism - Socialism - Laissez-faire - More socialism That's just an abridged example for clarification.
One of wikipedia's policies is to write articles from a neutral view point, and unfortunately, this article is used by the left to combat the right in a biased way to avoid being on the same wing as both Hitler and Stalin, two of the world's cruelest dictators.
It's obvious, and deep down inside, the lefties know this too.
I highly recommend Wikipedia have an unbiased centrist edit this article (I am not a centrist). TheWkThink (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at the FAQ near the top of the talk page. Dustin(talk) 17:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Articles are based on what reliable sources say not on what you think is true. TFD (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Although the FAQ phrasing is if anything too weaselly and convoluted about this and effectively invites people to debate the issue further rather than simply accept the standard terminology and classification found, as noted, in the vast majority of mainstream authoritative sources. Whether those sources are somehow all "wrong" and there is a better or different way to classify and describe things, or to use terms such as "right" or "left", are not things random WP editors get to decide, however unfair that may seem to them. N-HHtalk/edits 10:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the FAQ should be scrapped. It says for example, the Nazis "attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany." That implies that they treated Communists and Conservatives in the same way, which is highly misleading. TFD (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to qualify that slightly with my changes earlier, but I agree it remains misleading, as does much of the other detailed content, as well as being as likely to invite more debate as to settle it. I do think it would be worth keeping something pinned to the top of the page though given the regularity with which people swing by with this one – for example perhaps the first two Qs or some variation on them, with simple one sentence answers explaining: a) what sources mostly do in terms of left-right classification; and b) that "National Socialism" was not meant to be and is not taken to be the same thing as, or a sub-set of, socialism as commonly understood. N-HHtalk/edits 11:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a complete rewriting of the political spectrum that was re-written solely for the purpose of blaming the left for everything bad. It's not valid, has never been valid and has never been accepted by credible historians as valid. It's something invented by a political hack just so he could blame the left for everything bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2014
So, wait, the article states: "Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany. However, a majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far-right form of politics." Obviously, the academics are biased, why don't we take it from Hitler himself? All of the historical evidence backs up what Hitler says. The Nazis had state run labor unions in order to improve labor conditions, state run car companies in order to provide poor people with cars, and all sorts of state run industries to provide poor people with products only rich people could afford. All of that is socialist, and not laissez faire capitalism. By their own actions and statements, the Nazis were both left and right. So, most academics in America are liberals, why are we taking their word for it? Who cares how reputable the academics are, or how many times the biased statement has been repeated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources, such as books by academics, rather than unreliable primary sources, such as Mein Kampf. If you disagree with that policy, then discuss it at WT:RS. TFD (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, just a point, but the political compass, which adds another dimension to the political spectrum, makes Hitler only a bit right, but significantly in an upward authoritarian direction to compensate for certain things. However, on the one-dimensional political spectrum, Hitler would be classified by the great majority as far-right wing. Dustin(talk) 01:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, The Four Deuces, I hope you don't mind that I fixed your wikilink at the end of your comment. Dustin(talk) 01:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. In the Reichstag, parties were seated from right to left. There was n no upper left or lower right. The Nazi Party came to power in coalition with the Conservative Party. Ironically, the Conservatives would appear to be more left-wing in the 2D chart - they established the welfare state and brought in make work projects that Hitler opposed. TFD (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, if we limit ourselves to Right-Wing historians (and they DO exist, regardless of what the uneducated people who have never set foot in a university think - I certainly ran into my fair share while getting my M.A.), we can see William Shirer stating often throughout "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" that there was no "Socialism" in "National-socialism". Or why not check out John Toland's "Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography" for more examples. I mean, do I have to try to hunt down a Niall Ferguson quote on the subject, or what? And yes, I realize that the people claiming that the Nazis were "Left Wing" have likely not heard of any of the above historians, and will instead quote radio talk show hosts or journalists to back up their nonsensical claims, but really...this got 'old' years ago... Just read books before commenting, people. --Bryon Morrigan --Talk 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed re reading. I am far from widely read on the subject, but I found Poole & Poole 1978 (Who Financed Hitler) absorbing and educational (although of course also depressing). Anyone who honestly has questions about the left-right aspects of Nazism should read it. It makes clear how Nazism co-opted German communism's popular appeal (which was very strong in the 1920s) and explains that the socialist or pseudosocialist aspect of National Socialism, after successfully doing its co-opting job throughout the 1920s, forked off into Strasserism, and then Hitler stabbed it to death in 1934 and cozied up big-time with the traditional conservatives (Junkers, industrialists, monarchists) and their money to create a eugenic elitist system that to my mind involved elements of plutocracy, some state capitalism but also plenty of corporatocracy, and treating most of the plebs like serfs. Very much right-wing in the sense of social conservatism, anticommunism, and "viewing some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition". Very much not leftist in the sense of real Marxism, although with plenty of suspicious parallels to the Stalinist Orwellianly upside-down "Marxism-Leninism" that claimed to be true to Marx but would have boiled his blood if he had been around to see it. (And having read Sperber 2013 [biography of Marx], I would say that pissing off Marx to a froth was quite easy. And that he was a dick.) The co-opting of communist populism among the plebs indeed was both why traditional conservatives (Junkers, industrialists, monarchists) feared and disliked Nazism at first (found it suspiciously socialist) but eventually embraced it, some for anticommunism (because they saw it as the only thing that could save them from a German communist revolution by giving the plebs reasons to feel anticommunist, including by bread and circuses) and others (in 1933-1934) because they saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to make sure not to be on the losing side. And by 1934, Hitler's future trajectory was shaping up. He was going to sit at fine dinners with old money (the German aristocracy) and new money (industrialists), and they were going to keep their money and privilege as long as they played ball and treated Hitler as an emperor/Kaiser/Czar/strongman/name-your-Fearless-Leader-synonym, and Hitler would have a huge army and secret police to keep it that way (which recently Imperial Prussians and recently Czarist Russians were both long since used to). Judging from Poole & Poole 1978, I would say that Hitler really did see himself as pursuing a Third Position (at heart, he was contemptuous of everyone on Earth except himself and a select few followers, disdaining both communists and traditional conservatives) but that, like many people, the way he imagined himself does not entirely match that which others can see regarding what he really was, and was even grossly inaccurate in various ways, which is why User:The Four Deuces is so correct when he mentions the difference between "reliable secondary sources, such as books by academics, rather than unreliable primary sources, such as Mein Kampf". (This was a guy who thought the Holocaust was a good idea—hmmm, maybe we take his view of things with more than a grain of salt?) Hitler was a social darwinist, racist and eugenicist thugocrat and kleptocrat at heart. Of course, he himself wouldn't see it as kleptocracy, because a wolf considers that wolves are entitled to slaughter livestock by nature, and Hitler considered most humans (enemies and fawning sycophants alike) as contemptible and as objectified as livestock (as any psychopath would). I disagree with taking away the link to Third Position from the FAQ; I don't think the answer is to try to hide from the FAQ reader how Nazis saw themselves, but rather to show that and also to show how historians view them differently (and more accurately) from that distorted self-image. — ¾-10 04:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why should we use "Nazi Party" besides WP:COMMONNAMES? It may fail WP:CRITERIA. Sure, it's recognizable. However, it is not obviously natural. Also, it's short but not concise (def: "brief but complete"). I checked the archives, and I found opposing viewpoints on the current title carrying more weight than supporting ones. Also, I believe that "Nazi" has become an insult and is still an insult, especially to people, like Germans. (see post below) --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus has not changed on this matter which has been discussed more than once. There is no need to change the title as it is the most commonly used term for this party in English reliable sources. As for the term "Nazi" being an insult, that might be, depending on the context of its use, but that is not relevant as to its use in relation to the title of this article. Kierzek (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not follow your argument. WPLCRITERIA would seem to describe the current title. Lots of words are used as insults - pig for example, but that does not mean we re-name the articles they are based on. The fact that the insult term used is not "National Socialist German Workers Party member" shows that the term "Nazi" is more recognizable. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll answer. Perfectly natural, and not just concise, it is EXACT. Everyone calls this group Nazis, they did during the war, and are universally known by this title. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Natural is derived from nature. Also, even most English speakers do not know what Nazi Party completely meant, unless they read the history books. --George Ho (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, they can come to Wikipedia, type in "Nazi Party" and find an article that explains "what Nazi Party completely meant." TFD (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with much of this. What if the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had frequently been referred to as the "Commie Party"? That still most certainly would not justify such an article title. Dustin(talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
TFD, don't take this literally. It was just an example. What if? Dustin(talk) 20:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
And how many people are going to have any idea what: (1) NSDAP (2) National Socialist German Workers' Party or (3) Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means? The best, concise and commonly used name for English Wikipedia is Nazi Party. Kierzek (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you purposely pick the holiday of Rosh Hashanah to propose this change? - Davodd (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I largely did not know that September 24/25 was that holiday. Why would I do that on purpose? To remind you, I'm not proposing a "change" at this time. I was discussing whether the current title is best-suitable at this time. --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I am closing this RfC, even though the close is a little earlier than the usual 28 days, because a request to close it has appeared on WP:ANRFC, and discussion has been extremely slow since the end of September. I think that all of the applicable arguments have been well-put. However, if anyone has anything new to add that has not been raised, they should mention this on my talk page and I will be content to un-close the discussion.
This RfC concerns whether our article on the Nazi Party is correctly titled. At first glance, the matter seems very simple: "Nazi Party" is the term used in the overwhelming majority of English-language sources, so on the face of it, "Nazi Party" should be the title. But as so often on Wikipedia, when you look at it more closely, it gets more complicated. Probably the strongest argument against calling it "Nazi Party" is set out in WP:POVNAME, where it says "Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality" [in circumstances such as] "colloquialisms where far more encyclopaedic alternatives are obvious". In this case there are obvious encyclopaedic alternatives including Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and NSDAP, which are both already set up as redirects. "Nazi Party" is not its name; it's an abbreviation that's easier for anglophone monoglots, not a proper German word, and thus quite arguably it is a colloquialism. Personally, as a German speaker, I can feel the force of George Ho's argument, and I do not find the matter anywhere near as straightforward as many of the "endorse" !voters below seem to find it.
Still, like most other European languages, English is full of these simplifications. The proper name for the European country involved is Deutschland, but the English Wikipedia article is called Germany. Likewise our article on Italia is called Italy, and we have Spain and Switzerland and Austria and Greece even though these are not the correct names. English speakers corrupt things for convenience. German speakers do the same; they call my country Großbritannien, so they have no cause for complaint. I think there is an established pattern on en.wiki, where article titles are written for the convenience of English speakers, even where this is not strictly correct in the original tongue.
It is also argued that "Nazi Party" is a pejorative. That's certainly true. This is easily the most hated and reviled regime among English speakers anywhere in the world, and to call someone a Nazi is always to say something negative about them. However, I have found this point easier to determine. There is a clear consensus below that even though it is a pejorative, in this particular case, owing to the uncongenial nature of the Nazis, its use is justified and appropriate.
I therefore conclude that the title of this article should not be changed. I hope this helps.—S MarshallT/C 23:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus agreed to use "Nazi Party" because of its commonality. Does the current title meet other rules of WP:AT, like WP:CRITERIA and WP:POVNAME? --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Support the name is supported by those policies. TFD (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Support These constant attempts to change the name are un-encyclopedic, and motivated by propaganda purposes. As noted by others, this is a "dead topic", that has already been determined many times. --Bryon Morrigan --Talk 01:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not proposing a name change; I was questioning about the title itself. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Whatever does that mean? The name is the title, no? --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
All right jpgordon; sometimes, name = title. I use words interchangeably. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Bryonmorrigan, just that I am against WP:COMMONNAME and believe that all political parties ought to use the actual names (obviously with information about them, such as the "socialist" part of NSDAP being greatly criticized) does not mean that I am believing in Nazi propaganda, support the Nazi ideology, or whatever you are implying. The actual content of the article and even the usage in the article would remain the same in the (my) preferable version of the article. And there is nothing inferior about redirects compared to direct links. Of course, my variant would only involve changing names to be "official", and there would be some exceptions where conflicts occurred between article titles and others. I do note that this article's title might be a bit long if it used the official name, but for other instances such as "Nazism", I suppose a varied version of my reasoning would be more applicable. Dustin(talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMON redirects to "Common sense" section of an essay. You mean WP:COMMONNAME then? --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Strong Support current title and its use for my reasons which are stated above; I hope we will now "let sleeping dogs lie." Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose the current title because it's obviously non-neutral. You all say that "nazi" is a common term, but by who was it made common? First it was made by the NSDAP opponents and secondly, of all the major media (newspaper, tv, radio) which have contributed to making this term "common", which of them does not strongly oppose the NSDAP policies? People will still find this article if there is a redirection, no problem about that. Also, it looks like the English Wikipedia is the only one that uses the "nazi" term. Most of the others, if not all, uses the full party name, even though the term is common in that country (like in France). Orgyn (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
query - So: you oppose this name because using it means we might be being seen as opposed to the God-damned Nazis? I cannot imagine a weaker argument in the entire armamentarium of rhetoric than that one. If there is any certainty in the history of humankind, it is that any decent sane human being is opposed to the Nazis as we know them to have been in doctrine and in practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is an Encyclopedia. We should neither oppose nor support political point of views. What is wrong with that? Orgyn (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing, particularly. Anti-nazism, however, is not a political point of view; it's a human point of view. Or, in short form: one aspect of ignore all rules is that we get to disrespect Nazis. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion. I may agree, or not, but it's not the point here. And how does disrespecting "Nazis" will allow us to "improve Wikipedia"? Orgyn (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
By "disrespecting Nazis" we declare ourselves members of the human race, and completely out of sympathy with the Scheißkopfvereinpartei. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is your opinion, and you clearly show that you are not neutral. Orgyn (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Gordon, you can't ignore all rules that strongly apply, like WP:CRITERIA and WP:POVTITLE, unless they are too weak and ineffective, like WP:pinyin and COMMONNAMES, which weakly applied to the modern Chinese wuxia story, "White Horse Neighs in the Western Wind", but are largely ignored mainly for people rejected pinyin-izing the title. Anyway, what the National Socialist German Workers' Party (there, I said it) did were destroying greater potential of their own former culture and killing and persecuting millions of people. However, referring them as "Nazi Party" is not equivalent to referring them as "Nazis" (insultingly). "Nazi" currently redirects to Nazism, not this article. Well, can I call them German National Socialists, German Workers, Nationally German Workers, or what? I don't wanna call them "Nazis", do I? "Nazi" should not redirect to this article, unless consensus would say so. As for Orange Mike, how is Orgyn's argument "weak"? Can you elaborate? --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Gordon, you can't ignore all rules that strongly apply. No, but consensus is going to trump any attempts to neutralize Wikipedia's attitudes toward mass murderers. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
They killed people who were not "German workers", right? Or were "German workers" themselves included in victims' list besides other groups? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Support current title. Common name for this group, used by them in their own publications, and used by almost everyone else since. I completely fail to understand Ogryn's point of view. How is calling them Nazi POV: if we were to call them thugs or murderers that would be POV. if we called them heroes and freedom fighters that would be POV. We are simply using the name that they were, and are known by. If Ogryn, Kierzak, or others find that word offensive, well that is their POV shining through. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
IdreamofJeanie, please don't misquote me; I strongly support the use of the name and current title. Kierzek (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
NSDAP party members did not called themselves "nazis". That's the point. The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c.1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname Nazi, Naczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean "a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person." (Source) Orgyn (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you cite this document? Except in the title where the word "nazi" is used in opposition to "sozi", it is not mention anywhere else. I will add that the original title is -> "Der Nazi-Sozi" Fragen und Antworten fuer den Nationalsozialisten <- ; two things here: 1. "nazi" is used inside quotes 2. the use of the word "Nationalsozialisten" (which is used through out the text) instead of "nazi". Orgyn (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This RFC is pointless. Because of the way people were brought up and all of that other stuff, even if provided with counter-reasoning, the CERTAIN majority of people will oppose this. If anything, it is WP:COMMONNAME which would have to be changed. Dustin(talk) 20:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean "this"? --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that I do not understand your question. Dustin(talk) 20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll elaborate: what does "will oppose this" refer to? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It refers to the suggestion that "Nazi Party" may not actually be a perfect title. Dustin(talk) 20:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As pointless as this RFC may "seem", prematurely creating another RM would create further problems than it solves. I have been torn between proposing either "NSDAP" or "National Socialist German Workers' Party", so I created RFC as a predecessor of yet-to-exist another RM. Nevertheless, I am leaning toward the longer title as you are. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd go with the latter. From what I can see, most article on non-English political party are not abbreviated and translated. Orgyn (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Most foreign party names are translated. The main exception is French Canadian nationalist parties, like the Parti Quebecois, because English-speakers refer to them exclusively by their French names. But the Conservative and Unionist Party's article is called Conservative Party (UK) because most readers would not recognize it by its full name. TFD (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Orgyn, that is because most foreign political parties (especially those in non-Anglophone countries) don't have a common name in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I realize that "Nazi" no longer is an insult, but it is often used as an insulting word. People may know that "Nazi" refers to the 1930s-40s Germans, but they fully did not know what German Workers' Party stood for. Then again, did the Party itself stood for German workers? If the whole longer name is used, then readers would get an idea that the whole Party killed millions who were NOT "German Workers", like opposers of the Party, artists, intellects, rich people, homosexuals, non-Germans, etc. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Calling someone a "Hitler" is an insult, but that does not mean we should change the name of that article to "Heidler" or "Schicklgruber." And in fact the German workers were the first victims of the Third Reich. TFD (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The workers were murdered? --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly many of them were, particularly those who led the workers: socialists, communists, labor leaders of any value or integrity, were the first to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Support current title. It is what most English speaking people looking for information on this party will search for. I'm sure the "real name" appears soon enough. Carptrash (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep Current Title but feel free to make redirects from the other name to point to this one. - Davodd (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose current title as a clear violation of WP:POVNAME: "notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include (...) colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". "Nazi", "Sozi", etc. are colloquialisms originating in Weimar Germany. -- Director(talk) 06:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I think there is something linguistically interesting happening here: the terms "Nazi" and "Nazi party" are felt (cognitively experienced) by many (I believe most) native English speakers as neutral names appropriate to all language registers (that is, one can write a formal, unbiased PhD dissertation in sociology using the term "Nazi" neutrally to simply denote "any member or supporter of the NSDAP"), whereas they are felt by some others as biased or register-restricted (or both). In contrast, the word "Commie" has never been widely accepted by English speakers as appropriate to all language registers (the wide consensus is that it is informal/slang/colloquial). It is interesting to consider the special case of people born and raised in Germany who are fluent English speakers (which is not a small group—there are tens of millions, I believe). They may resist the all-registers word sense of "Nazi" in a way that English speakers born and raised in the UK or US never would—not because they are partial to Nazism, but only because of idiomatic differences between national varieties of English. Consider: A native speaker of American English resists the word choice "Commie" in formal registers, but it is not because of his political choice (neither procommunist nor anticommunist); rather, he resists it simply because it is unidiomatic (wrong register). Now, there is a connection between idiomaticness and sociopolitical norms that explains why "wrong register"—but it is a level behind the interface just mentioned. An analogy (perhaps not exact but cognitively approaching) would be Coloured and Colored. In South African English (as I, an American, understand the topic), the word Coloured is not register-inappropriate, but in American English since the 1960s, Colored has been considered "a synonym of black that only racist white people use" (it definitely connotes racism). Again, I am not saying the analogy is exact; it is only shows a register difference that is tied to national variety. Because the English-language Wikipedia is written for English speakers around the globe, I would not object to changing the pagename. However, it is very important to appreciate what Orange Mike and Dustin said about humane values versus inhumane values. In a word where humans agree by wide consensus that humans do not accept that humans be inhumane to each other (where human rights can ethically overrule other important kinds of moral authority, such as loyalty-vs-treason), there is an important way in which "all humans are allowed (and in fact also required) to be 'biased' against Nazism," which leads to the extension that one cannot call it "bias" in the same word sense that "bias" refers to conflict of interest or religious or political preference and beliefs. — ¾-10 19:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. If you want to know, English is not my mother tongue... Concerning what you say in the end, if we are "required to be biased" then why not rename the article to The Fucking Nazis? And then we'd have to do the same with all articles on serial killers, rapists, mass murderers, dictators, etc. What I'm saying is that the NPOV rule should not be violated and I don't feel "required" to violate it. Orgyn (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Again this is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia or any other. The common reader, who we are suppose to be writing for, is going to quickly and easily know the title term herein and that is what people use most in their search, as well. A quick check of Google hits will tell you that. Why you guys what to go "round and round" on this when we could be doing something more productive here makes no sense. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. 'Nazism' is merely an informal nick-name for National Socialism, and this was by no means the only party adhering to this ideology. NSDAP would be a much more correct name and is not needlessly complex, and I thinks the accuracy trumps commonname here. --Soman (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a person in a prominently English-speaking country does not know what NSDAP is anymore. --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not a problem, hopefully, Wikipedia is here to educate them! By respecting the NPOV rule of course. Orgyn (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the things that wikipedia does is to allow us, (demand of us?) to have our references speak for us. So just in my library I have:
‘’Nazi Regalia’’ (Pin)
‘’The Nazi Seizure of Power’’ (Allen)
‘’A Secret Press in Nazi Europe’’ (Kowlski)
Nazi Prisoners of War in America (Krammer)
The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany 1933-1945 (Grunberger)
Some books that do not have the word “Nazi” in the titles, but use it in the text include:
Life in the Third Reich (Bessel)
The Games of ’36 (Cohen)
Propaganda: The Art of Persuasion: World War ll (Rhodes)
Totalitarian Art (Golomstock)
Art in the Third Reich (Adam)
Youth in European Labor Camps (Holland) This one is interesting because it was published in 1939, before the war began and before the word “Nazi” had picked up all the baggage that it carries today.
Let’s face it. Nazi is the word to describe these folks. The fact that it carries are the negative connotations that it does today is (opinion) pretty much their own doing. Now can we put this to rest and get back to arguing about whether Nazis are rightists or leftists? Carptrash (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that it carries are the negative connotations that it does today is (opinion) pretty much their own doing. The term does not carry a negative connotation, it is a negative term. As I have written before, here is it's etymology: The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c.1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname Nazi, Naczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean "a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person." (Source) Orgyn (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Orgyn's view aside, do these references use exact phrase "Nazi Party"? --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Some do and some probably do not (use the phrase "Nazi Party."). Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party , so the "Party" is sort of built in. In The Nazi Seizure of Power, the "party" is built in, in Nazi Prisoners of War in America the term is used to denote any POW from any branch of the German armed forces of the Third Reich. In Youth in European Labor Camps (sort of my favorite) the author mentions "Nazt salutes," "Nazi theories" and "Nazi books" and the like. He also refers to the "National Socialist Party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Support the current title (Nazi Party) per WP:COMMONNAME. The word Nazi may have originated as a non-neutral or colloquial word, but if so, it has ceased to be so in modern English. —Granger (talk·contribs) 00:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
'Support current name. I certainly don't agree with the earlier people who feel that it is NPOV to make anti-Nazi statements just because it's a remarkably common point of view, however. I also don't agree with the idea that if the name were to change it would be harder to find somehow - we would obviously redirect Nazi Party to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" in the same way that National Socialist German Workers' Party currently redirects to "Nazi Party". That said, I think that "Nazi party" is certainly the common name, I see no evidence that it's non-neutral, and there's plenty of precedence for using short-form names or abbreviations as article titles, e.g. Stasi, Gestapo, Gulag. I think "Nazi party" is likely the most common name. Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the official name is not ipso facto the correct choice for article title. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Support current title. Time and constant use have neutered the formerly insulting term. It's the common name in English now. NSDAP would be an acceptable page title, but this one is good enough. There's no reason to change it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
Support current title per WP:TITLECHANGES - " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Support current title per Orange Mike. "So: you oppose this name because using it means we might be being seen as opposed to the God-damned Nazis? I cannot imagine a weaker argument in the entire armamentarium of rhetoric than that one. If there is any certainty in the history of humankind, it is that any decent sane human being is opposed to the Nazis as we know them to have been in doctrine and in practice." WanderingLost (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cannot be in accord with the latest changes made by Director. He replaced a clearly explanatory emblem of the NSDAP with the ubiquitous party-adler which was already present right after the Infobox. So now we have two party-adlers one after the other. Besides Director seems to like big dimensions: not only the newly occurring adler is way too big (it could be some 20 px smaller just to remain comparable to the second one) but also the party flag has been almost doubled in size. What the rationale of all this? I hope for some agreement on rejecting these doings. Carlotm (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well first of all, its your edit that's up for discussion here: the parteiadler was in the infobox for months (I think over a year) before you switched it. So why don't you please explain why the actual emblem of the Nazi Party must be replaced with the irrelevant logo devised primarily for party badges?
I did not, in fact, "double the size of the flag" - you reduced it to 80px for some unfathomable reason, and I reverted you . If anything it seems I actually reduced the size of the party emblem (from 200 to 190px ).
As for why there are two symbols of Nazism, well its because its the Nazism sidebar... and this is the Nazi Party article. Concerns regarding repetition of images do not commonly extend to templates featured on a multitude of other articles. -- Director(talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Your explanation does not explain much. The emblematic value of what you call irrelevant logo is there to be seen. The repetition of images is there to be seen whatever its concern does "not commonly extend to templates...". The over-dimensioning of images is there to be seen. I hope Wiki is still open to changes and improvements. Carlotm (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what there is to explain? The emblem of Nazism being used in the Nazism sidebar, doesn't justify our not using the accurate emblem in the infobox. Don't know what more there is to say about that..?
I did not "over-dimension" the images either, I restored the dimensions they had for the past, gosh, must be over a year now. And these are pretty average for images in the party infobox template... off the top of my head, the Democratic Party has a logo of 200px, the German CDU has a logo 250px in size, the Parti socialiste 200px again, I mean 190px is typical for this template, and 150px is standard for the flag size.. -- Director(talk) 12:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
My remarks are expressing a purely aesthetical point of view. If other logos have all too big of a visual impact, and certainly Democratic Party does, CDU and Parti socialiste a little bit less, then the same considerations apply to them also. That something is good only because it persisted for over one year doesn't look the proper way of reasoning in relation to an encyclopedia whose editors are encouraged to be bold. And, who said that "150px is standard for the flag size"; where can I find an official advice of that sort? Carlotm (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
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)