Talk:List of Nazis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation qualifiers[edit]

These need translating. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC).


Sorry, where do i find the source? I know, that at least one name is on it, that does not belong there. (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ernst Klee, sources and Hugo Friedrich[edit]

German wikipedia has two principal pages:

and  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talkcontribs) 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 

Ernst Klee is now a standard work.

On that basis we appear to be missing Hugo Friedrich of Uni. Freiburg im Briesgau

Das Personenlexikon zum Dritten Reich. Wer war was vor und nach 1945? Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 2003; 2. Aufl. 2005, 732 S., ISBN 3-596-16048-0. 4.300 Kurzbiographien. (Rezension, Die Zeit, 23. Oktober 2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talkcontribs) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

G. Robert Shiplett 16:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talkcontribs)


I disagree. I think this just needs sourcing, otherwise it is a very useful list. The list was derived from German wikipedia categories claiming each of these people to have been affiilated with the Nazi party at one point. They have much stricter standards than us.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Source it then... Its a very serious charge and I just dealt with an OTRS ticket from a distressed relative. We cannot host claims like this without sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with the good Doctor and am removing the prod and starting to add sources forthwith. This can go through Afd if you want but prodding for a lack of sources is too drastic. Just out of interest who was the person's relative? Keresaspa (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      • OTRS rules prevent me from providing private information provided to the OTRS team to non-volunteers. Obviously sourcing is the preferred option over deletion but I do hope that all the unsourced entries are quickly removed. Spartaz Humbug! 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The list was copied from the category on German wikipedia which has been recently deleted (out of panic I guess). All listed should be sourced I guess including the missing articles as the idea in the long term is to transwiki them all. Given de wiki's reputation for reliability I'd bet the vast majority in the list are 100% correct and that the persons were at some point affiliated with the party. Can I just ask something. Answer this. If a family is SO distressed about seeing a name of their family in a list of Nazis and obviously detest the party to the extent that they are so horrified that a family member be associated with the Nazis , why on earth were they looking in the list in the first place????♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Blofeld you know I'm not going to answer that but that's a really unpleasant way to talk about the relatives. No wiki is a reliable source for anything. You know that too. You created this article and are responsible for the content. Please don't try and deflect reasonable and well-founded issues about sourcing a serious charge with this kind of stuff. This has to be sourced or unsourced names deleted. I don't think that's unreasonable. Do you? Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the missing articles should be left out - and that only those names should be included that are verified as being party members with sources in their biographies on the English wiki. Additional names can be added as they are transwikied.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This list was originally started for the purpose of transwikiying the articles and to provide a comprehensive list. Categories do not list missing articles and red links invites expansion. This is a valid list, give it a few months and you'll see a lot more blue links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can let any possible untrue Nazi allegations hang around for a few months - specially not when OTRS has already been contacted. New additions can be inserted as sourcing and translation progresses. I am strongly against having redlinks in this article, and strongly against allowing unsourced entries for more than a few weeks.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Er no, we can't leave this hanging around, its a complaint magnet, and rightly so. we cannot make serious allegations like his without rigorous sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Er paranoia? Red links can be sourced too... It defeats the object of expanding the coverage of wikipedia to remove red links when they are perfectly valid and hsould have articles asap. Every name in the lists needs sourcing granted but that shouldn't take months.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You should read our policy on how to dea with redlinks here: WP:REDDEAL. It quite clearly says that lists shouldn't incorporate large numbers of redlinks - because the inclusion standard of notability is whether they have an article or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh really? And you should understand more about Wikipedia:Missing articles and how important it is we try to be as comprehensive as other wikipedias.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with this article because I cleaned up the translation, and at that time I checked several via the German entries and changed to the differing name under which the article appeared on en.wikipedia. I agree with User:Dr. Blofeld that the source of the article - the de.wikipedia category - rested on good sourcing. But this is an unwieldy long list, and it's likely that many of the redlinks will never become articles here. So I propose we replace it with a category here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea. I believe it should be possible to have the category populated from the list by the use of a bot.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
That would undoubtedly be the best way forward. Let me know when you are done and we can G8 this. I should also comment that we cannot reference any entries here to the German wikipedia but no doubt they have sources for their lists that we can cite if necessary. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The corresponding article on the German wikipedia has been made a category too.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion from Mfd to Afd, sorry as it was somewhat clumsily but we should be all set now.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I'm exhausted right now, can somebody please continue with the de: links and sourcing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

600 sources and still this is up for the chop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge former members[edit]

Completely agree. The only problem is that many of the former members did not really approve of Nazi policies and joined due to the political pressure of the time. This list is supposed to be a notable list of Nazi adherents/who did something notable as a Nazi party member or are linked to the Nazis in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! Should be OK, name is not Nazis, but Nazi party members. Mootros (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I will give it a few more day and then would like to move all the content into the table on the other page. Any suggestions? Also any practical ideas about easily modifying tables in a What_You_See_Is_What_You_Get format? Mootros (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering[edit]

What is the benefit of including SS leaders, e.g. Augsberger, Blobel, Conti et. al. ? There can't be any doubt, that they were party members. On the other hand, including Jens or Walser makes no sense, since their contribution to the movement is marginal at best. Actually, it would be much more enlightening if one would include more of those who had been party members and later assumed high positions in politics and economics. But those are rare to find on the list. -- (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they are notable Nazis. I'f anything the list of Nazi leaders should be merged into this article but we'll keep it seperate for now as they contain some summarized info. If you spot any entries which are only loosely associated please remove them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't remove any names without discussion. As I wrote above, Jens and Walser were by no means Nazi activists of note, but it since they are prominent post-war figures in German culture, it would make sense to have them on the list. Same with politicians like Carstens and Filbinger. On the other hand, Magda Goebbels was a prominent Nazi, but didn't fullfil any official function, if I recall correctly. -- (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The list is either for people who did something notable within the party as a Nazi or are well documtned for being a Nazi. Therefore Magda Gobbels meets criteria as a notable Nazi on the second criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


I hope nobody minds but I have gone ahead and split the article into four sub-articles. It was getting too long, becoming difficult to edit and there was a warning about the size so i felt it was best to be bold and do it. Given that there were over 800 separate entries I tried to divide it into 200-odd articles per subpage as much as I could whilst keeping each letter together. Keresaspa (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

German-English translator needed[edit]

As you can see here: A-Z category of Nazi Party members on German wikipedia

the coverage of the Nazi party and its members is a great deal more comprehensive on the German Wikipedia than the English one. It would be great if we could find a fluent German-English speaker who could translate pages for some of these historical figures. For instance, it is rather embarrassing that the English Wikipedia does not have pages for some of the leading members, such as Karl Steubl, or some of the Commandants of concentration camps, such as Franz Reichleitner.

If one or two Wikipedia users could approach the translation process as a specialized task, that would be ideal.Hoops gza (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. But some 4000 sub stubs on these politicians were deleted on wikipedia about 2 years ago. If I'd had my way we'd have articles on all of them by now.. But BLP was the reason The sad thing is German contributors on here are extremely lacking. So stubs I create like this remain unedited for a worrying long time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


User:Hoops gza – asserting a mistaken belief that he owns this article – has deleted the criteria for this list, apparently to justify his inclusion of a person who is notable only for his opposition to the Nazi Party. That criteria, "This is a list of notable figures who were active within the party and did something significant within it that is of historical note or who were members of the Nazi Party according to multiple reliable publications" seems rather reasonable to me, being based on the WP principle of notability rather than ... whatever he's trying to accomplish. Including an individual who was expelled from the party for defying its principles and suffered for his opposition to the party, sounds like a tactic of McCarthyism ("are you now, or have you ever been a member ...?") -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that I own this list. However, I know that someone mysteriously and arbitrarily added that sentence to the main page, a list which did not have any such criteria according to the person who did most of the work creating the list, User:Keresaspa.Hoops gza (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Creating an article, or having a long history of editing it, does not grant you the level of editorial control over it that you are asserting. But that's just your attitude problem, and not the key point here. The origin of that clarifying sentence is not that "mysterious" or "arbitrary"; it's been there since it was added by another frequent editor back in 2010, when this list was up for deletion,[1] to give the impression that its scope was reasonable. If that's changed, and it's back to being a list of everyone who ever carried a National Socialist Party card, perhaps that discussion should be re-opened. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Keresaspa and I are the only frequent editors of this article. Why are you discussing scope when this list is already clearly defining? Members of a political party. No more, no less.Hoops gza (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So which of you is a sock puppet for User:Dr. Blofeld? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You really need to start assuming good faith Jason.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I stop assuming good faith when an editor continues to assert untrue things even after his error has been pointed out to him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You thought (rather crazily) that I was Hoop gza. That immediately implicates me with something negative doesn't it? I've barely looked at this list in the last 4 or 5 years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, being a member of the political party is the only criteria that is defining. What would "being active" entail?Hoops gza (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is true that Dr. Blofeld started the article in the article's history. But Keresaspa is the one who has done most of the work on it for years now. Perhaps we should stick to the most important point, which is that the only defining criteria that such a list can have is to be a member of the party.Hoops gza (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No sockpuppets involved, I guess it was initially a combined effort between Dr. Blofeld and Keresaspa to actually Wikify the thing with reliable sources. So I am mistaken about the article's history and for that I apologize. However, my point stands.Hoops gza (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Speaking as someone who argued for deleting this list: an all-encompassing list of Nazis would be simply huge and less than useful, since Party membership was required for most white-collar jobs, in addition to those who joined of their own free will. We have the category for that. Accordingly I welcomed the sharpening of the scope of the list to people whose membership was notable, and I think that should be reinstated. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't specifically create the list targeting Nazis, I created lists by German party from the categories on German wiki with the intention of stubbing the red links. It had a constructive purpose, I didn't set out to just create a list of Nazis. I agree that potentially it could be unmanageable but so long as all entries are sourced I don't see anything majorly problematic about it. It would also seem odd to delete this and not the others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hoops, Wikipedia evaluates significance and notability all the time, by looking at context and forming a consensus. List-making is not a goal in itself; list articles are supposed to be useful, and a list of every identifiable person who ever held an NSDAP card for whatever reason is not useful to anyone except for the personal satisfaction of the list-maker. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe we agreed that given the touchiness of the subject that only notable Nazis were to be included, not anybody who ever happened to be affiliated with the Nazi party.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We definitely need the criteria, which I've restored. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Criteria, Round 2[edit]

There are a few things that are glaringly clear about this topic.

  • 1) The Nazis were a political party (the NSDAP), and all members of this political party were Nazis. In fact, even non-members who practiced the party's ideology are sometimes considered Nazis. But that latter part is not what is being addressed.
  • 2) Being a member of the NSDAP is the only criteria for this list that would work because it is the only criteria that is defining. A person was either a member, or not a member. Such criteria is objective. We cannot go about splitting hairs, trying to figure out whether we think someone should be considered a Nazi by trying to base it upon their practice of Nazism. Such criteria is subjective.
  • 3) I believe that the original creator of this list, Dr. Blofeld, intended for it to mirror the de:Kategorie:NSDAP-Mitglied. The criteria for that category are being a member of the NSDAP, at one time or another.

Therefore, I think that the criteria should be changed to "those who were members, at one time or another, of the NSDAP".Hoops gza (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See the section above, where Dr. Blofeld agrees that this list should only include those who were notable in some way for their membership in the party. For complete coverage, we have the category: Category:Nazis (and several specific subcategories, such as Category:Nazi physicians). Apart from any other issues, this list would rapidly become unmanageable if it had everyone who ever held a party card added to it; apart from those who joined voluntarily, membership was required for whole classes of jobs. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. That was the agreement that they have to be notable Nazi's. After all, due to the pressures of the time, just how many people could have been called a Nazi? I think a lot of those in that German category are very weak associates. I don't think a list should list everyone of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your logic falls flat. You guys just recently claimed that I couldn't even add people who were party members, like August Landmesser, to the Category:Nazis. You conveniently avoided one of the main points: we don't have a way of objectively determining who is "notable" for their membership. Unless, of course, you are referring to anyone with a Wikipedia article who was a party member.Hoops gza (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, if you want a list of NSDAP party members, call it "List of NSDPA party members". "Nazi" is a term with a somewhat vague definition, but it does imply adherence to an ideology. Lot's of people joined the NSDAP simply because it was de-facto required for certain jobs and careers, or just for not getting hassled. On the other hand, plenty of Nazis never where in the NSDAP, either because they were in the wrong country (George Lincoln Rockwell comes to mind), or because the NSDAP was defunct or illegal at the time - e.g. any number of neo-Nazis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This would probably be me preferred solution personally as who is or isn't an ideological Nazi can be a matter of debate whereas who was or wasn't a Nazi Party member can be determined with reliable sources. Keresaspa (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)