Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 1

Article Checklist for "Nazi Party/Archive 1"

Workgroup category or categories	History Workgroup, Politics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Bill James 12:16, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

name change

Good article but it should be renamed Nazi Party -- any objections? Richard Jensen 08:02, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

The "National-Socialist German Workers Party" is of course not the German name of the party. Users will not find it --it is rarely used in any reference book, and so we need "Nazi Party". Specifically the official name was "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (no hyphen), which Germans usually called NSDAP. Richard Jensen 17:17, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Sentence change

I changed this sentence:

"The anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazi Party led the regime into the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed"

This says the Nazis were against Jews just because they were Jews. The Nazis were against Jews because they believed they promoted communism. In Nazi publications and speechs they always equated Jews with Bolshevism. You can get translated info here:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Antisem

I know this is a touchy subject but I believe we should objectively cover this issue or else nobody will learn anything.

Eric Pokorny 23:01, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

True. But there was also a long-standing tradition of virulent anti-Semitism in Germany that has to be taken into account also. Hayford Peirce 23:19, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

True. That would be a good article to cover anti-Semitism in German history. Nearly all European countries have had a long history of anti-Semitism. I think we should address why the Nazis did, however.

Eric Pokorny 14:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

In 1939 Hitler formed an alliance with Stalin, but never wavered in his hatred of the Jews--which had little to do with Communism says Kershaw. Richard Jensen 23:19, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

I don’t know if one can really call the non-aggression pact an “alliance.” It was in German interests to strike a deal with the Soviet Union. It by no means meant loyalty which was shattered in 1941. Hitler also permitted Jews who agreed with the Reich to be “Honorary Aryans.”

Eric Pokorny 14:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Recent edits

I have reverted Eric Pokorny's edit. The foundation of Hitler's world view and of Nazi ideology was anti-Semitism. Hitler regarded communism as a creation of the Jews, not vice versa. I have also reverted Hayford Peirce's edit. The killing of homosexuals etc was not part of the Holocaust, properly defined. The two things should not be confused. I have also moved the article back to its original title. The party's name was the National-Socialist German Workers Party, not the "Nazi Party" which is (a) slang and (b) confusing since there have been and still are many Nazi parties. We don't title our article on the Republican Party The GOP, or on the British Conservatives The Tory Party. It is untrue that "most books" call the NSDAP the Nazi party. Serious works on Third Reich history call it by its correct name. But even if it was true, a work of reference is expected to be accurate. Adam Carr 10:06, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

While it is true that the foundation of Nazi ideology was anti-Semitism, it wasn’t independent of anti-Communism. They were intertwined.

Eric Pokorny 14:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

History editors

I notice some edit conflict concerning the name of this article. Just as a reminder, please note that the editors are the ones to make this determination. Matt Innis (Talk) 10:21, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Then let them open a process for deciding the matter. Adam Carr 10:27, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Good idea. Reverting is not an appropriate way to communicate your wishes, it tends to alienate those that are here to collaborate with you. I would suggest talk first, edit later. Let me know if I can help. Matt Innis (Talk) 10:21, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

as history editor I opened the name issue in late April, and no one commented (see above.) Richard Jensen 18:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I think the choice is still yours at this point. Considering all the new information, how would you like to proceed? Matt Innis (Talk) 19:18, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I've looked at other reference sources and they are all over the map. In my opinion "Nazi Party" works best for most users. Google gives over 1100 books with that title in English see [1]. There are zero books with "National Socialist German Workers Party" in title; there are 242 with NSDAP in title, mostly in German. As for journals there are 5 articles with the long form, and 158 with "Nazi Party" in the title. See [2] The term "National-Socialist German Workers Party" was NOT the official name of the party (it had a German name, of course, not English) and has no real advantages. Publishers and editors do NOT use it in titles. The chief alternative, used in several books. might be National Socialism which includes much more than just the party. )I count 789 articles with "National Socialism" and 456 boos. What do people think of using National Socialism? Richard Jensen 20:33, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

In terms of CZ usage, the long "National-Socialist German Workers Party" is not used in any articles. The Term "Nazi party" is used in these CZ articles: Horst Wessel, Adolf Hitler, Horst-Wessel-Lied, Heinrich Müller, Jutta Rüdiger, Politics, Odinism, Herschel Grynszpan.. NSDAP is used inb 4 articles (Adolf Hitler, Wannsee Conference, Action T4 and Joseph Goebbels) Richard Jensen 20:44, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Gentlemen, it is important to remember to update the redirects when one moves a page. When readers search for Nazi, they are at the moment not automatically forwarded to the article. See Special:Whatlinkshere&target=National-Socialist_German_Workers_Party for the list of (broken) redirects. Kjetil Ree 20:46, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Kjetil, this, of course, is my main concern, so once the decision for the name for this article is final, we can fix them all. Matt Innis (Talk) 20:54, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I'm not going to perpetuate an argument about this, since redirects will lead readers to whatever the title of the article is, and if Richard as a history editor really wants to title this article with a piece of ambigious slang rather than the party's actual name, that is his call. I assume he will now rename the article about the Republican Party The GOP. If this article really is to be called Nazi Party, it should be Nazi Party (Germany) to distinguish it from all the other Nazi parties. Adam Carr 05:38, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I propose we entitle the article "National Socialism" and broaden the scope to cover more topics not just the NSDAP party. Comments? Richard Jensen 06:24, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

A thought experiment: go out in the streets of New York, London, and Sydney and ask 100 people at random in each of those cities: "What do you think of when I say 'Nazi Party?' " Then ask them what they think of when you say "National Socialism." I would wager that very few of those replying to the first question would answer with anything about the local USA Nazi Party or Argentinian Nazi Party or any other. And I would wager that you would be very lucky indeed to find even one person per city who knew what National Socialism referred to. Hayford Peirce 11:46, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Widening the scope and renaming the article to "National Socialism" seems like a good idea. Kjetil Ree 15:29, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Google reports 789 books and scholarly articles with the words "National Socialism" in the title [3], ("Nazism" gets 771)[4]; but "Nazi" has 5,470 titles, so the tilt is 7-1 for Nazi[5] in publications pitched at the same level as CZ. Richard Jensen 17:44, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

So this is now lowest-common-denominator-pedia is it? The ignorant masses determine what is correct usage in an encyclopaedia? I've never seen that argument used even at WP. Of course puplishers pander to most-common-usage when titling books, and everyone knows that the words "Hitler" and "Nazi" still sell books. That doesn't mean we should follow their lead. I'm disappointed to see such an argument being used here.

I'm not opposed to subsuming this article into a bigger article called National Socialism. Adam Carr 11:42, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm recommending we follow the lead of the scholars, journal editors and academic publishers who know the field best. Richard Jensen 18:02, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Consensus reached on National Socialism --any objections?

I take it we have reached this consensus: 1) change this article to "National Socialism" and 2) broaden its scope (post 1933) to cover more topics than just the party. OK? Richard Jensen 02:30, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Could you kindly put something about the Nazi Party in parentheses? I would never know to look at an article titled "National Socialism" that it was about Germany in the immediate pre-WW II era, I wouldn't come up with Nazism at all. I won't defend my ignorance, but I am sure I am not alone, and it would be me my poor uneducated brethren that really need to read this article. Give us a hint, please.Nancy Sculerati 02:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Good point: we will be sure to have the opening lede include terms like NSDAP, Nazi Party and Nazism (as well as having redirects). I have started added new sections to cover a range of social, economic and related issues. Richard Jensen 03:15, 10 June 2007 (CDT)