![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
National Socialist German Worker's Party is a false translation of it into English. National is a prefix to sozialistische, Nationalsozialismus means (according to the Nazis) it's a Nationalistic form of Socialism, this is also why for example in the Dutch NSB, the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging there's a hyphen-minus (-) between Nationaal and Socialistisce to indicate that it's part of the same word. Translating it to "National Socialist German Worker's Party" makes it sound like they emphasize that it's a national party, as opposed to a regional party. If you would translate that directly to German it would become "Nationale Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei". It of course was a national party, but that's not the intent of that word and therefore it's a false translation. I think this is fundamentally and honestly in my opinion quite shockingly (I do mean to play on your emotions) wrong and should definitely be changed, how it should be changed I don't know. I think there are two options, either we should translate it to "Nationalistic Socialist Worker's Party" or "National-Socialist Worker's Party", the latter being more true to the style of the name without losing the meaning whereas the former is more emphatic of the actual meaning, especially when read aloud orally (as there's no audible difference between National Socialist and National-Socialist in English), by for example Alexa as seen in this viral YouTube video with over 4 million views. Linguisticallly and politically speaking I prefer the former one (Nationalistic) for the reasons I've stated and alluded to, however, since said video by Steven Crowder is so popular people will undoubtedly notice at some point and it's quite likely Crowder or other right wing influencers will react and attempt to discredit Wikipedia for being "SJW cucks who hate science" or something.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, maybe this was the official name of the NSDAP in English, but even then it's a faulty translation and their opinion should not be used since their intent might have been to come across as less radical to foreigners. This should also in my opinion be changed on the article "National Socialism" though there it's more clear that it's a separate ideology and therefore I frankly don't care as much because it's not as political, but linguistically speaking that one should also be changed. Dapperedavid ( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources...[Y]ou must be able to cite reliable, published sources that...directly support the material being presented.and also the WP:SECONDARY section of WP:OR:
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.See also WP:NOTLEAD:
We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements.(bold added) and WP:NOTFORUM:
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.If "some expert" wrote a peer-reviewed article about the translation, that alone would not be enough; if a significant number of experts wrote about the translation in reliable peer-reviewed journals, then yes, I believe we could summarize those sources in a section in the article discussing the translation of the word. How many is "significant" would be a matter for the community to decide through consensus (for example, a discussion on this talk page, after the "significant number" of peer-reviewed articles were presented here for editor review). However, though a significant minority opinion in the scholarship should be represented in an article, I doubt Wikipedia editors would consent to actually changing the name in the article lead, infobox, etc., unless and until a widespread majority of experts made the change, because "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." Levivich ? ! 03:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You are using your own definitions and interpretations. Whatever their validity, they are not what reliable sources say, such as the one I used. Incidentally, national liberals and national conservatives were also nationalists, but that is how they are translated. TFD ( talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi
The FAQ ends with
"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.".
I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that the link on Neo-Nazis (NN) doesn't lead to any group that is, to pick a wording, continuing the NSDAP, while the answer refers to "the party, itself", i.e. NSDAP. Which leads one to believe that there are people who support the NSDAP althought it has been dissolved for two generations. It's hard to pinpoint exacty what is the problem ... it's something along the lines of "supporting the Nazis" being meaningless in context. There are no Nazis to support, if Nazi = (member of ) NSDAP. What Neo-Nazis do is partly Hitler-worship, partly continuing some of the strains of that ideological pathology that was Nazism, i.e. racism, white supremacy, anti-semmittism etc. etc. IOW, the Nazi 'Weltbild' has not ceased to be, and so Neo-Nazis accept, believe, support, promote, propagate Nazism, although not via the vehicle of any National-socialist German Labour Party.
Oh, well ... this may not be important ... Party and ideology not being identical, the party is no more, the ideology is ... Idk.
It matters (only) if the text is liable to mislead or confuse anyone. If not, then alles gut. T
85.166.162.64 (
talk)
05:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The National Socialist German Labor Party was NOT right wing in anyway. How is a Socialist party right wing? You should change your fake news definition. 65.78.52.179 ( talk) 19:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Because they censored the socialist part. But I don't see why the West should adopt the USSR terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 ( talk) 12:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I gave many references that prove this point and yet my edits are being undone! I mean, who in the world would ever argue that socialism isn't left-wing? If you want to discuss this then let's do that, but until then I don't think my edit should be undone if it provides references to back them up, unless there is some obvious bias which I hope is not the case. - MatthewS. ( talk) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Because the term left or right wing is subjective and both concepts are supported by reference, both should be included or it should not be declared. This is a difference of WP:Opinion between editors, consensus is not relevant. Please note this is WP:Not a forum for general discussion on the topic. Lexlex ( talk) 13:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Nazi party was called "fascist" by the USSR, they censored the socialist part, so it wouldn't damage the revolution. We don't need to adap their terminology. Nazis were far-left. they also were socialist in everyday life, they were enviromentalist and so on.
The Nazi Party was a complex amalgamation of both right and left policies, best described as a centrist movement. In one example, they strictly controlled the production of war-related materials by privately owned factories (which is Left of center politics). In another example, they encouraged private property ownership. Arcteryxcrembulon ( talk) 23:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945" to "was a far-left political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945"
Source: Supporters of Communism, or of socialism in general, like to pretend that Nazism was not socialist but "right wing", for similar reasons to why fascism is often associated with the right wing despite being left wing. Despite this, however, it featured enough similarities with Communism that they were in fact closer to the far left, even including anti-Semitism, which Karl Marx had advocated. ***Those Damned Nazis by Joseph Goebbels (read in their own words why the Nazis were socialists)*** Tactechmech ( talk) 16:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
National-Socialist Workers' Party is not right wing. Sorry. Many editors disagree with this biased classification. If you want to find scholars that say it is in fact left-wing (which it is), there's plenty of references online that back this. I also want to make it known that a huge number of people (anyone who is not a leftist pretty much) that do not agree with Wikipedia's biased pinning of a socialist anti-capitalist workers' party on the capitalist anti-socialist right wing. It's like an oxymoron. I will leave this right here, since the old discussions were archived, just so it is known that not all of us here agree and that there's no consensus whatsoever on calling Nazis "right wing" (they're left wing). - MatthewS. ( talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Anti-communism was a central point of Nazi ideology, alongside Antisemitism. [1] Should it be listed in the infobox? If antisemitism and pan-Germanism are, shouldn’t anti-communism?
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
‘was a far left political party’
Simply look at your political spectrum page. Was a “far right” political party? Really? A socialist movement is ‘far right’ you trying to rewrite history? You know how stupid that sounds? If you cannot put reality in there, then remove the error statement completely. 108.11.157.20 ( talk) 21:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The ideology of the party is written as follows: "Nazism, Pan-Germanism, Antisemitism". Are pan-Germanism and antisemitism parts of Nazism? - Ullierlich ( talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| position =
Far-rightCite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[2]
[3]
[4] This edit was
quickly reverted. Is there something that I'm missing. Was the Nazi Party fascist?--
WMrapids (
talk)
02:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
In the subsection regarding Blockleiter, there is an erroneous reference to "blocks" as "Blocken." The correct plural of the German word "Block" (English: "block") is "Blöcke" (English: "blocks"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.7.6 ( talk) 08:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It mentions that it shouldn't be confused with another party of the same name, and yet when you click on the title of that party, it just brings you back to the section. I can't read German, nor am I familiar with German politics in that area, I was wondering if someone who knew German and German political history could check the German page and see if indeed the section is redundant and/or there's been a mistake with the linking.-- Phil of rel ( talk) 20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but I just wanted to point out that the page has an entire section called "Slogans and songs" that is a list with just two lines. That's not much of a list. I can't edit it, but I'd suggest moving them to some other section instead. It doesn't even have to be a list, it could be a single sentence: "Nazi slogans and songs included..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.210.64.177 ( talk) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is ridicoulous. There were "Nazis" (so called by their enemies), was no such thing as a Nazi-Party. The party was called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei/NSDAP.; nation-socialist german worker's party.-- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Please do not ask questions already answered by the FAQ at the top of the page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Socialism is not a "far right" ideology. It lines up more with the political "left" thinking. I also think it's a shame that the person that locked this document knows it is not a far right political idea and that is why it's been locked. I find it disappointing that the person would lie and try to line up Nazism = Republicans. That is what they are doing. All a person has to do is look up the word in Dictionary. But most people don't. So I hope Wiki will stop allowing or aiding people (if that is what is happening) and correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:9737:E0CB:E8F5:F3A5:E452:3C8A ( talk) 15:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
National Socialist German Worker's Party is a false translation of it into English. National is a prefix to sozialistische, Nationalsozialismus means (according to the Nazis) it's a Nationalistic form of Socialism, this is also why for example in the Dutch NSB, the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging there's a hyphen-minus (-) between Nationaal and Socialistisce to indicate that it's part of the same word. Translating it to "National Socialist German Worker's Party" makes it sound like they emphasize that it's a national party, as opposed to a regional party. If you would translate that directly to German it would become "Nationale Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei". It of course was a national party, but that's not the intent of that word and therefore it's a false translation. I think this is fundamentally and honestly in my opinion quite shockingly (I do mean to play on your emotions) wrong and should definitely be changed, how it should be changed I don't know. I think there are two options, either we should translate it to "Nationalistic Socialist Worker's Party" or "National-Socialist Worker's Party", the latter being more true to the style of the name without losing the meaning whereas the former is more emphatic of the actual meaning, especially when read aloud orally (as there's no audible difference between National Socialist and National-Socialist in English), by for example Alexa as seen in this viral YouTube video with over 4 million views. Linguisticallly and politically speaking I prefer the former one (Nationalistic) for the reasons I've stated and alluded to, however, since said video by Steven Crowder is so popular people will undoubtedly notice at some point and it's quite likely Crowder or other right wing influencers will react and attempt to discredit Wikipedia for being "SJW cucks who hate science" or something.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, maybe this was the official name of the NSDAP in English, but even then it's a faulty translation and their opinion should not be used since their intent might have been to come across as less radical to foreigners. This should also in my opinion be changed on the article "National Socialism" though there it's more clear that it's a separate ideology and therefore I frankly don't care as much because it's not as political, but linguistically speaking that one should also be changed. Dapperedavid ( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources...[Y]ou must be able to cite reliable, published sources that...directly support the material being presented.and also the WP:SECONDARY section of WP:OR:
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.See also WP:NOTLEAD:
We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements.(bold added) and WP:NOTFORUM:
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.If "some expert" wrote a peer-reviewed article about the translation, that alone would not be enough; if a significant number of experts wrote about the translation in reliable peer-reviewed journals, then yes, I believe we could summarize those sources in a section in the article discussing the translation of the word. How many is "significant" would be a matter for the community to decide through consensus (for example, a discussion on this talk page, after the "significant number" of peer-reviewed articles were presented here for editor review). However, though a significant minority opinion in the scholarship should be represented in an article, I doubt Wikipedia editors would consent to actually changing the name in the article lead, infobox, etc., unless and until a widespread majority of experts made the change, because "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." Levivich ? ! 03:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You are using your own definitions and interpretations. Whatever their validity, they are not what reliable sources say, such as the one I used. Incidentally, national liberals and national conservatives were also nationalists, but that is how they are translated. TFD ( talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi
The FAQ ends with
"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.".
I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that the link on Neo-Nazis (NN) doesn't lead to any group that is, to pick a wording, continuing the NSDAP, while the answer refers to "the party, itself", i.e. NSDAP. Which leads one to believe that there are people who support the NSDAP althought it has been dissolved for two generations. It's hard to pinpoint exacty what is the problem ... it's something along the lines of "supporting the Nazis" being meaningless in context. There are no Nazis to support, if Nazi = (member of ) NSDAP. What Neo-Nazis do is partly Hitler-worship, partly continuing some of the strains of that ideological pathology that was Nazism, i.e. racism, white supremacy, anti-semmittism etc. etc. IOW, the Nazi 'Weltbild' has not ceased to be, and so Neo-Nazis accept, believe, support, promote, propagate Nazism, although not via the vehicle of any National-socialist German Labour Party.
Oh, well ... this may not be important ... Party and ideology not being identical, the party is no more, the ideology is ... Idk.
It matters (only) if the text is liable to mislead or confuse anyone. If not, then alles gut. T
85.166.162.64 (
talk)
05:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The National Socialist German Labor Party was NOT right wing in anyway. How is a Socialist party right wing? You should change your fake news definition. 65.78.52.179 ( talk) 19:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Because they censored the socialist part. But I don't see why the West should adopt the USSR terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 ( talk) 12:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I gave many references that prove this point and yet my edits are being undone! I mean, who in the world would ever argue that socialism isn't left-wing? If you want to discuss this then let's do that, but until then I don't think my edit should be undone if it provides references to back them up, unless there is some obvious bias which I hope is not the case. - MatthewS. ( talk) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Because the term left or right wing is subjective and both concepts are supported by reference, both should be included or it should not be declared. This is a difference of WP:Opinion between editors, consensus is not relevant. Please note this is WP:Not a forum for general discussion on the topic. Lexlex ( talk) 13:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Nazi party was called "fascist" by the USSR, they censored the socialist part, so it wouldn't damage the revolution. We don't need to adap their terminology. Nazis were far-left. they also were socialist in everyday life, they were enviromentalist and so on.
The Nazi Party was a complex amalgamation of both right and left policies, best described as a centrist movement. In one example, they strictly controlled the production of war-related materials by privately owned factories (which is Left of center politics). In another example, they encouraged private property ownership. Arcteryxcrembulon ( talk) 23:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945" to "was a far-left political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945"
Source: Supporters of Communism, or of socialism in general, like to pretend that Nazism was not socialist but "right wing", for similar reasons to why fascism is often associated with the right wing despite being left wing. Despite this, however, it featured enough similarities with Communism that they were in fact closer to the far left, even including anti-Semitism, which Karl Marx had advocated. ***Those Damned Nazis by Joseph Goebbels (read in their own words why the Nazis were socialists)*** Tactechmech ( talk) 16:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
National-Socialist Workers' Party is not right wing. Sorry. Many editors disagree with this biased classification. If you want to find scholars that say it is in fact left-wing (which it is), there's plenty of references online that back this. I also want to make it known that a huge number of people (anyone who is not a leftist pretty much) that do not agree with Wikipedia's biased pinning of a socialist anti-capitalist workers' party on the capitalist anti-socialist right wing. It's like an oxymoron. I will leave this right here, since the old discussions were archived, just so it is known that not all of us here agree and that there's no consensus whatsoever on calling Nazis "right wing" (they're left wing). - MatthewS. ( talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Anti-communism was a central point of Nazi ideology, alongside Antisemitism. [1] Should it be listed in the infobox? If antisemitism and pan-Germanism are, shouldn’t anti-communism?
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
‘was a far left political party’
Simply look at your political spectrum page. Was a “far right” political party? Really? A socialist movement is ‘far right’ you trying to rewrite history? You know how stupid that sounds? If you cannot put reality in there, then remove the error statement completely. 108.11.157.20 ( talk) 21:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The ideology of the party is written as follows: "Nazism, Pan-Germanism, Antisemitism". Are pan-Germanism and antisemitism parts of Nazism? - Ullierlich ( talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| position =
Far-rightCite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[2]
[3]
[4] This edit was
quickly reverted. Is there something that I'm missing. Was the Nazi Party fascist?--
WMrapids (
talk)
02:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
In the subsection regarding Blockleiter, there is an erroneous reference to "blocks" as "Blocken." The correct plural of the German word "Block" (English: "block") is "Blöcke" (English: "blocks"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.7.6 ( talk) 08:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It mentions that it shouldn't be confused with another party of the same name, and yet when you click on the title of that party, it just brings you back to the section. I can't read German, nor am I familiar with German politics in that area, I was wondering if someone who knew German and German political history could check the German page and see if indeed the section is redundant and/or there's been a mistake with the linking.-- Phil of rel ( talk) 20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but I just wanted to point out that the page has an entire section called "Slogans and songs" that is a list with just two lines. That's not much of a list. I can't edit it, but I'd suggest moving them to some other section instead. It doesn't even have to be a list, it could be a single sentence: "Nazi slogans and songs included..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.210.64.177 ( talk) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is ridicoulous. There were "Nazis" (so called by their enemies), was no such thing as a Nazi-Party. The party was called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei/NSDAP.; nation-socialist german worker's party.-- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Please do not ask questions already answered by the FAQ at the top of the page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Socialism is not a "far right" ideology. It lines up more with the political "left" thinking. I also think it's a shame that the person that locked this document knows it is not a far right political idea and that is why it's been locked. I find it disappointing that the person would lie and try to line up Nazism = Republicans. That is what they are doing. All a person has to do is look up the word in Dictionary. But most people don't. So I hope Wiki will stop allowing or aiding people (if that is what is happening) and correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:9737:E0CB:E8F5:F3A5:E452:3C8A ( talk) 15:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
|