Talk:Nazi Party/Foreign Organization

message: I hope nobody feels indignant about my basical revision of this article. I fear reworking was inevitable for the antecedent state was a little bit too scanty. I translated the corresponding German Wikipedia-article for this purpose. Furthermore I removed the disambiguation reference because I couldn't find "a list of articles associated with the same title". There's just one article titled "NSDAP/AO". The previous title "NSDAP-AO" was incorrect, by the way. Historical literature and contemporary documents talk about "NSDAP/AO" (the Nazis had been extremely bureaucratic abbreviation fanatics, as is generally known, and "hyphen or slash" was "a case of do or die" then). --Bogart99 10:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions

message: Hello Snct (above), its very simple: they were members, and their membersship in the AO just indicated that they were "Abroad". If they moved back to Germany, they were normal members again. You could not be only an AO member. It goes without saying, that when abroad, they were sometimes expected to do the German state a number of favors, which is why the organization was considered illegal in many states even before the war - i e in Brazil in 1936.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.210.226 (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Foreign Organization" or "Abroad Organization"? 

message: Apart from the fact that Wikipedia is definitely no advertising medium for Neonazis, the Gary Lauck link hasn't just "offensive content" and is simply "not suited for children" but in today's Germany, for instance, it's illegal and ignorant website providers incur a penalty. Unfortunately Lauck's nasty page is semi-legal in the US. But I think the linking of his Anti-semite, radical racist and fanatic Hitlerist organization is  light miles away from Wikiquette. --Bogart99 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Lauck link 

message: Meetings of NSDAP/AO were held at Stuttgard. Could anyone advance any information or links on the rally of NSDAP/AO by 09/05/1937 ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.121.244 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meetings of NSDAP/AO 

message: Costa Rican National Socialist Party should be merged here. The organization led by Karl Bayer was not a Costa Rican party, but a branch of NSDAP/AO. --Soman (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, according to this article "Only actual citizens of the German Reich – Imperial Germans (German: Reichsdeutsche) – with a German passport could become members of the AO. Persons of      German descent, so called ethnic Germans (German: Volksdeutsche), who possessed the nationality of the country in which they lived, were refused entry to the Nazi Party." What would make impossible to merge articles since, The Costa Rican Nazi party was conformed not only by Germans, but also white Costa Ricans(mostly of Spanish descent, but also German and Italian). The party was a Costa Rican party, but it was never legalized as a constitutional party.Leosm62 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: " la sección costarricense del Partido Nacionalsocialista Alemán de los Trabajadores" makes it quite clear that we are talking about a NSDAP/AO branch. --Soman (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I moved the article form "NSDAP/AO" to "Nazi Party?Foreign Organization" for three simple reasons:
(1) WP:COMMONNAME - The English-language common name for the ruling party of Germany between 1933 and 1945 is the Nazi Party.  Very few people -- only those who are already familiar with the subject, know what "NSDAP" is.
(2) Not hiding what the organization is - All too often, the use of NSDAP is used to hide the fact that what is being referred to is the Nazi Party.  That is unconscionable.  We should never let Wikipedia be used to provide cover for obfuscating the true nature of any Nazi-related organization. 
(3) For the above two reasons, "Nazi Party" is used throughout Wikipedia in preference to "NSDAP", which can be used as an alternate name to break up monotonous writing.
These three reasons more than justify the move, and I stand by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is English Wikipedia and Nazi Party (with NSDAP shown after the full German language Party name at the beginning) should be used. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

text: *There is absolutely no ambiguity about using "Nazi Party", that's a spectacularly specious argument.I have no objection to the article being called "Nazi Party's Foreign Organization", if that is the preference, but using "NSDAP" is not appropriate in any respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nazi Party's Foreign Organization" (NSDAP/AO), is acceptable. Kierzek (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: === No such party ===
There never was such a party, it was merely a local branch of NSDAP/AO. --Soman (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be correct, but there's no evidence to prove the point, so far. Kraxler (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: see http://wvw.nacion.com/ancora/2008/abril/20/ancora1501619.html --Soman (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous AfD discussion ended in "no consensus", that makes is possible to renominate it at any time. Kraxler (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose, given that these parties are separated by more than 60 years, and the scope of the activities of the National Socialist Party of Costa Rica seem quite different. It's worth keeping Nazism and neo-Nazism separate. Klbrain (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Party of Costa Rica

message: There never was such a party, it was merely a local branch of NSDAP/AO. --Soman (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be correct, but there's no evidence to prove the point, so far. Kraxler (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: see http://wvw.nacion.com/ancora/2008/abril/20/ancora1501619.html --Soman (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous AfD discussion ended in "no consensus", that makes is possible to renominate it at any time. Kraxler (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No such party 

message: Two articles substantially about the same political movement separated by time. No need for both articles. I'd merge them and rename the resulting page Nazism in Costa Rica or something similar. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, given that these parties are separated by more than 60 years, and the scope of the activities of the National Socialist Party of Costa Rica seem quite different. It's worth keeping Nazism and neo-Nazism separate. Klbrain (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[National Socialist Party of Costa Rica]]