Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 1

message: The attempt to reduce the ability of the reader to research contemporary Nazi parties, as well as their opposition is fundamentally against the spirit of the wikipedia. I find the reasons for doing this to be particularly vacuous. They are on talk:nazism, if anyone is interested. Jack 12:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why any useful links you might add should be removed. And I guess I could see why contemporary opposition might not be appropriate (I was trying to be NPOV by giving both sides), but there is no legitamate reason for removing links to contemporary Nazi organizations. These are not neo-nazi groups, but rather are officially "Nazi" in nature. I mean, the ANP? Jack 20:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Since this is a page specifically about the party, can we move it to National Socialist German Workers Party, or what not? john 05:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea Sam Spade 19:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Title

message: I think this article is incomplete without discussion of NSDAP rallies. 119 02:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rallies

message: #Support.  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is not just something for this article.  Is Soviet Union "wrong"? No, because most people will search for the abbreviated name.  Remember, Wiki is not paper, and this situation is rather different from a printed reference work that is not typically accessed through a google search.  The full title "National Socialist German Workers Party" should of course be given in the first sentence of the article; indeed it should remain its very first words.  As to "Nazi Party" being POV, then I suppose Nazism and Neo-Nazism are also POV, as well as indeed the many uses of "Nazi" in this very article.  BTW, I really think it would be better to shift discussion to the 'comments' section.--Pharos 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose. While Nazi Party may be used commonly, NSDAP was its formal title and so is more suitable in a reference work. 119 20:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: After a week of voting the decision has been to leave this article name as National Socialist German Workers Party. violet/riga (t) 18:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously wrong.  It doesn't matter what it used to be called (duct tape used to be called duck tape), or what it was formally called, or what it's proper name was (P.G.T. Beauregard's full name is Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard, but nobody called him that), or anythign else.  The only thing Wikipedia cares about is how common the name is currently. "Nazi Party" is orders of magnitude more common in usage than "National Socialist German Workers Party" or an acronym.  Therefore, this article should be at Nazi Party.  It's as simple as that.  --brian0918 03:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose the argument can be made, but consensus is even more important, and if there was a consensus, it was to keep it where it is.  I would add that, while in some contexts, it is more normal to talk about the "Nazi Party," in more formal contexts "NSDAP" or "National Socialists" or whatever is the more common usage. john k 03:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy overrides whatever "consensus" there may be, especially when nearly all of the opposers are claiming reasons which go against policy. (NOTE: this was a vote, not an attempt to reach consensus) Also, we're talking about "common" in normal contexts, not in formal ones.  We're not trying to help WWII scholars learn from our pages, only the layman, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that "Nazi Party" is the usage among 99.9% of laymen.  --brian0918 12:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first place, "consensus" is a policy.  For instance, "there has to be consensus to move an article," is generally considered to be a policy.  Who is to judge whether an article title is a violation of policy unless a consensus finds it to be so?  Who has made you the arbiter of wikipedia policy?  Furthermore, your basic view here is flawed.  Laymen will easily find this page, because Nazi Party redirects to here.  At any rate, the question of what we mean by "most commonly used" is very much not black and white.  For most other Weimar-era German political parties, there is no "layman-used" term, so we have to use the names used by scholars.  It is awkward to have articles like German National People's Party, but also Nazi Party.  Furthermore, scholarly contexts are important, as are the ways other encyclopedias do this.  Columbia's article is at National Socialism.  Encarta's article is at National Socialism.  The Britannica article is at National Socialism.  Our article is actually at Nazism, but I think the party, which was an entity which was rarely referred to as the "Nazi Party," should be at its full title even more than the philosophy.  john k 14:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a vote, not any attempt at consensus.  Also, it doesn't matter what the party was called when determing the name of the article. All that matters is what the currently most common name is.  "Nazi Party" is more common now than any of the other terms by orders of magnitude. Other encyclopedias don't matter.  Following Wikipedia policy is all there is to it.  The rest is just conjecture.  --brian0918 15:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, the name of the article isn't of such extreme importance. If we went with the current most common name for every article, homosexuals would be perverts and marxists would be godless commies. The redirect that's in place works for anyone who is looking for the information in this article. Also, I didn't vote because I really don't care what the name of the article is. I'm just saying you need to calm down and review your position. AngryParsley 16:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: Prior to the night of the long knives there were more socialists in the NSDAP. People like Gregor Strasser, Gottfried Feder, Ernst Röhm etc. pressured Hitler to institute social policy.  On the night itself, these people were either killed or forced to flee.  Only thule society members like Gottfried Feder were allowed to remain in nominal positions of power. Sam Spade  21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were, indeed, socialistic elements within the NSDAP.  The party itself was not, as a whole, a socialist one, though. Fritz Thyssen, certainly, was no socialist. john k 00:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually directly ending unemployment was always one of their central goals, and one they largely succeeded in (until the train wreck of the wars end, of course). Sam Spade  22:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense is full employment a "socialist" policy? john k 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows? I was responding to your insinuation that it was less than a direct goal of theirs. Sam Spade  23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: pre long knives the NSDAP was a lot more socialist

message: A bit heavy on the anti-Jewish quotes. The party members honestly didn't go around denouncing Jews nearly as much as we like to believe these days. The Jews actually didn't figure that largely in their plans, other than wanting to expel them from Germany.
It's a bit silly that half of the sayings are aimed at Jews, and nothing about the "Nationalsozialistic bewegung", which Hitler especially liked to talk about.
:The party was, principally, an anti-semitic party.  You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. john k 00:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats simply not accurate, but I don't see the point of arguing about it, yours (John Kenney's) is the common opinion. Sam Spade  23:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also the opinion of most historians.  Of course, it's more complicated than that, but this person is obviously a Nazi apologist ("the Jews actually didn't figure that largely in their plans"?!  This is clear revisionist nonsense. ) john k 23:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that nearly everybody and every govt. was an extreme racist prior to 1945. I think the nazi's are meerely the scapegoat for the perpetual persecution of minorities historically. As I point out to my german friends, the americans killed indians, the dutch killed africans, the jews killed the amalek, the french killed algerians... what group hasn't commited genocide? Maybe the San Bushmen? Anyhow, of course they were racist, but who wasn;t back then? Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to africa, for crissakes. Sam Spade  23:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that you have no idea what you're talking about, but who cares about personal opinions?  Wikipedia's job is to report on reputable sources, not the sentiments of editors. john k 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, whose adding any of this to the article? You disparaged the anon, I defended him, and now you disparage me and invoke unrelated policy. Lets get back to editing and keep the snarky barks to ourselves, eh? Sam Spade  23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Sayings 

message: Here is the changes I made in this article. Please give here reason/s why it should be removed if you think so, if you don't please do not revert my edits. --Haham hanuka 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for my poor English (I'm not a native speaker), but instead of reverting this text you could improve it. All the facts I mentioned here are right. --Haham hanuka 16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts are inherently right.  The question is, have you stated any...  --brian0918 00:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd certainly like to see a quote for the idea that the Nazis were seen as a "green party."  That is inherently ridiculous. john k 05:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes 

message: Does it really make sense to include that template here? The "Politics in Germany" articles exclusively deal with modern-day, active parties and the political structure of modern-day Germany, not with historical  issues. Would anyone object if I removed the template? -- Ferkelparade π 09:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops...just noticed that the template has been updated to include a link to pre-1945 parties which makes my point kind of moot...I don't think that's the ideal solution, but I'll take the discussion elsewhere :P -- Ferkelparade π 09:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Politics in Germany" Template 

message: Can someone elucidate under 'Seizure of Power' - "A further decree enabled for  preventative detention of al the Communist  Deputies.." . Some historians say Hitler illegally arrested  Deputies  in actions  just prior to the  actual Reichstag Fire , some say 'arrested' , and some question arises here . Is it the case that the Reichstag Fire Decree as here suggested could not  allow legal arrest of deputies ? What is the date for the further decree  that here  says  it does allow ?  Analysis needs to clarify this "seizure" . Famekeeper 09:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: *Quite apart from the above conversation,I believe the fact that foreign treaties were negotiable through the enabling Act should not have been excised by Str1977, and am glad to see it there still. 
The article here is ridiculous so here , to help good will editors I itemise my concerns piece by piece. 
*There is still no clear reference to the cardinal party(Hitler) 25 point program. its lack after I have mentioned it, is a POV massage to diminuish truthful clarity. 
*Hitler was appointed Chancellor of a coalition government by President Paul von Hindenburg in January 1933 ignores the Trials consideration that this was within the Conspiracy to Institute Toatalitarian power, therefore is a  POV reduction/massage .
*His coalition partners ignores the fanatastic agreement brokered thru papen and the banker Schroder and the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. The coalition only existed through this greater conspiracy, and this is simplistic child level massage to a simplistic level:The Trials affect WP reality whether you like it or not.
*and arrest its leaders. is a POV massage suggesting , since it it not otherwise clearly stated, that it was an illegality. Shirer says it succinctly enough, so this is unacceptable gloss/ massage,
*A decisive step on Hitler's way is simplex /POV massage: it was THE decisive turn, no less.
*certain guarantees to the Centre's chairman simplex/POV massage: Hitler did not give the fianl guarantee, and the vote was not agreed upon the basis of no guarantee, therefore factually wrong 
*Centre Party's thirty-one votes is factually wrong/and  I know editors here know the score, which is 74+18 Bavarians it is extraordinary bad faith it is massaged in as along with some substantial middle class bloc therefore utter disingenuous POV massage 
*and even to make changes to the Constitution. is POV massage even like he took another cookie? especially or importantly, more of the same-it adds up dunnit?  
*After all parties were either banned or pressed into dissolving themselves, is massage POV: ignores vatican bargain against ALL source.
*Hitler also tried to incorporate the Churches into his new regime. On March 23, 1933 he had called them "most important factors" for the maintenance of German well-being. In regard to the Roman Catholic Church, he proposed the Reichskonkordat between Germany and the Holy See, is POV massage. The catholic Church had long wished to incorporate itself into the reich via concordat, for hundrds of years is it.. Hitler as with the entire conspiracy tried at the  Nuremberg Trial or tribunal, the appearance of legality included this bargain, called a bargain , between the church and Hitler. Hitler therefore did not offer the Concordat f himself, he bargained the vatican wish for it, quite monstrously as sourceable.
There is only one conclusion I have ever made which is not sourceable but which all that is sourceable leads the mind to believe. I will state this clearly here as my one disallowable' and open admitted POV or personal conclusion:
My POV is here:Ludwig Kaas made the deal with Hitler that Hitler would promise the final letter of Written Constitutional Guarantee, simply as appearance of the doing so. that Kaas knew that it would not be given, but that Kaas was following Pacelli longstanding papal instructions, and that the promise of this guarantee was simply to swing the vote whilst Kaas cynically tricked his own party into believing him it would appear. He knew that it would not. The deal was clear from 15 march to these two men in Berlin, although the final manner of the deal was not formulated until c 21 Maarh. The deal that Hitler made for the vatican emanates from at least the Papen Kaas Hitler axis of 6 March. The papal records would confirm this, as they would confirm Edgar Ansel Mowrer for the same bargain preceding into 1932. Avro Manhattan does not seem to say this of the trickery of Kaas with the letter, but in every other way he is entirly clear upon the long vatican preceding history. Cornwell does not appear to do so, nor Kershaw. I therefore believe that it is I alone who make this the actual agreement in the over-allquid pro quo. Hitler  said we'll make you look alright, and the Church alright, don't worry, Kaas, wel say we'll have a Guarantee, so you'll be in the clear. As we know, there was an unacceptable Hindenberg letter sent to the Centre leaders, one of most sardonic hypocrisy(Wheeler-Bennett). The trick was that Kaas all along knew the real Hitler Letter of Guarantee demanded by the Centre Party would not arrive. 
NPOV is  here :All that is  short of this accusation of papal collaboration with Hitler, is NPOV. This alone is POV. I have never tried to include it in any article, though I have said it.I repeat the rest is all NPOV. Wikipedia articles on our history here -History that is mine anyway- are utterly shameful sub-standard, and by some, wished for, excreta. Urghh.
EffK 13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation of POV from NPOV in this Article

message: Relevant to the Nazi/Hitler history is the following text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Off-topic_content,[]. It may be as User:Str1977 reasons, unsuitable for that situation of Wikipedia, but he does not actually criticise this piece as POV. I suggest that it be incorporated into the central  history somehow, retaining the clarity of its presntation, rather than disappear from view. I would in fact say that this user himself replace it in entirety where it is perhaps more appropriate- here for instance? I remind this user that I consider the view presented of the history here on WP, and his qualifications of it, are a subject of some considerable dispute. EffK 19:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorporation of excised material from [[Nazism in relation to other concepts]]

message: Im not sure if its appropriate to speak of a federal government, werent federal structures largely replaced by centralistic ones? --84.159.158.42 21:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1939 – 1945 

message: According to the article: "from 1923 to 1925, the Nazi Party ceased to exist."  Yet, according to this article the Nazis won 32 seats in the May, 1924 elections.  According to this article the Nazis won 14 seats in the December, 1924 elections.  The Nazi Party could not have won seats in parliament during a period of time when it did not exist.
:I believe the votes were won by parties with similar positions, but calling themselves something other than NSDAP... john k 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Geopgeop has proposed merging the German Workers Party article into this one because that "article now is still too small."
Disagree. The German Workers Party is a separate topic. It has a lot to do with the Thule Society and with Rudolf von Sebottendorff, and little to do with the NSDAP. The articles on the German Workers Party, the Thule Society and Rudolf von Sebottendorff, taken together, provide a reasonably detailed picture of an episode that is interesting, but not of great significance--at least in comparison to the NSDAP itself.
Mark Sedgwick 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The article spends most of its time talking about racial doctrines, and not about the orgin of the name National Socialist. (yes, it does have a meaning that refers to the successful economic system they put into play begining in 1934) user:Pzg Ratzinger
When the article on "Batman" is longer and seemingly more informed than the article on Nazism, we have a problem.  I for one eagerly await your re-write and hope it will be far better than what we currently have now. 24.218.131.28 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge DAP into this article

message: Substituted at 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment