Jump to content

Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Discussion from 2003

Their supporters are frequently low-income young men who blame their or their society's problems on immigrants and a presumed Jewish conspiracy.

I have a small quibble with this. Their members are generally as described, but their supporters, both ideological and financial, are often quite wealthy and/or politically involved. -- April

I've cut : "However, more mainstreeam organisations such as the FN and Vlaams Blok strong refute this description." It was writen in the previous para. : "no political party of significant importance will describe itself as neo-nazi." I think this is somewhat redundant. Ericd 15:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've always thought that describing the Front National as neo-nazi misses the point and banalizes "nazism" up to the point where it's meaningless. Still, some people argue that they are neo-nazis, so we should mention that. David.Monniaux 15:49, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Music

Should mention important role of neo-Nazi &c. music. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(shudder) That's going to be a fun one to write in a manner acceptable to all parties. Probably a separate article, though.
Yes; this was my thinking. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:39, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Bands who are/have been actively part of neo-Nazi culture (e.g. Skrewdriver, Fortress) vs. bands that have been accused of being neo-Nazis (e.g. Death In June, Non, Rozz Williams of all people). And labels that have been so accused (e.g. World Serpent). And bands and labels that have been so accused and sued for libel and won (I forget who off the top of my head, at least one recent case). And so on. And so forth. This is an actively contentious issue, and I shall salute anyone who can do a good job on it ... - David Gerard 15:56, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
What kind of salute? :-)

Groups

I think the article should mention whether the party is openly neo-Nazi or whether its a label applied to them by their apponents. Those of you who know more about the subject please say whether the party is openly Nazi or not.

Italy

USA

UK

Other countries

Saul Taylor 07:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--*note: Very few groups, even amongst those listed, would publicly describe themselves as being neo-Nazi. Firstly and foremostly, these groups aren't stupid and they know the idea of a Nazi makes people nervous. So few, in fact, label themselves that way, that the term is almost entirely within the domain of a slur used by opponents. Furthermore, if we are to definitely describe any of the linked organizations as 'neo-Nazi', it would be pertitent to mention WHY. Many groups appear Nazi simply because they share symbolism and ideas, and depending on how it is percieved, the term 'neo-Nazi' may or may not apply correctly.


Jewwatch

I object against the inclusion of the link to the Jewwatch website. It's bad enough that these people peddle their views—linking to them just gives them wider exposure.
JFW | T@lk 10:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

You could say the same for any of the organisational sites. Even though I largely agree with your POV on their views, it's still POV - David Gerard 10:45, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Quote: "Jew Watch - This website criticizes modern 'Jewish/Zionist Supremacism'. It presents a neo-Nazi point of view." Point of view? Wouldn't "propaganda" be a better word?!--Deadworm222 00:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

-- A personal objection, I find, is not a valid reason to restrict another person(s) access to vital information. By the same logic, any given person could disallow any number of other people access to Democratic Party literature because they deem it not a point of view, but propaganda. In fact, by that logic, anyone could deny anyone access to any information. We must be responsible with free media such as the internet, because, unlike controllable media which is subject to the law of the country it is based in (in this case, the First Amendment), free media relies on the self-restrain and maturity of those involved with the production thereof.

I agree with you. --ReallyNiceGuy 16:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. If you, like me, consider their material to be depraved, then the best way to let other people know how bad it is is by letting them read it if they want to. In addition, our NPOV policy says we should provide info regardless of our emotions on the subject. — Chameleon 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in Russian

A question to the community. I have just added a long writeup about a part of the topic, the Russian neo-Nazis. I suspect that it should merit a separate page. So the question is, what exactly is our policy on splitting pages? If I put the long description into a separate article, what should I leave in this article? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Watcher 11:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it's not a problem yet. When the page starts getting really long (usually considered the 32KB warning), it might be time to split it out to a separate article with a summary paragraph in the main article - David Gerard 13:11, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

David Icke

There is a lot of data to support adding the popular new age neofascist, David Icke to this page. I have a few paragraphs of information at this point, but I want to get some feedback on this idea if possible. If anyone would like to help, that would be great, too. --Viriditas 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot of controversy over whether David Icke is anti-semitic, but it would be hard to describe him as a fascist. Townmouse 19:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
David Icke is not anti-Semitic. He denies that any of the people he names are Jewish, or indeed even people. His problem with these people's actions is that they misrepresent the bona fide Jewish people, who he has insisted on many many occasions that he has "enormous respect for". Paranoid, yes, crazy, maybe, anti-Semitic, definitely not. To allege so indicates a misunderstanding of his theories. Jdcooper 16:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Icke is antisemitic according to scholar Michael Barkun who notes that Icke promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.--Cberlet 13:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Russia

Where did the data on the Russian neo-nazis come from? It's quite striking information, but it also makes me suspicious somehow...some sources would be helpful. 137.22.1.33 11:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- I cannot provide, at the moment, any specific rock-solid references, but I know this section is largely correct. The reason it seems incredible is because in most of the West neo-Nazism is believed to be a fringe phenomenon, a bunch of cooks, if you will, and whether or not the 'common knowledge' of this matter is correct, it is a fact that in Russia neo-Nazism (at least, as defined by the article) is an extremely healthy, public movement. If one follows neo-Nazi discourse and literature, one finds that it is a very well acknowledged fact that Russia is a central piece on the neo-Nazi chess board, and an integral part of all plans for the future.


I disagree on LDPR. The party is nationalist ('patriotic') but has no affinity with nazis or Hitler figure. in fact, it is based solely of the charismatic figure of Zhirinovsky, who is more of a businessman of politics than a man of any particular principles. He is a orientologist by profession and the only coherent political idea he came up with was that Russia needs to establish closer ties with the Middle Eastern Arab states like Iran. He is clearly strongly anti-American and a male chauvinist, but in general he is just a skillful speaker who knows how to get the mob excited.

In general, Russian neo-nazis are RNE, NBP and multiple underground groups. As far as I know, both RNE and NBP are outlawed and marginalized. Also important to note that none of the neo-nazi parties have ever made it to the parliament. The communists is another case. Russian modern commnists have turned pure nationalists in early 1990s. The so-called 'red-brown plague' (as democrats would call them) or 'patriotic movement' (as they themselves would like to be called) is very peculiar case of the ideological marriage of nationalism and communism.

Numbers, numbers...

In the article: "claiming that the Holocaust slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews" Entire Europe had that many Jews. Is it posible that SOMEBODY survived. Have thay indeed killed everyone. 3 milions + 1 milion died from other reasons but between 1939-1945. (WWII). I hope you don't see as a Neo-Nazi... --Milant 03:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a frequent point made in Holocaust denial. The facts are clear. There were about 8 million Jews before the holocaust. [1] [2] --Viriditas 04:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
At the Wannsee Conference the Germans counted 11 million Jews [3]. Jayjg 08:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That sounds right. I seem to remember a Nizkhor page with that info but it's hard to find links on that site. I wonder why Landau quotes a source of 8 million, instead. --Viriditas 09:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How many of them moved to live in USA, Russia, Britain and other contries? Has a single one died in a battle? How many Jews still lived in Europe in 1945.? Number of 6 million slaughtered in Holocaust is not real. Milant 22:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The 8 million might be because the 11 million list includes countries not under the control of Nazi Germany such as England and the USSR (which has 5 million alone). As large parts of the USSR came under Nazi control some of these 5 million would also have presumably. So that probably totals about 8 million under Nazi control. Though I have heard a suggestion that people killed by the Soviets in Eastern Europe may have been classified as killed by Nazis post war. Is that holocaust denial? Sounds plausable to me.
I wonder what the use of this discussion is supposed to be. Did you have the opportunity to visit the sites? Have you personally talked to survivors (I mean people with a number tattooed on their arm)? I have had the opportunity to do both and see NO POINT whatsoever in debating whether it was 6 or 7 or 5 or 10 million. Total waste of time. Suffice it to say that my dear Germans (being one myself) almost succeeded in systematically murdering millions of people. Lion, 16 April 2005
Really, what is the point of arguing how many? Can anyone unequivacolly say what the difference between murdering a million people, or ten million, or a hundred million people is? The pointless, malicious murder of innocent people is, and always shall be, absolute evil. I usually don't believe in absolutes but that is one of the few absolutes that I believe in. Sarcastic Avenger 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the Neo-Nazi lists of political parties it has "One nation - Australia" with a link to information on the British One Nation party. Which is intended?

Neo-fascism

I'm resplitting the article, I posted warning that I was doing so before and there were no objections. Mel Etitis then reverted my changes and removed my reason why without discussing it. unsigned by user:Korhend

user:Korhend, I've moved your comment to the end of the page, where new comments go. Probably no one saw your prior comment above. When you made your split, you did not indicate your reasoning in the edit summary, as is expected. Also, please sign and date your comments by adding four tildes (~) at the end. Now then, are you contending that the Italian neo-fascists are not neo-nazis, and that there is a significant difference between the two designations? Further, do you have a source for your assertion that "Members of these groups feel that using the two as synonyms is a misnomer"? -Willmcw 22:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, the movements have moved away from each other largely, if not entirely. If you contact the American fascist movement, they will tell you just that. Most Neo-Fascist movements are avowedly anti-nazi, wanting to make such groups illegal. Even if the groups are similar, they are different enough to warrant a seperate article. Just as neo-militarists in Japan are considered a different group, the movements are largely seperate, and lack contact with one another. They should not be lumped together simply because they are both totalitarian right. Whatever similarities the regimes they are based off of had, the movements are unique and seperate enough that using them in the same article violates Non-Point of Veiw.-Korhend Apr 9

Aren't all neo-nazis neo-fascists? I see your point that the Italian neo-fascists can claim to follow a non-nazi form of fascism, but I am not sure that I see how different they are from most of the neo-nazi groups. Short of contacting the American fascist movement myself, is there any way of finding a source that complains about being lumped in with neo-nazis? I checked the http://www.fascistmovement.com/ website and didn't see anything there. Can you show us a neo-fascist website which is "avowedly anti-nazi? " Thanks -Willmcw 23:13, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

You would have to personally talk to them. However from the American Fascist parties website "We are not a neo-nazi party and we dont advocate racism or anti-semitism in any form. We are a Fascist Party and any American Citizen of whatever race, religion or creed can become members of our party. We dont say this to make good PR, this is a fact and we have many Hispanic members in our party." Though Nazis might be termed Neo-fascist if Naziism is included in the definition of Fascism, most describe themselves as Nazis and not fascists.--Korhend

Personal conversations are what we call "original research," and one oof the founding principles of this encyclopedia is wikipedia:no original research. Looking at the front page of the "NEW!- American Fascist Magazine Issue #6 is now online -NEW!" http://users.aol.com./amrfirst/index.html I see that the main article is an anti-zionist screed (Headline: Party Leader Tyrssen calls to end aid to Israel. Blasts Zionist control.) While they may claim not to be anti-semitic, their publication seems to belie that claim. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out how to read the contents. -Willmcw 23:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

If I could secure a posted statement by Seth Tyrrsen on a site, would that qualify as sufficient?

That may be sufficient in order to add a comment to some article indicating that he has made some statement, but it probably would not be sufficient to prove that he is not anti-semitic. I mean, anyone can say anything. A statement may be sufficient proof that one American neo-fasicst objects to being called a neo-nazi, but that is not enough of a reason to split the article. We can just add an aside that this or that group objects to being called neo-nazi. -Willmcw 00:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Its not enough that the founder of the largest neo-fascist movement in america objects to it? Then who exactly is large enough if anyone. As for "saying anything" doesn't that apply to any one also? Are we to assume any politician is anti-semetic until proven otherwise? How exactly can one "Prove" that they are not anti-semitic?-Korhend

If that is his statement then it would be enough to say that "the founder of a neo-fascist movement in america objects to it," but not enough to generalize beyond that. (How do we know it's the largest? How large is it?) It's very hard to prove that one is not anti-semitic while complaining about zionism. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
And it's very hard to prove that one is not anti-German while complaining about nazism. — Chameleon 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are we spelling the name of Seth Tyrrsen correctly? The leader of the "largest neo-fascist movement in america" gets only a single Google hit, to a role-playing game forum, "Legends Alliance" [4] Is this the same person? -Willmcw 02:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Can we establish the divide between neo-fascist and neo-nazi. A nazi and a fascist are not essentially the same thing. Its similiar to defining Stalinism as Communism. It is not accurate. A communist may or may not coinsider himself a Stalinist. Trotsky certainly wasn't! Likewise a fascist may or may not consider himself a Nazi.

If you can suggest two definitions that would help. The trouble is that while some neo-fascists may seek to avoid the label "neo-nazi", their actions and words sometimes blur the disctinction. (See above discussion). So theory and practice may not be the same thing. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Race: it is a feeling, not a reality; 95 percent is feeling. I don't believe on can prove biologically that a race is more or less pure. Those who proclaim the nobility of the german race are by all chance non-germans."--Benito Mussolini 1932 speaking Emil Cohn

I must apologize for the great delay for my reply, my computer wasn't working. General Francisco Franco's Falange Party was widely (and correctly) veiwed as Fascist. In america there is the American Christian Falangist party, which while racist is a pro-zionist nation. At the bottom of their page is a link to ARMDI. http://www.falangist.org/index.htm ARMDIs site describe it as "ARMDI, organized in 1940, is the exclusive fundraising organization in the United States for Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s equivalent to a Red Cross Society. ARMDI supports the MDA National Emergency Medical, Ambulance, Blood and Disaster Services which benefit Israel’s entire population." -Korhend

I took a look at the website for the American Christian Falangist party. [5] They are explicitly pro-zionism, as you say, and are don't appear to be neo-nazis. -Willmcw 20:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

One Nation is not a nazi group

One Nation may be a pack of completely racist dickheads (and that would probably apply to the damn Queenslanders that vote for them too  ;-P) but I don't think anyone seriously believes them to be neo-Nazis. Yes, they probably get called fascist Nazis by a lot of left wing voters in Australia, but that's more hyperbole than anything. Those lists need to be cleaned up.

Italy

How can Mussolini's movement be called neo-nazi, he was in power long before Hitler, or neo-fascist, as he invented fascism.A.K.A.47 21:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

They are called neo-fascist. The old movement was disbanded and this is a successor movement. -Willmcw 21:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, One Nation is just like any other right wing political party (the republican party, for example. --60.226.247.129 09:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisit neonazism & neofascism issue

A number of scholars of the "extreme right" in Europe make distinctions regarding the differences between neonazism, neofascism, and right-wing populism. Betz and Mudde for example. Buchanaatin in the U.S., for example, is called neofascist by some, but not neonazi. Front National in France is another example, as is de Benoist in France. I would like to attempt to put up a page Neofascism to accompnay the new page Neofascism and religion and detail the groups that might be considered neofascist, but are not accurately called neonazi. Also, note the spelling. It is gaining currency to distinguish the trends from original Fascism and Nazism.--Cberlet 16:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And the new page on Neo-Fascism is up as a stub.--Cberlet 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the new corporation of a littel 300 members ar colling them selves THE A.T.C- it means (Amsterdamse terror corps)Its a place in Holland and they are trying to become one of the bigggest gangs to become.

National Vanguard is now its own organization and separate from the National Alliance. --Hremmnoth 29 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Now that George W Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?

Now that George W. Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?

Probably not, because whether or not President Bush did indeed called liberals terrorist sympathizers, that would not make him per se a neo-fascist. One might say, if he truly spoke the words, he might be misjudging liberals or it could be called libel, but that would not make him a neo-fascist, as the definitions do not agree with the person. --Soetermans 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this not an example of Neo-Fascism?

June 23, 2005, marked a controversial statement from Karl Rove, when he said that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

First, this is the Neo-Nazism page, not the Neo-Fascism page. At least pay attention to such detials. Second, editors can't prove a negative. Third, you need to cite a published reputable source that says this statement is evidence of neo-fascism, And finally you need to go back to point one and contemplate the fatc that YOU ARE ON THE WRONG PAGE!--Cberlet 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Fascism&redirect=no

Proxy system

The article says:

it is often surprisingly difficult to implicate Neo-Fascists in violence or illegality in any meaningful way. This is because these groups have adopted a proxy system whereby organizations which the Nazis intend to be financially, politically and socially successful are made to be extremely professional and respectable, whereas other, less important organizations and individuals are almost always the ones responsible for intimidations, violent acts and terror tactics. This makes it extremely difficult to track neo-Nazi criminal liabilities, because the culprits are often obscure and unimportant within the larger Nazi movement, and when groups or individuals are found guilty of crimes in these cases, they are almost always of little financial or political worth to the Neo-Nazi goals. In this way, prominent neo-Nazis may inspire, incite or even order violent crimes without much fear that their involvement will be traced in any meaningful way back to an organization which has a great deal to lose.

Is this just speculation, or is there evidence of this? The article only goes on to give a "good, though fictional, example". — Matt Crypto 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I can try to find a cite, but it has been written about for years. The best example is Matt Hale in the U.S., but there are others. These neonazi leaders make public statements about what really needs to be done, and then followers, usually teenage or slightly older young men, go out and beat someone up or torch a house occupied by a Black family, or even commit murder.
I have written about this: Chip Berlet. (2001). "Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988." In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Volume 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163. But it is generally tacky to cite oneself on Wiki.
However, note that more than 90 percent of hate crimes are NOT carried out by active followers of hate groups.--Cberlet 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of Nazi-Skinheads

This merge was proposed by User:Humus_sapiens. I'm disappointed to find he has offered no rationale here, since I was hoping to rebut it.

I don't see this as a good merge because Nazi skinheads have not only a neo-fascist aspect, but a skinhead one, and the two aspects are intertwined in their identity. Although they partly share origins and early history with both skinheads and neo-fascists, they have evolved separately from either group and have developed their own distinct cultural characteristics--although the current article merely hints at this fact. As a separate article, we can hope for more detail to reveal this at some time. On the other hand, if this article were merged into either Neo-Nazism or Skinhead, exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture would seem out of place or out of balance with the article as a whole. The merge would effectively discourage potential editors from providing in-depth coverage of unique Nazi skinhead history and culture. I would rather wait a while, allowing time for the Nazi-Skinheads article to mature. --Unconventional 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I consider myself a tolerant person, but "exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture" sounds weird (maybe because I am a tolerant person?). Should we have a separate article on Nazi-Highboots, Nazi wearing red socks, Nazi owners of Volkswagen and all other important "Nazi ... subculture[s]"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The various topics seem to fill articles on their own. Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazi Skinheads are all sufficiently complicated, and documented, to merit articles of their own. As long as we don't glorify (or denigrate) these subcultures, I don't see a need to merge the articles. -Willmcw 09:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I too consider myself a tolerant person, and recognize that it takes particular dedication to that principle to be tolerant of intolerant people—perhaps this is what you mean by "sounds weird"?—but I don't see how this has any bearing on whether a topic is notable. As regards your hyperbole, when such topics start appearing widely in the news, they will become notable and will merit articles. "Nazi skinheads" has already achieved that status, obviously. --Unconventional 17:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

In one sense this is a trivial point, but the article is all over the place in how it spells the phenomenon it talks about. I noticed all of these variants: "neo-nazi", "Neo-Nazi", "neo-Nazi", and "Neo Nazi". Can someone authoritative rule on which it should be so it can be cleaned up? Metamagician3000 00:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how authoritative I am, but standard English spelling should be Neo-Nazi, as both the whole and "Nazi" are used as proper nouns.--Stephan Schulz 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Austrian Section

The Austrian section seems to be based largely on

Stiftung Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes / Anti-Defamation League (ed.): Brigitte Bailer-Galanda / Wolfgang Neugebauer, Incorrigibly Right. Right-Wing Extremists, "Revisionists" and Anti-Semites in Austrian Politics Today, Vienna-New York 1996, p. 5-21)

found online here.

Is there a copyright, or at least acknoledgement issue?

For example

Wikipedia

"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence.

In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the Neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."

ADL

"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence. In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."


I think neo-nazism is disraceful and should be outlawed from the world

Excluded Pro Patria Union (Estonia) from the Neo-Nazism In Other Countries section. (I suppose random parties get often inserted in this list by people who just don't like them and think it would be a smart place to show their disapprovement.)--Oop 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


question

There is just one thing I cannot understand. Why do American kids think they are right for Nazism when 99% of the times they do not fit the racial standards?

Nazism may be OK for us Europeans, but I hate how it is spreading faster than communism!

I'd also like to add that riots caused by American "nazis" are plain stupid from a European's point of view, they don't lead anywhere. I've seen that in over a million years of history of my continent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SS-Handzar (talk • contribs)

I've got an answer for ya. Nazism is not okay for us Europeans. I'm ashamed to be one if you are of the opinion that nazism is good thing. There's things called WWII and the Holocaust that occured mainly because of them. You must have a real blind spot if you still believe that national-socialism or fascism could benefit any society. You are right about one thing, nazi riots are plain stupid. But not just by a European's point of view, but to anyone who ever tried to look further.--Soetermans 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

MNR NAZI???

In the links listed as other neo nazis, the MNR is listed as NEO NAZI. France Fascism seem distinct from the ideology of Nazism despite some commonality of fact. I would classify MNR or FN as Fascist not neo nozi because their ideology is not really in the belief of Race superiority, but rather in the affirmance of France as a Nation and its priority.

Holocaust denial though is a common trend in Nationalist speech.

Such cute Croatian children!

What a beautiful family. Good thing to see nationalist influences rising in Europe.


___________________________________ Well, I come from Croatia and I am surely not a Nazi or anything like that. I am shocked by the picture of a Croatian family (3 children, mother and father) in ustasha uniforms. However, I must say I have never seen something like that in Croatia and in the Croatian newspapers or magazines neither. People who found this photo have done a very hard research. I am convinced, nevertheless, that such a photo could be found perheps in any European country. It may be also a simple "mise en scene" commissioned by somebody. In the third place, I would like to stress that this photo promotes intolerance and hatred against Croatian people. It is not true that "many children are raised in ustasha tradition". Maybe those who wrote the article should be questioned about their own racism. Nikola, physician, Split, Croatia


References and text in the article

There is overreferencing in the section Neo-Nazism in Croatia, the reference [6] has no substance next to the text in the article: the article in Croatian talks about the graffiti of the Ustasha hailing "Za dom spremni", chetnick grafiti 4 c's around the cross as well as graffiti "Oslobodite Norca hrvatskog borca - komunjare - Gotovina - EU 1:0", te "Niste vi oslobađali Hrvatsku, pa nećete ni vladati - bando crvena" which relate to the Croatian generals Norac and Gotovina. This graffiti was found the main council building in Mursko Središće, so no Orthodox church was graffitied in this reference as well as the following: [7]. The other references do support the sentence and they are OK for referencing the point. [ FrontLine 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

The article had the following, which was deleted and pasted here:

Proving the existence of a ready audience for fascist thought in Croatia, Mein Kampf was published and sold in the year of 1999 - in the number more than 600 copies in hardback within days at the remarkable price of 500 kuna (75 dollars each) - roughly equivalent to a week's average salary here. That time German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was prompted to press his Croatian opposite number Mate Granic to have Hitler's book banned in Croatia. [8].

You do not have to be a Muslim to own or read the Kuran, or a Cristian to own or read the Bible the problem was that the Mein Kampf was banned literature during the Yugoslav era. So does it make you a fascist to read or own a copy of Mein Kampf ?? Don't think so. The book Mein Kampf is available in many bookstores freely over the couter in: US, Canada, Australia as well as on Amazon.com, and other countries except Germany see: [9] , so many versions for the "ready audience for fascist" for anyone who can read English ??? Don't think so. FrontLine 03:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are sidelining this issue intentionally. One thing is to academically or simply educationally read this book and another thing is to use it to inflame hatred and intolerance. So, why should Joschka Fischer had to press Mate Granic? Why Simon Wiesenthal Center should raise their voice against publishing and publicly selling this book? Any idea?--Purger 04:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sidelining the issue, well why can not the book be available in the Croatian language for academic purposes or and educational read, which was the intention of the tranlation and publication. And the answer to your other quiestion is quite simple: in Germany the book is banned cannot be purchased or imported, and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is against the public publications of Mein Kampf or having it available anywhere, in an unabridged version. FrontLine 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sidetracking again? Whenever is the Main Kampf published for the academic purposes then it comes from an academic institution and the very edition of the book is done by some world renown historian. There, in Croatia, the edition was purely commercial aimed to exploit the upsurge of hatred and intolerance. Please, do not vandalize this page!--Purger 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on this book is available in many countries around the world, what nonsense. Come on how many books are published to loose money ? The sentences used are pure POV FrontLine 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
True - it is available, but not for the purpose of inflaming racism, hatred, intolerance - like in Croatia. That's is the reason why Joschka Fischer had to teach the good manners lesson Mate Granic, the Croatia's foreign minister.--Purger 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Purger, maybe You could write ana article Neo-Nacism in Amazon.com, they also have Mein Kampf. --Ante Perkovic 13:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That is such a weak argument Purger for such a POV statement, and the statement you have made that the purpose of the book was to inflame hatred is not true, and the overreaction of Joschka Fischer is nothing but a stunt. Also the claims of vandalism do not stand FrontLine 02:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Change in sentence order in the Croatian section

The previous sentence order was a bit of a mumbo-jumbo job, this no a bit better FrontLine 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Purger's own references proved him wrong

Regarding 2 links from http://index.hr that Purger, they prove just opposite from what Purger would like to prove. one of them is about a 14 year old kid being interogated from police for Ustasa graffiti, so this proves that there is zero-tolerance for Ustasa grafiti in Croatia. Thanks, Purger, nice work :))).

Your point is very weak. As you can read from the link - the 14-year kid was not held in police station - rather called on 'informative talk'. As usual, whenever the graffities are spotted, the police always started 'search' for the culprits - which yields regularly 'not found' result. Not zero-tolerance - rather zero result! Also, not a single person of the Croatian nationality was ever fined for writing graffities or for singing 'Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara' in public. Prove me wrong!--Purger 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)--
  • Note to all: Don't use talk pages to soapbox. Talk pages should only be used to discuss discrete changes to the actual article. If you find yourself posting a message that does not directly relate to a change you have just made, or a change you are seeking to, the article, then you should probably just erase it. · Katefan0 (scribble) 12:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Litigation

The litigation section in the article about Neo-Nazism in Croatia was almost a pure copy paste and it has no place there:

In 1999 a suit was filed at a court in San Franciso against the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works) and against the Franciscan order, the Croatian Liberation Movement (the Ustashe), the National Bank of Switzerland and others. The suit was filed by Jewish, Ukrainian, Serb and Roma survivors, as well as relatives of victims and various organizations that together represent 300,000 World War II victims. The plaintiffs demanded accounting and restitution. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs is Jonathan Levy. "Many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, after all these years," says Levy. "Many are still terrified of the Ustashe, the Serbs particularly. Unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb."[10]

FrontLine 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's a copyright violation. Please don't re-insert plagiarized material, especially not from a copyrighted source. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Purger read the line above, and do not put this section without proper discussion or rewrite. FrontLine 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. --Purger 13:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The litigation part was removed, as the reference to neo-nazism in Croatia was weak Vodomar 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is about the Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others. --Joy [shallot] 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nada Šakić

The section:

In the late 1990's, an attempt was made to bring to the justice Nada Sakic who was a guardian at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp. Nada Sakic according to her accusers was known for her cruelty towards the prisoners and is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in in November 1998 to Croatia - where she was held until her release. Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never even indicted by the Croatian authorities. The Croatian government falsely claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a death camp commander. [11]

is a reflection of some failure of the Croatian judicial system, the trial od Dinko Šakić shows one end of the specturm and the Nada Šakić does not show Neo-Nazism.

FrontLine 15:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not vandalize the page--Purger 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nada Šakić trial is no proof of neo-nazism in Croatia, it might be a poorly managed case by the Croatian judiciary. Vodomar 18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Purger, I removed that enormous list of links you placed in the article. Some of them perhaps can go down at the bottom of the page in a references section, but the article doesn't really need such an enormous laundry list like that, especially when some looked like blogs. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. At the end - I find it really ugly. Thanks for this cleaning.--Purger 20:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If I removed the laundry list, which is was and you put it back. So you get the suggestion from another user that it is ugly and bloggy and you agree with it. Oh well that is life FrontLine 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Laundry list of links - all the links listed below appear in the Article Neo-nazism in Croatia and placing it in the main article makes it longer then necessary


Vodomar 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The above set of links are mostly connections to artiles in croatian newspapers and they are found in the main article Neo-Nazism in Croatia, this is unnecessary in he main article about Neo-Nazism. There is no value in that being in at the end of the article, as the section about Neo-Nazism in Croatia covers the ground and there is a specific article about Neo-Nazism in Croatia which has this linkVodomar 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of links, as given, is needed here to support the paragraph about Neo-Nazism in Croatia HERE! Different article on a different place owns its own links! So, do not vandalize this paragraph!
The main article is too long, and by the way there is a article dedicated about Neo-Nazism in Croatia, so it is best to be consise, and you can link yourself to death in the article that descirbes Neo-Nazism in Croatia. The link are the same, so why repeat, also the article has enough references and links to make the point. Vodomar 09:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in Croatia

There are several problems with sources in "Neo-Nazism in Croatia" section.

1. These two links [12],[13]are given as a source for following statement: "Public appearance of the Ustashe veterans seen in Zadar and Slunj are tepidly condemned by some newspapers." However, these newspaper articles (from the same newspaper) are not talking about condemnation of "public appearance of the Ustashe veterans". They are "tepidly" condemning "public appearance…". So claim given in the article is original research.

a fallacy. The source is given as a source about itself. Certainly not OR per wiki policies. SrbIzLike 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

2. For claim that: "Singing infamous Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara song which glorifies Ustashe and their genocide over Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies is sometimes heard even among schoolchildren, and treated by public with silence, sometimes affirmatively, of if unfavorable - more like as yelling or screaming in public." given source is a Usnet post [14]. However, Usenet posts are not acceptable as sources. [15]

Please apply that standard to Anti-Croatian sentiment article, that has plenty of such sources. This is not OR, as per wikipedia policies, such sources can be used as sources about themselves.

3. For claim that: "In 2005 a number of Orthodox churches were sprayed with Serb hate graffiti" none of the following links [16], [17], [18] can verify it. -- Vision Thing -- 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Link added. Sources are for several incidents in that paragraph. Certainly not OR. SrbIzLike 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


1. Read the definition of original research: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."

Claim that "public appearances of Ustatshe veterans… are tepidly condemned" is original research because it hasn't been published in any reputable source (AFAIK). -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will reword it. Ustashe veterans clearly appeared, and that is sourced. However, you are wrong. If an article condemnes something, than one can say that something has been condemned in Croatian press and point to that article as a source. If you think that a statement has to be made saying "the press is condemning", then you have a problem in understanding of OR, not me. I dont know what your problem here is, if it is a word "tepidly", then that is a POV issue, not OR. But an article that condemnes something verifies the statement about condemning in press, that much is clear. SrbIzLike 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ok now. -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

2. No, they can't. " Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then they should be removed. I will remove the link, there are other references, in particular to Thompson.
You removed it, but the following text is now without source: "Singing infamous Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara song which glorifies Ustashe and their genocide over Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies is sometimes heard even among schoolchildren, and treated by public with silence, sometimes affirmatively, of if unfavorable - more like as yelling or screaming in public." -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Link to HRW report [19] you added doesn't mention any of claims listed above nor it connects persecution of Serbian minority with Neo-Nazis/Ustase. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

wrong. It mentions grafiti with cry Srbe na vrbe. Read the end of the report. SrbIzLike 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read it, but there is no mention of Neo-nazis in it. Only "Srbe na vrbe!" expression is mentioned but that expression predates Nazis. -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

4. This link [20] talks about Ustashe graffiti sprayed on Ortodox church, but it was one incident in 2004, not a number of incidents in 2005. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

then this should be stated. Wrong information is not OR, it is wrong information. SrbIzLike 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
in fact, there was an incident in 2005 too, which was sourced. So, obviously, there is more than one church, and hence I have adjusted it. You either do not understand the language well or did not read the sources listed. Here [21] it mentions vandalization of another church. U PU zadarskoj doznaje se još da su nepoznati počinitelji na pročelje pravoslavne crkve svetoga Ilije u Zadru autolakom ispisali neprimjerene poruke. SrbIzLike 17:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I understand the language pretty well. It says: "Zadar police informed us that unknown perpetrators sprayed inappropriate messages on Orthodox church of Saint Ilija." So article doesn't inform us who has done it or what was sprayed. "Inappropriate" in this case could mean a number of things (for example Satanists messages). -- Vision Thing -- 13:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of edits

Why reverting edits all the time without ever getting into a discussion about it ? Why have a long winded version, when a short version is sufficents in the article about Neo-Nazism, and you can let loose on the specific Neo-Nazism for a specific country, which is more appropriate. Vodomar 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You started changing the text without any serious explanation why you are doing it! That can be counteracted only as a vandalism
That is rubbish, read the discussions and you will see that I make changes and put a note up. Vodomar 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits in the Croatia section

Changed the following:

  • speed - speeding - this sounds better in the sentence

The paragraph on litigation:

In November 1999 a lawsuit was filled in Federal Court, San Francisco, CA where the plaintifs are of Serb, Jevish and Ukrainian background who survived the WWII concentation camps. The defendants are the Vatican Bank, Franciscan Order and the Croatian Liberation Movements who concealed assets looted by the Croatian Nazis from the concentration camps victims (Serbs, Jews, Ukrainians) between 1941-1945. As per Jonathan Levy, one of the plaintifs' lawyers, many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. The Serbs particularly, for unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb.[22]

What is the point of having this, as the main point of this paragraph is: "many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. The Serbs particularly, for unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb", so to take the fluff out it is best that this is rewritten as:

Many of Croatia's critics also claim that the country is favorable towards it's Nazi past, as there are organistions like Croatian Liberation Movements (Croatian Hrvatski oslobodilački pokret or HOP), which bears the same name as the organisation that was formed after the WWII by Ante Pavelić, and are registered and headquartered organisations in Croatia. Such presence according to Jonathan Levy still terrifies Serbs, who are many times reluctant to have their pictured or seen in court in fear of reprisals and intimidation, like in the recent joint case of WWII concentation camp survivors that was lodged with the US Federal Court case in San Francisco in 1999.[23] Vodomar 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Levy should not be quoted at all, since he is not a reliable source. He is an interested party, who would profit if Croatia paid the money to his clients. Therefore, his statements have no encyclopedic weight. --Zmaj 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As long as Levy is being quoted in the major media, it is proper to quote Levy. While the section on Croatia needs to be NPOV and in proportion to the rest of the page, I am concerned that there may be pressure here to sweep factual allegations under the rug of history. Still, it is Levy who is claiming people are still afraid, and the paragraph revision suggested by Vodomar makes sense to me. --Cberlet 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not making pressure to hide facts, but trying to prevent any defamation of my country. Since I am a man, I am liable to make mistakes, but my contributions here are made in good faith.
My objection was wrong, I see that now. Levy's background is not related to the relevance of his statements. But, Cberlet, I hope you agree that it is only proper to quote Levy if his statement is relevant for the article. Now, I claim that Levy's statement is irrelevant. Here is why:
Such presence according to Jonathan Levy still terrifies Serbs who are many times reluctant to have their pictured or seen in court in fear of reprisals and intimidation - The existence of a marginal Neo-Nazi organization in Croatia is relevant for the article. Someone's subjective feelings about it are not. I hope I do not have to explain why.
like in the recent joint case of WWII concentation camp survivors that was lodged with the US Federal Court case in San Francisco in 1999 - The case is irrelevant for the article, as it deals with WWII, not Neo-Nazism.
In conclusion, I honestly do not see how any part of Levy's statement could be included in the article. --Zmaj 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the section on Croatia is too long, and drifts away from neo-nazism, but the claim that some Serbs still fear attacks by current supporters of the Ustashe (who are arguably therefore supporting a current neo-Nazi Ustashe movement) seems appropriate to mention in some way.--Cberlet 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the section on Croatia is too long, and it does indeed drift from neo-nazism. Over the past weeks I tried on many occastions to shorten the article to be consise, however many of my attempts were reverted with the simple excuse : vandalism. The section of the Dinka Sakic trial is nothing but probably poor handling of the case by the Croatian judiciary, and the US Federal court case has nothing to do with Neo-Nazism in Croatia, as the whole point of that section is the fear of Serbs from Neo-Ustaše's . Also, the the Mein Kampf section before was too long, before I rewrote it. In many sections and this also goes for the whole section, there is a certain clinching to any fact possible, however minute to paint a picture of Neo-Nazism in Croatia. I am not saying it does not exist, but it can be reworded and written in such a way that it is consise and "to the point" instead of beating around the bush. Vodomar 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The lawsuit stuff is the Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others. --Joy [shallot] 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down - Please?

OK, the section on Croatia is obviously full of emotional and political hot buttons. Let's edit one paragraph at a time for a short period of time. Also, it may be prudent to ask that this page be protected from anonymous URL edits. Anonymous editors can remain anonymous as to their "real" identity while registering here at Wiki so that they have some accountability. The last edit by Vision Thing was simply not vandalism.--Cberlet 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are some users who are trying to push POV in this section, and it is not emotion but bias. In most cases edits that are done to this section ie. shortening the article, or condensing some parts so the main idea or point is expressed is often reverted, without looking at the disussion page or even dropping a note. Many edits done by myself are just reverted and the comment vandalism is placed. If you go throught he disscussion pages, you can see that most of the edits were discussed, however not many of the users who reverted have placed a comment, let alone engage in any sort of discussion. Vodomar 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention to register. Anonimous contributios are quite legal and sufficienthere. Act of registering does not bring any accountability as we have it seen many times. Your claim that 'last edit by Vision Thing was simply not vandalism' does not hold - due to the very fact that (s)he removed valid references talking about racism - which has quite clear roots in the Neo-Nazism:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.html?tbl=RSDCOI&id=43cfae9e16
Violent acts against ethnic Serbs suddenly increased during 2005. The May 18 killing of eighty-one-year-old Dusan Vidic in his house in Karin, near Benkovac, was particularly shocking. Two months later, on July 19, two elderly Serb returnees were beaten in front of their house in the village of Ostrovica, also near Benkovac. In Pakostani, Benkovac and Zagreb, attackers damaged vehicles with Serbian registration plates. Groups of young men attacked or threatened Serbian bus passengers who were traveling through Rijeka and Delnice, as well as Serbian train passengers at the railway stations in Vinkovci and Zagreb. Graffiti with the message "Srbe na vrbe!" ("[Hang] the Serbs on the willow trees!") appeared in Rijeka and Udbina. Two men broke windows at the entrance of the Serb Orthodox Church in Drnis on November 12. On May 21, a bomb exploded next to the premises of a Serb political party in Vukovar, and the following night, unknown perpetrators threw bombs at the municipal assembly buildings in the majority Serb villages of Borovo Selo and Trpinja, near Vukovar. In all but a few cases the police failed to apprehend the perpetrators.
http://www.pavelicpapers.com/archive/0101/5.html
In a search for the final answer to the question whether Thompson is just a Croatian patriot or a promoter of Ustasism and Fascism, we dug through the archive of Thompson's statements and recordings from his performances at concerts and parties.
After carefully listening many Thompson's songs - we are shocked by the fact that Marko Perkovic is being rebuked because of his black pants and T-shirts and because of the salute "Za Dom - Spremni," while at the same time Thompson keeps performing a song with words that fill us with disgust.
Although an average Internet surfer is probably not aware of this, there are tens (maybe even hundreds, we didn't count) of Internet pages dedicated to the Ustase, the NDH, Ante Pavelic and other Ustase "giants."
On many of these sites you can freely download Ustase songs performed by singers like Josko Tomicic and Marko Perkovic-Thompson, but also new ones like "Hey Ivica and Stipan."
Apparently (maybe, not willingly) you are a supporter of the acts o vandalism seen here!--64.18.16.251 12:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not support edit wars that wreck a page. I am well aware of the resurgence of the Ustashe in Croatia and among ethnic emigrants who came to the U.S. I studied Ustashe supporters in Chicago as early as the 1970s and helped edit a book where the Ustashe supporters were mentioned as coordinated by former Nazi collaborators. I have published articles on fascism as a social movement that discuss the Ustashe. Nonetheless, simply bashing all Croats as indifferent to or complicit with the Ustashe is not fair. --Cberlet
Show us who is bashing all Croats as indifferent to or complicit with the Ustashe, where, and how? This is a usual and a frequent excuse, for the Ustashe apologists, to remove whatever is not to their liking. The acts of vandalism are, that way, masked as a regular editing. You may not be one of them - but, at least, be more specific when claiming something like that.--4.249.0.110 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I very much want the section on this page to be accurate and NPOV, and currently the edit warring has resulted in an overly long, unfocused, and badly written section where any edit is unfairly called vandalism. Could we please take a paragraph at a time and discuss it here? --Cberlet 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, substantiate what is overly long, unfocused, and badly written section, what criteria you've applied to, and how it is visible here!--4.249.0.110 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism and ethnic hatred

I agree with Cberlet and have two things to add. Firstly, I advise the anonymous user not to make unwarranted accusations of vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is official policy, says: While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. Secondly, I advise him not to confuse any attack against Serbs in Croatia with Neo-Nazism. This applies to his first source above, which is exclusively about ethnic hatred, not Neo-Nazism. --Zmaj 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Etnic hatred and attacks on the people (they do have deep roots in the Nazism) are a regular demonstrations of the Neo-Nazism, especially in Croatia where the other manifestations of the Neo-Nazism are visible on many places where the other etnic groups (the Serbs, the Roma) are inhabitated.--4.249.0.110 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed some references that are only about ethnic hatred and not about Neo-Nazism. --Zmaj 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone can find a published report discussing the connection between anti-Serbian ethnic hatred and Neonazism in Croatia, then it can be cited. Otherwise it is original research. I happen to agree that ethnic hatred and neonazism is linked all over the world, but if I can't find a cite, I can't edit my views into the entry. That's a basic Wiki guideline.--Cberlet 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you are not honest when claiming somehting like the above. Instead reading the references and finding answers to your question, you are tossing nonsense. Here is something that might direct you properly - if you ever wanted it:
[24] <quote>After stonewalling the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague for several months, Zagreb nearly faced UN sanctions for its refusal to cooperate with the court. Goldstein draws a direct link between this increasingly entrenched neo-Ustashism, as he dubs it, and Croatia's willingness to defy the international community.
"If Croatian state policy and Croatia's political opposition had quickly and resolutely denounced this neo-Ustashism and stopped its spread, Croatia might not have had to deal with the Tribunal in The Hague," he says. If Croatia persists in these attitudes, it could lead to difficulties for Croatia's future with the European Union and NATO, as well as hinder Croatian efforts to share in EU aid and development programmes like PHARE.</quote>
As you might know, the ICTY is after ethnic hatred, killing, burning and looting property of the Serbs in Croatia--Purger 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Users 4.249.0.110 and 64.18.16.251 are simply wrong. Starting from the fact that ethnic hatred is a characteristic of Neo-Nazism, they have concluded that any display of ethnic hatred is Neo-Nazism. This is an error of logic.
As for changes in the article, I must protest against the user 64.18.16.251 for his careless reverts. Last time he reverted my edits, he returned a typo I corrected. It means he did not even check the changes I made, which is unacceptable. --Zmaj 08:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all acts of ethnic hatred are carried out by neonazis. Research shos that the opposite is true. Neonazis, however, do promote ethnic hated, and there is a relationship that can be mentioned, but only carefully. Folks, please follow Wiki guidelines and do not revert material without editing and a discussion.--Cberlet 11:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: 64.18.16.251 and a number of other users have been identified as sock puppets of Purger, see here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Purger. --Zmaj 09:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a new article

Since the main problem here is not the accuracy of some parts of the text, but their relation to the subject, I propose opening a new page Anti-serbian sentiment in Croatia. Then, everything related to ethnic hatred, but unrelated to neo-Nazism (attacks on people from Serbia unrelated to neo-Ustasa etc.) could be moved there. We could also put links to this new page from Neo-Nazism in Croatia and from this page. What do you think?

Yes, definitely a good idea. Go for it! TK, 13 June 2006 14:55 (UTC)
Excellent idea!--Cberlet 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Quibbling over word choice: "multiracist"

One of the pictures has the caption:

A militant Neo-Nazi in Germany. "Lone Wolves" and revolutionary sleeper units are common amongst neo-Nazis in countries where these groups are illegal; most see themselves as covert resistance fighters against an oppressive and dystopian multiracist régime.

What does multiracist mean? I think perhaps the caption should read "dystopian multiracial regime". Funkyj 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Why not make the change and see if someone objects and can explain why? --Cberlet 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Parts taken out of the Neo-Nazism in Croatia Article

The paragraphs:

In 1998-9, an attempt was made to bring to justice Nada Sakic - who was a guard at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp. Nada Sakic, according to her accusers, was known for her cruelty towards the prisoners which is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in November 1998 to Croatia - where she was held until her release . The Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never even indicted by the Croatian authorities. The Croatian government falsely claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a death camp commander. [25]

In November 1999 a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court, San Francisco, CA where the plaintiffs are of Serb, Jewish and Ukrainian background. The plaintiffs are also survivors of the WWII Ustase concentration camps. The defendants are the Vatican Bank, the Franciscan Order and the Croatian Liberation Movements who concealed assets looted by the Croatian Nazis from their concentration camp victims (Serbs, Jews, Ukrainians) between 1941-1945. As per Jonathan Levy, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be photographed, and are still terrified of the Ustashe. Among Serbs, fear of the Ustashe is still particularly strong. For unlike the Nazi Party in Germany, the Ustashe still exists and has a party headquarters in Zagreb.[26]

Have nothing to do with Neo-Nazism and it's manifestation in Croatia, it is just padding and not to the point of the main article. As discussed before, the Nada Sakic misstrial migh be poor judiciary, and the lawsuit in the USA is just another example of padding the article with unecessary fluff, and grasping on anything that has a Ustasha/nazi word in it ! I need to repeat again the two paragraphs are unecessary, weak and not to the pointVodomar 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not who is making decisions - please, note that:
Among Serbs, fear of the Ustashe is still particularly strong. For unlike the Nazi Party in Germany, the Ustashe still exists and has a party headquarters in Zagreb
'Mistrial' is a deliberate act based on pro-Ustashe public sentiment in Croatia

Is that so ?

"B'NAI B'RITH OFFICIAL DOESN'T DOUBT STATE ATTORNEY'S DECISION IS RIGHT Return to the month Index 03. 02. 1999. , 21:41H CET B'NAI B'RITH OFFICIAL DOESN'T DOUBT STATE ATTORNEY'S DECISION IS RIGHT WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (Hina) - The American Jewish organisation B'nai B'rith has no reason to doubt that the decision of the Croatian State Attorney's Office not to continue the proceedings against Nada Sakic is founded, B'nai B'rith's honorary international president Tommy Baer told Hina on Wednesday.

Baer said he believed the Croatian State Attorney would have requested that a trial of Nada Sakic begin, had there been enough evidence to support it.

Adding that only one out of 26 questioned witnesses had - indirectly - put Nada Sakic at the scene of horrid crimes (Stara Gradiska concentration camp), Baer said that, as a former US public prosecutor, he knew that it was not enough to issue an indictment.

Baer said his organisation was helping and had established cooperation with Croatian authorities in important issues, such as trials of war criminals from the time of Nazism.

In his capacity as president of B'nai B'rith, Bear had visited Croatia on two occasions, and in 1995 he met Croatian President Franjo Tudjman on the Brijuni isles.

Baer said his organisation did not have and therefore could not give to Croatian authorities any evidence or testimonies of witnesses on possible crimes committed by Nada Sakic.

Speaking about the alleged evidence Belgrade claimed to have, Bear wondered why Yugoslav authorities had not forwarded that evidence to Croatia.

He declined to comment on the views of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre regarding the proceedings that had been carried out against Nada Sakic in Croatia.

Commenting on a proposal by Simon Wiesenthal Centre director Ephraim Zuroff that Yugoslavia request Sakic's extradition, Baer said she was a Croatian citizen and he believed that, although such requests should be respected, Croatian laws did not allow for such a possibility.

It would be a different matter if Sakic did not remain in Croatia but, for example, returned to Argentina, he added.

President Tudjman has invited Tommy Baer to be an official observer at the trial of Dinko Sakic, commander of the World War II concentration camp Jasenovac.

Baer confirmed he would attend the trial adding that judicial authorities in Zagreb granted all requests he had made - from simultaneous translation to additional witnesses.


" http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9902/hina-03-j.html http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9903/hina-10-v.html http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9903/hina-03-d.html http://jagor.srce.hr/sakic/hinanews/arhiva/9910/hina-05-s.html

All above is just a personal opinion of a single person. Baer is not an official representative of the victimised peoples (Serbs, Romas, nor even Jews). So, please, do not vandalize the article further.


Neo-Nazism in France

Can anyone in wikipedia create a new paragraph on the problem of Neo-Nazism in France? I will appreciate it, since France harbors a small undercurrent of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi gangs. In the early 2000's, several incidents by neo-Nazis against French Jews and Jewish synagogues are reported. The French government wanted to take direct action against the attacks, but declined to really crack down or do anything. The percentage of hate incidents by neo-Nazis and neo-fascists in France is small, compared to what the French media and Jewish interest groups claim, were done by North African Muslims with a binge against Jews over the issue of Israel. The French public mood appears more quiet and fickle over anti-Semitism, but most right thinking French people oppose anti-Semitism and the French Republic tradition of inclusion forbids it as an attack on "fellow Frenchmen/citizens". But the topic is too hot to handle in France, some call it "taboo" and many dare to address anti-Semitism and neo-Nazis a real threat. Also to discuss the Alsatian Nazi problem in the German-speaking region of Alsace, where skinheads are on the rise and some far-right groups hold sympathy to WWII-era Nazism. Some carry a code word "Ich Allemagne" which translates to "I" in German with the French word for Germany. I doubt they want reunification with Germany or are certain the Alsatian Nazis were never terminated after the war. + 207.200.116.134 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this article to protect it from the blocked User:Purger, who (having gone through a series of sockpuppets) is now using anonymous IP addresses from the 4.249.*.* range to avoid his blocks. Unfortunately I don't think I can block this range, as it corresponds to Level 3, a major US ISP - too much collateral damage. -- ChrisO 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, if you can also revert the edits that were done by the 4.249.0.0/16 range, that have happened recently in light to the discussion points on this page. This will set a proper level playing field. Vodomar 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we add a Neo-Nazis in pop-culture section?

Neo-Nazis played a huge role in the late 20th century tabloid talk show craze. Many appeared on Jerry Springer. Geraldo had his nose broken in a televised brawl with Neo-nazis. Even the world's only black billionaire Oprah Winfrey confronted a skinhead in her audience(The best of Larry King page 371):

WINFREAY: "I just heard what you said. You just said 'I don't sit with monkeys. You think because she's black, because I'm black, we're monkeys?"

SKINHEAD: "That's a proven fact."

WINFREY: "That's a proven fact? It's a proven fact that I'm a monkey."

SKINHEAD: "Could be."

WINFREY: "Go ahead. Go ahead."

SKINHEAD: "First thing I want to get off my mind is-"

WINFREY: "No, I want to talk about this monkey stuff. No, no, no. I want to talk about the monkey business. I want to talk-"

Later when a riot threatened to break out half the studio audience ended up leaving the studio.

There is so much material, and the issues are so specialized, that it would be better to treat that topic in a separate article. Though I can't find a precise parallel with Nazism, we do have Godwin's Law, Nazi Chic, Nazi punk, Nazi memorabilia, and probably many more. Perhaps "Neo-Nazism in popular culture"? -Will Beback 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Roots - POV

The section is not very neutral:

  • Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a xenophobic and chauvinist movement without a clear agenda beyond the opposition to the "democrats"...
  • However, soon enough it became clear that neither of these parties was capable of accomplishing any serious changes in the national policy, and indeed soon they came to be widely seen as having had "sold out" to the "anti-people regime"
  • Also, the youth had only experienced the last days of the Communist regime, which were made up of brutal crack downs, but without any idealistic presence, and were thus similar to Nazism.

--Konstable 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Someone has removed my tag without any attempt to disguss it, and I can't find it in the history - so probably no edit summary on the removal either. I am re-inserting the tag. I wish I could fix this myself, but I don't know enough about this to give a fair analysis.--Konstable 06:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

White Aryan Resistance page should be linked to this page in some ways

Since it is mentioned by the article, it should be linked from White_Aryan_Resistance.

No, the mention is to a Swedish Group with the translated name "White Aryan Resistance," and the list of Neo-Nazi groups in the U.S. is at: Neo-Nazi groups of the United States.--Cberlet 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I found that the documentary, White Terror is relevant to this topic

http://enhancetv.com.au/details/displaytv.php?RecordId=12734370&database=Archive.fp5&layout=web_tv

Some of the informaiton may need to be integrated from

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru%7Dnaz.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DYM20041217&articleId=318

PLEASE stop just pasting unsigned blobs of text onto this page and have a real discussion. And please sign your posts in some way. This is not a page for a list of groups. That list is here: Neo-Nazi groups of the United States.--Cberlet 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist Movement Party - Turkey

<incitement to murder removed>

This isn't the place for such comments. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but MHP is not even close to being neo nazi. It is just another right wing conservative party in Turkey, like the republican party in the usa or christian democrats in Germany. The people who maintain this page could at least check things up before resorting to slander of a respectable political organization that commands 10% of the electorate.

"they also are very nasty people as they dont like jews."

Edit this?

NPD Neo-Nazi party?

The article states:

A trial was held before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitution Court), the highest court in Germany, about the prohibition of the NPD (National Democratic Party), considered (though not proven to be) a Neo-Nazi party.

Yet it still continues to refer to the party as a Neo-Nazi organization, and there is an image showing an NPD rally which is caption as a "Neo-Nazi rally in Germany" thus the article appears to contradict itself. --Nazrac 04:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Considered, but not proven, is not a "contradiction". Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky Words!

I do believe it is the second sentence in the entire article, very true yet very POV... I'm going to remove it now, if anyone opposes this feel free to complain about it. Also, in the "Holocaust Denial" section there are more sneaky words which I am also deleting. If you want people to visit your site, make sure it is related and include a link in the appropriate section. Cissel 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect categorisation, need to move elements

The inclusion of several nationalist organisations on this page is inaccurate and renders the category as useless; in particular: British National Party (UK), Australia First Party (Australia), National Action (Australia), Patriotic Youth League (Australia) - none of which are "neo-nazi" parties. I would assume there are other misclassified examples here as well (as evidenced by reading through the above discussion).

To label nationalist groups as "neo-nazi" is as silly as labelling democratic socialist groups as "communist". This page needs to be cleaned up, with several organisations moved to the "nationalist" category [expertise needed].

It seems that biased commentators will classify any group with a political racial basis as "neo-nazi". Obviously, this is not the case, as evidenced by the "racist" nations who fought the Nazis in WW2 (Australia, USA; possibly Canada and UK). Wikipedia should be a bastion of political neutrality and facts, not a bastion of political bias and propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDawn (talk • contribs) [actually, I did sign it, but it was rendered in a box, as I was not aware that one signed by typing four tildes]

We do not determine what is true and what is not. We just report reputable sources. If political studies or reputable media label an organisation as neo-nazi, that's what wikipedia will do. That's what WP:NOR dictates anyway. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two points to be noted here:

1) The journalistic profession is dominated by multiculturalists and multiracialists, often with a political axe to grind, and therefore often use propaganda techniques to paint their political foes in a bad light. The use of the "neo-nazi" slander is a prime example of this. So-called "reputable media" are - in fact - not reputable, and giving their slant creedence is like giving creedence to Lenin's slant on Trotsky.

2) [directly applicable to the point Michalis Famelis makes above] The mainstream media do not label the Australia First Party as “neo-Nazi”, such name-calling (for that is what it is) comes from the globalists and Multiculturalists in their blogs, sites, etc.

As Peter Charles Henderson noted in his BA (Hons) thesis, A History of the Australian Extreme Right Since 1950:

“There is also a tendency to label groups with titles like 'neo-Nazi' as a form of censure even when the group has no links or sympathies toward Nazism. This name calling has originated not only on the left but on the right where terms like 'femi-Nazi', reputedly coined by US talk back radio personality Rush Limbaugh to describe feminists, has gained currency”. http://library.uws.edu.au/adt-NUWS/public/adt-NUWS20030924.134813/index.html (p.8) (see also pages 28-29) It should be noted that Henderson is a leftist (p.31) (all these pages are in the Introduction, 01Front.pdf). Peter Henderson is certainly a reputable source.

Therefore, the classification of the Australia First Party needs to be moved to “Category:Nationalist_parties”, not only for reasons of truth and clarity, but also to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. RedDawn 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Polish Neos

I know, because I have paternal relatives in Krakow, that in Poland their is a strong neo-Nazi presence as a rejection of the former Communist government, maybe someone should mention that.

I'm JBAK, I just cannot be bothered to log-in, leave any responses to this on my user-page.

Sprotect and recover?

I'm seeing bits of vandalism spread across the page; I think it might be necessary to semi-protect this page until it can be cleared of at least blatant vandalism. --akuyumeTC 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


GREEK NEO-NAZIS?

Next there will be Pakistani Neo-Nazis!! They are fair, they are Caucasian and they have Aryan heritage!! Many have Greek heritage like the Pashtuns and the Kalasha!!DELETE THE IMAGE OF GREEK NEO-NAZIS NOW!!

There are Greek neonazis. They are Caucasian (their skin is white, you don't need to be blond to be caucasian) and yes, they have Aryan heritage. See also Hrisi Avgi. You are idiot if you believe that the Pashtuns and the Kalasha are Greeks. Have you ever seen a Greek person? If you have, you would have noticed that they are white. Mitsos 12:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain about the Pashtuns and the Kalasha. The articles says that they are descendants of Alexander the Great's army. These people are only 10% Greek. Just think about it. Some soldiers of Alexander the Great stayed at Pakistan and married Pakistani women. Their children married Pakistanis too, and that continued for more than 1000 years!!! So, these people have far more Pakistani blood than Greek blood. Mitsos 13:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Greeks are not even White! Some look more middle-Eastern/Central Asian than anything else! ( Read the book `Black Athena'!). A Nazi is a member of the NSDAP. Former Neo-Nazi Ingo Hasselbach stated in his book (Fuehrer-ex)that many of Germany's neo-Nazis found Southern Europeans in the scene to be stupid and laughable and that "only a Nordic could be a National Socialist" (in his words). The Nazis invaded Greece and killed many Greeks, How can they be Nazis? There is a big neo-Nazi scene in Russia and Hitler hated Russians, hethought they were racially inferior. He turned that nation into a human incinerator! I could see `Japanese Neo-Nazis' more justafiable than them!! By the way, I do not think Pashtuns and Kalasha are Greek, They are descended from Aryans. Have any of you considered how many Greeks could have Northern Indian ancestry, considering much of that area was also a part of the Persian Empire and Persian troops from that region possibly invaded Greece?? P.S. Pashtuns are an Iranian not Indo-Aryan Ethnic group.

Greeks are indeed White people. Every European native, including all Southern Europeans, are White people, and this is according to pretty much every White Nationalist. What Hasselbach stated is laughable (if he really did say that), since the Nordic National Socialists were in the extreme minority. Hitler himself was far from Nordic!
The Nazis indeed made some huge mistakes: the anti-Slavic agenda was what ruined them. But despite this, these days, neo-Nazis generally include people from pretty much every European ethnic group, including Southern Europeans and Slavic people. Presently, the term "neo-Nazi" is synonymous with 'White Nationalist" and doesn't necessarily refer to a belief in the Nazi policies of the 30s and 40s.
Drew88 10:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your knowlege of history needs to be improved. Greece was never a part of the Persian Empire. The Persians invaded Greece, but the Greeks beat them in the battles of Themopylae and Salamina. I recommend you to visit either Greece or a psychologist. The Greeks are all White (except from the African and Asian immigrants who have come to Greece in the past few years). The book "Black Athena" is a pile of crap!!!! There are thousands of books that prove the ancient Greeks were Mediterannean Whites, just like the modern Greeks. Look at the ancient Greek statues, for Gods sake!!!!! Other books, by mostly German authors, say that the ancient Greeks were Nordics (see Nordic theory)!!! Again, the ancient Greeks were Mediterannean Whites, just like the modern Greeks. About the Greek neo-nazi movement, see Hrisi Avgi. Mitsos 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

About WWII, Greece was at war with Germany and Greece lost. During the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, thousands of Greeks died because of starvation. This was due to: 1) The Germans took all the food from Greece in order to feed their own people, and 2) Because of the British trade embargo no food could come to Greece. The Greek neo-nazis embrace the ideology of National Socialism, not Hitler and the NSDAP in particular. They admire Hitler, because of what he has done for his people, not the Greeks. Mitsos 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I generally don't care about what you have said till now. I would like to see the references that the author should enter. Especially for the first paragraph about the Pelloponese. This is an encyclopaedia is not a blog, we don't write our opinions, we should support everything we write with published work. agmpinia 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WWII devastation...

"Russia may seem like an unlikely place for a flowering of Neo-Nazi movements due to the strong memories of the devastation that was wrought on the nation by the Nazi German invaders during World War II" do you think other countries like Belgium, Norway or UK (among others) were not devasted by german nazis in WWII? pff this phrase about russia doesn't make sense and should be removed. this whole article is a propaganda for nazi anyway with disgusting pictures of assholes proud to wear german uniforms, this is stupid. whatever. how can it be young communists and nazis supporters in 2006? too many people are stupid and don't learn, that's life. Shame On You 14:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Russia lost over 15 million civilians to the Nazis. A far greater number that any other country. 124.187.186.70 07:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not ONLY was the sole reason for WWII was for Germany to ANNHILATE Russia and take it’s lands but Russia lost the MOST civilians, soldiers and economy to Nazi Germany and allies. (take note that 90% of Nazi and nazi allied forces were on the Eastern front)

Go read a text book or something.

-G

SUMKA

Something should be written about Sumka, the Iranian Neo-Nazi Party. The Idea of Iranian Neo-Nazis sounds laughable, but then so does the idea of Neo-Nazis in Italy, Greece and Russia. Is there an Indian Neo-Nazi party as well? They had contingients who fought in the SS and many could claim Aryan heritage. I wonder if they would be accepted by Neo-Nazis in the U.K.!!

I 've explained that Meditteraneans are White many times. I 'm not going to tell you the same things again. Mitsos 12:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified reverts to Croatia section

The previous version of the Croatia section focussed on people and events from the World War Two era. That does not fit the definition of neo-Nazism. That version was also horribly formatted, with no separation into paragraphs. I replaced that substandard version with content taken directly from the article Neo-Nazism in Croatia. Twice those improvements have been reverted by an anonymous IP user, with the unfounded accusation of vandalism.

To the anonymous editor: please 1) do not revert productive edits 2) do not make false accusations and 3) sign up for a Wikipedia account so you can be held accountable for your edits and comments. If you have productive additions to that section (including much-needed references), please add them, but do not revert to a version that doesn't discuss the correct topic. Spylab 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I incorporated some content from the old version into the new version, so now there is absolutely no reason to revert to the old version, which focussed on World War Two people and events instead of neo-Nazism. Spylab 16:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet again the editor without an account reverted to an inferior version, even though I made an effort to comprimise by combining the two versions. Yet again the editor made a false accusation of vandalism. that editor has also brokent the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule rule by making the exact same revert three times within a 24 hour period. The editor has also incorrectly claimed that the content about WWII people is about the topic of Neo-Nazism. However, wikipedia defines neo-Nazism as "the ideology of post-World War II political movements seeking to revive Nazism or a racist form of fascism." The information that I deleted doesn't seem to meet that criteria. Spylab 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)



photo on main page

people who suppor the popular view that people were gassed love to put these photos like the one on the main page of this article. the bodies are emaciated. they probably died of typhus not from poisoned gas. this photo probably needs to be removed. Keltik31 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo illustrates the point you are making, "neo-Nazis claim such evidence is either counterfeit or misrepresented." -Will Beback · † · 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The picture is to stay, nazism and fascism lead to those attrocities.--Soetermans 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert war over Croatia

Pleae seek constructive discussion on Croatia, or I will seek to have the page protected against further edits until collaborative discussion takes place.--Cberlet 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I welcome protection of this article from the destuctive edits by User:NovaNova and his sock puppets. If you look at the edit history, I made a compromise by combining text from the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article and text from the old version of the Croatia section of this article. Everything in my version of the section comes from content that was already on Wikipedia. Although NovaNova has pointed out possible weaknesses to the section in this discussion page, instead of fixing those weaknesses, NovaNova has chosen to continuously revert to an inferior version that focusses on WWII-era people and events (instead of neo-Nazism), and which is improperly formatted (with no separation of paragraphs). Spylab 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Spylab, please use colons to indent comments. It takes two to create a revert war. What you see as your "superior" version (both here and on several other fascism-related pages) reveals a lack of consideration that others may not see your edits as "superior." Try a more cooperative and collaborative tone, and engage in actual discussion rather than intellectual pissing matches.--Cberlet 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Spylab went so far that (s)he marked me as someone's sock-puppet. I'm just wondering what makes him/her to behave this way?
  • The editing behaviour in this article (specifically in the Croatia section) — as well as the language style in edit notes and talk pages — by User:NovaNova, User:Purger-related sock puppets and various anonymous IP accounts is very distinct. I'm just wondering why you thought nobody would notice? Spylab 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protection sought

This edit war is annoying. Learn some manners. I am seeking page protection. Grow up.--Cberlet 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. This page is now protected. Look, folks, this is a complicated issue, and even though I have extensively studied the fascist period of Croatia, I have no idea how to find an NPOV text. But the folks who have engaged in the edit war do have this expertise, what they lack is a collaborative, constructive attitude. So get over it. Find a compromise. I'll do what I can do help, but is really up to us as a collective editing community. That is the wonderous aspect of Wikipedia.--Cberlet 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not complicated at all. The revert war has nothing to do with point of view, and I am not an expert on Croatia at all. However, I do know the difference between World War Two Nazism and neo-Nazism, which is the topic of this article The old version mostly concentrated on issues related to World War Two people and events. It's a very simple matter of having the section focus on the actual topic of the article. I did make a comprimise by combining the two versions of the section, but still focussing on neo-Nazism instead of World War Two-related topics. The funny thing is that now the section only links to the neo-Nazism in Croatia article, which is where I copied the text from to paste into this article. I pretty much pasted it word for word, other than adding citation requests and making a few minor adjustments to the writing style. Spylab 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The failure to take any responsibility for an edit war is part of the problem.--Cberlet 23:30, 8 December 2006(UTC)
  • Take a look at this unjustified edit to the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article which NovaNova deceptively describes as "Added about failed ammendments of penal code, and about attempt to publish Mein Kampf": [[27]]. That description in no way describes the extensive counterproductive and destructive edit that was actually carried out. Instead of actually simply adding the new content as described in the edit note, NovaNova has chosen to destroy several necessary improvemts to the article, and then lied about what has been done. This is what we're dealing with: someone who shows total contempt for the editing process and displays no sign of any "collaborative, constructive attitude" at all. Spylab 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Post-script: And just so nobody accuses me of making a knee-jerk revert to the edit I mentioned in the Neo-Nazism in Croatia, article, I tried to decipher which content was added, so I could save that part instead of reverting the whole thing, but NovaNova's edit was so big and confusing that I could not figure out which text was actually added, and which text was just moved around. Spylab 14:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nazis - old and new

The problem on this and other pages related to neonazism in several European countries, is that in several countries, the fascist and Nazi collaborationist forces later became recast as heroic anti-communists, and their historic fascism, Nazi collaborationism, and anti-semitic actions were sanitized as part of Cold War propoganda. In some cases, these same people did lead movements against communist totalitarianism, yet this should not obscure their other ideas and actions. In Croatia, as in several other countries, the neonazi movements often are tied to earlier interwar and WWII Nazi collaborationist forces, and thus it is not possible to exclude a discussion of this historic set of relationships. However, this discussion should not dominate the section on the particular country. Also, the issue of murderous rampages against Jews and Serbs in the WWII period might need to be raised as part of a discussion of current (and changing) Croatian government attitudes toward specific current fascist political movements, especially if they link themselves back to the interwar/WWII Ustasha.--Cberlet 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Collabortive editing

Let's start over. Note the text at the top of the entry that the page is protected "until disputes have been resolved." If both of you (in your own way) refuse to engage in collabortive editing of text here on the discussion page, then the solution is not to keep the page locked, but to seek to have both of you banned from editing this article for some appropriate period of time. Please start placing text here on the discussion page and discussing how it should be edited. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to being temporarily banned from this article as long as User:NovaNova is banned for the exact same length of time. To start off the collaborative process, I will post both versions below. Spylab 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of two versions of Croatia section

Please keep in mind that this article is supposed to be about neo-Nazism (emphasis on neo), and that there is a full article on neo-Nazism in Croatia, which discusses all aspects of the topic in more detail, including the movement's origins in World War Two Nazism.Spylab 16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Collaboration?

So, Spylab, is there a compromise version that you can craft?--Cberlet 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For me to do a proper and thorough job, I would have to print out both versions, compare them, and combine the relevant text. Due to technical and time constraint reasons, I might not be able to do that until another day or two. Perhaps the best solution would be for you (or another editor who wasn't involved in the revert war) to combine relevant text from both versions. Judging by User:NovaNova's response above, it is clear that NovaNova still doesn't get it, and shows no evidence of being willing to compromise or be constructive. Spylab 10:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is worth the wait, and would very much appreciate the attempt when you have time. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleanza Nazionale

Alleanza Nazionale classified as a neo-nazi organization? Are we kidding? Please remove it. 82.58.169.151 08:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"A militant Neo-Nazi in Germany."

I'd like to see some proof that the person on that picture is actually a "militant Neo-Nazi in Germany". What tells us that he really is a) militant, b) a Neo-Nazi and c) in Germany? As long as there is no proof for that, I suggest a new title for the image: "Armed person in front of a swastika flag."--62.214.246.78 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I uploaded this image. It is my friend. It was taken at our stash spot in Frankonia. It was taken with my canon powershot A90. Dont know how it ended up on wikipedia but it just became to my attention. Thank you! (I can send you anotehr picture of him if you dont believe me!) Usurpsynapse 12:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Section Serbia

I've attached to this section the totallydisputed tag due to a few issues

  • first of all, the whole section is completely unsourced
  • secondly, chetniks are not listed by any serious historical sources as the Nazis; the basic notion - as seen in the modern dictionaries of the English language - is quite clear:
  • chetnik - a member of a Pan-Serbian movement or home-defense band for resistance to oppressors by guerilla tactics.
    • from: Webster's Third New International Dictionary Merriam-Webster Inc, Springfield, MA, 1993, page 386
  • chetnik - a member of Slavic nationalist guerilla force in the Balkans,esp. one active during World War II
    • from: The New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2001 page 295

Also, mentioning Srebrenica atrocities has nothing to do with neo-Nazism in Serbia nor Srebrenica is in Serbia. Mentioning Serbian ultranationalist Seselj here is quite clearly out of context.

My proposal is to delete this section or write the text truly particular to the neo-Nazism in Serbia.

Deleted. Actually, the entire listing by nation is fairly thin; besides, there's also entire Neo-Fascism article. Some of Serbian groups (like Obraz) do fit into "clero-fascist" organizations, plus some frenzy skinheads/Stormfront sympathizers around, but I somehow feel that this entire section was brought for revenge of "Croatia" section (which is also very doubtful and highly POV). Isn't this article supposed to be about active Neo-Nazi groups rather than post-factum attempts of minimization, historical revisionism, and justification? There is a difference, you know? Duja► 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

Wiki article on National_Power_Union identifies it as "far-right nationalist political party". That in my opinion corresponds well with what can be read in their program (in Latvian). [Neo]-nazi (as in national-socialist)? I don't believe so. Could someone quote a reliable source in support of their inclusion here? -- Doc15071969 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

Sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please, remove phrase neo-Chetniks in Serbia from Analogous European movements since there is no single reference branding neo-Chetniks in Serbia as an European movement analogous to nazism 178.223.95.72 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please, remove phrase neo-Chetniks in Serbia from Analogous European movements since there is no single reference branding neo-Chetniks in Serbia as an European movement analogous to nazism. My request is quite clear - no references supporting the claim. Response to Beyond My Ken: The article is about neo-nazism, not about chetniks, not about fascism. 178.223.95.72 (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a pop at it then. That paragraph does need a source. Since we are discussing it here though can we not simply find a source and put it there rather than removing the text? Beyond My Ken is there a relevant source somewhere else in the article which could be repeated here? Edaham (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The article does not say that neo-Chetniks are neo-Nazis. It says:

Outside Germany, in other countries which were involved with the Axis powers and had their own native ultra-nationalist movements, which sometimes collaborated with the Third Reich but were not technically German-style National Socialists, revivalist and nostalgic movements have emerged in the post-war period which, as neo-Nazism has done in Germany, seek to rehabilitate their various loosely associated ideologies. These movements include neo-fascists and post-fascists in Italy; Vichyites, Pétainists and "national Europeans" in France; Ustaše sympathisers in Croatia; neo-Chetniks in Serbia; Iron Guard revivalists in Romania; Hungarists and Horthyists in Hungary; Banderaists in the Ukraine (which had a complicated relationship with the Axis powers) and others.

Neo-Chetniks are, by this statement, an "Analogous European movement", which is to say neo-Fascistic. I've added a source to support the general statement.Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken The above quote does not verify the false statement. The article is strictly about neo-nazism, not about analogous something. You even did not correctly quote the page 66 of the reference you added. Also, the quoted text is an author opinion given without a primary source supporting it.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make an argument that the entire "Analogous European movement" section should be removed from the article, and perhaps moved to Neo-fascism, then open up a new section and make that argument. It could be that other editors will agree with you. But with the article as it stands, the inclusion of neo-Chetniks in that section is justified and reasonable. As I said in a comment that I either neglected to post or was accidentally deleted, I view your request as an attempt at whitewashing the reputation of the neo-Chetnik movement, of which there is no doubt that they are neo-fascists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken First of all, the reference you've added is not about neo-nazism. Your reference even does not have a primary source when writing about neo-chetniks.Analogous can be only about neo-nazism, not about nacionalism or fascism. Neo-nazism is analogous to nazism, neo-chetniks to chetniks. Chetniks were nationalists and collaborators, not nazists. They do not advocate arianism, extermination of minorities, did not run konzlagers. Bottom line: you do not have a valid reference and your analogy is sensless.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
My comment above still pertains, your arguments are neither correct nor persuasive. Stop trying to pretend that neo-Chetniks aren't neo-fascists, which is what this is all about, at the bottom line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken The article IS NOT about neo-fascism! Further, Serbia subsection of the Analogous European movements does not have anything about neo-chetniks. Therefore, Serbia subsection contradicts the introductory of the Analogous European movements You do not know what are you talking about.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The section about "Analogous European Movements" IS about neo-fascists, though. I"m not going to remove neo-Chetniks from that section, because they are most certainly neo-fascists. Other editors may feel otherwise. As I said above, if you think the section should not be in the article, start a discussion in a new section on this talk page. I'm certainly not going to remove the "Analogous" section, because I believe it's relevant to the subject and to the times.
I think that, unless another editor wishes to comment, this discussion is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken does not have a clear idea what is neo-nazism. The reference he added is out of the neo-nazism context. Therefore my request is reactivated.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. Other editors can comment here, certainly, but you cannot file another request, (or "re-open" this one) while this one is still active. If you do that again, I'll request that an admin block you for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW, stop pinging me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The request is not answered; marked as answered does not make the request active. The reference he added is out of the neo-nazism context. --178.223.95.72 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Excessive citations

Beyond My Ken, you may wish to read WP:OVERCITE. In regards to your comment here, "PLEASE STOP REMOVING VALID SOURCE CITATIONS FROM THE ARTICLE. AN/I IS THE NEXT STOP", I can only point out that removing "valid source citations" is entirely appropriate when the citations are being added for no good reason. Shouting at me in capitals does not make your point any more valid. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Two citations is not overciting. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. If one citation proves your point, you don't need two. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Pleass stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Stop what? Why don't you stop adding more citations than the article really needs? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"Please" what? What are you talking about? What constitutes excess citation depends on the circumstances. In this case, if you believe that the citation that was already in the article supports the "and implement" wording, then there is no good reason for adding an additional citation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
(Sigh) Well, I suppose you just can't stop yourself. Is that why you went to Turning Point USA, an article I don't believe you've edited before (certainly not recently) almost immediately after I edited it, because you couldn't stop yourself from following me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
If you disagree with any of my edits at that article, then by all means explain the basis for your disagreement - at the relevant talk page, which I believe is Talk:Turning Point USA. My edits there have zero relevance to anything being discussed here. Again, could you please give a valid reason for adding multiple citations to support the "and implement" language rather than resting content with one? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no argument with your edits, I have a problem with your behavior. Please read WP:HARASSMENT, especially the part that says

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

That you and I are in an editing dispute here, and that in the middle of it you go to an article you've never edited before right after I edit it, that's prima facie evidence of Wikihounding. I ask you here and now to stop: stop removing valid citations I add to this article, and stop shadowing me. I will not be intimidated by your actions, and I will take you to AN/I if you don't stop.
This is my last communication with you on this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You may note the inclusion of the words, "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" in WP:HARASSMENT. I did not "confront or inhibit" your work at Turning Point USA in any fashion. I made four minor and utterly uncontroversial edits, which you apparently do not even disagree with, but now suddenly you consider this a major atrocity and a basis for an ANI complaint? The behavior you are objecting to simply is not what WP:HARASSMENT is intended to prevent, and you are behaving in a completely unreasonable fashion by objecting to it. As for the removal of "valid citations", once again, that can be reasonable if the citations are excessive, which in my view they are in this case. I will be happy to leave it to the judgement of other editors whether they stay or go, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, you objected to a word being included in the article on the grounds it was uncited. Beyond My Ken added a cite. You are now removing that cite because of "citation overkill". Have I got this right? --NeilN talk to me 08:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you do not have this right. I objected to a phrase ("and implement") being included in the article for multiple reasons, primarily because it was unnecessary and in my judgement an incorrect usage of the word "implement", and only secondarily because it was uncited. Beyond My Ken added a citation to support the phrase, and I did not remove that citation. Following that, Beyond My Ken pointlessly added another citation, a completely unnecessary one. I removed the additional citation, and explained why I considered it unnecessary. Rather than address the point, Beyond My Ken went into a rage and made a baseless accusation of harassment against me, accusing me of trying to intimidate him by making minor formatting corrections to another article. Why making minor formatting corrections at any article could reasonably be considered an attempt at intimidation, Beyond My Ken has not bothered to explain. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: You removed the word again here despite being a cite being added. BMK then re-added it here with additional cite. You then started quoting the OVERCITE essay. As an experienced editor you know that multiple cites are often used to back up contentious and/or exceptional claims per WP:REDFLAG (which is policy). If you want to challenge inclusion of the word, that's fine, but challenging the inclusion of sources that back up this seemingly contentious inclusion looks to be a backhanded way of doing so. --NeilN talk to me 12:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The disagreement is not, as already noted, about a word. The disagreement is about a phrase, "and implement", which in my opinion is both unnecessary and an incorrect usage of the word "implement". The problem with it was never primarily that it was uncited. There can be legitimate reasons to object to a particular phrasing regardless of whether a passage is cited or not. I have every right to hold that some other phrase besides "and implement" would be better or more appropriate. As an experienced editor, I, personally, have never ever bothered to use multiple cites to back up "contentious and/or exceptional claims". Furthermore, you should realize that the claim that neo-Nazis want to "implement" their ideology is not a "contentious and/or exceptional claim". It is a totally unremarkable claim and it does not require multiple citations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
If it is a "totally unremarkable claim", then why did you remove it with the edit summary

rm 'and implement' as uncited (emphasis added) [28]

and then go on to comment in the edit summary of a null edit

Beyond My Ken, as already noted, the material you restored is uncited. It thus violates WP:VERIFY. There is no source that supports "and implement". Why would you restore uncited material? [29]

It is you and you alone who insisted that "and implement" be cited, then you turn around remove one of the citatons I added, and now you say "The problem with it was never primarily that it was uncited. ... Furthermore... the claim that neo-Nazis want to "implement" their ideology is not a "contentious and/or exceptional claim". It is a totally unremarkable claim...", but it was you and you alone who turned into into a "contentious claim" by disputing it. You're being intellectually dishonest, playing both sides of the street. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:VERIFY, any claim requires a citation, including unremarkable claims. The "and implement" claim did appear to be totally uncited at the point I removed it. It never required more than one citation, and it is still my view that it was unnecessary to add multiple citations. The "contentious" part is not the claim that neo-Nazis want to "implement" their ideology, but rather your insistence on using the term "implement" rather than some other and more accurate and correct term. So, no, I am not being "intellectually dishonest"; I am simply taking a different view of the issue from you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
And yet, you have never once offered any "other and more accurate term" for consideration, even though I specifically asked you to, and your understanding of what "implement" means is -- by the evidecne of your postings above -- well, "non-standard" is the absolute nicest way that I can put it.
The word is without a doubt appropriate, and no one who reads it who understands the English language will have any difficulty understanding what it means: you yourself said that it was "non-ambiguous". Well, if it's not ambiguous, then it must say precisely what it means to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. In this edit I replaced the "and implement" phrase with different language that covered the same territory, but you didn't like that and removed it without explanation. You have already claimed that if a phrase is "not ambiguous" then it "must say precisely what it means to say". You were and are wrong about that. An unambiguous phrase can be wrong, misleading, or inappropriate if it uses language incorrectly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, the writing in that edit was deficient, in that you lost the primary point -- the connection to Nazism -- in your zeal to use the exact language of the source. There's a lot more to Nazi ideology than simply creating "a superior society" -- at lot of ideologies claim that. The point of the citation was to show that the Neo-Nazis want to establish something, and not just bring an ideology back to life; it was cited to support "and implement".
What about "and establish"? Would you accept that as a replacement for "and implement"? Or how about "and put into effect"? Would that be acceptable to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No, the connection to Nazism was clear in the wording added here. It made the first sentence of the lead read, "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism, and thereby establish what they consider a superior society". The "thereby" establishes a clear connection between neo-Nazis wanting to revive an ideology and their wanting to establish what they consider to be a superior society based on that ideology. You are being tendentious by suggesting a false antithesis between creating an allegedly superior society and establishing something. Obviously creating a different kind of society is establishing something. You have also missed the point that taking actions of some kind is an inherent part of reviving an ideology. There would be no advantage at all to using a wording such as "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and establish the ideology of Nazism", or, "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and put into effect the ideology of Nazism". The wording is redundant. Reviving an ideology by definition means putting it into effect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I hope for the last time:
(1) Assuming that the Nazi ideology died after WWII (which is doubtful), bringing it back into the public eye, publicizing it, making it the subject of civic discussion, putting it out there, re-creating it as an acceptable choice, that would be "reviving the ideology". "Implementing it" "putting it into effect" or "establishing it" would mean actually taking over a country and instituting the ideology on a practical basis. As I think you well know, the Nazi ideology existed long before Hitler actually achieved the power he wanted. It is the difference between the former and the latter that I see as being very close to the dichotomy between "revive" and "implement".
(2) Now, can I get a straight-forward yes-or-no answer from you:
(2a) Would you accept "revive and put into effect"?
(2b) Would you accept "revive and establish"?
(3) Again, a simple straight-forward response please: Is there anything you would accept to help indicate the dichotomy I pointed out in (1), or are you adamantly wedded to "revive" all alone and by itself?
Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. "Reviving" an ideology has a broad meaning, and of course it can potentially include taking over a country and other things consequent on that, even if only by implication. You have insisted on a rigidly narrow and incorrect understanding of what reviving an ideology means, which has always been the problem. Neither of your two proposals (2a) and (2b) is any good at all. The contorted and peculiar phrasing just goes to show the mistaken thinking behind them. The phrase "and implement" should be simply removed, with or without some alternative replacement phrasing (and many alternatives might be possible). Like you, I am not really interested in having an endless argument about any of this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: Considering the impasse we are at -- I've given FKC two alternate options and the chance to provide his own, and the only thing he will accept is complete removal of a word which I think I've shown is not redundant -- do you have a suggestion as to where we go from here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no need for a request for comment, which is blowing matters out of proportion. Rather there is a need for rational discussion about how to improve the lead. It can take place slowly if need be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No, I think I've had enough "rational discussion" with you. I'll be setting up an RfC shortly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean discussion between myself and you. It would be good to hear from other voices. Presumably multiple editors are potentially interested in this article. Their comments would be welcome. A problem with a request for comment is that it oversimplifies complicated questions and unhelpfully focuses the issue on the specific phrase "and implement" when in fact broader issues are involved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome to open your own threads on the "broader issues" you feel need exploration, but our discussion has been almost entirely focused on your (in my mind, unreasoable) objections to "and implement", the roabblocks you threw up to attempt to get rid of it, and the constant goalpost moving you engaged in, so that is the issue which I wish to put to rest. Unlike some others, I'm not here on Wikipedia to engage in debates, I'm here to improve the encyclopedia -- and this eternal palaver just prevents me from doing the work I could be doing to edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: on the inclusion of "and implement" in the opening sentence of the article

The arguments on all sides seemed to largely be based on editorial interpretation and linguistic preference rather than policy. While some editors only "weakly" supported addition of "implement", there was still a clear consensus for it. Chetsford (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The opening sentence of this article used to read

Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism.

On 24 March, User:LightandDark2000 added the words "and implement" to the sentence, so that it read

Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism.

The purpose of this RfC is to determine whether "and implement" – or other equivalent or near-equivalent phrases, such as "and establish" or "and put into effect" – should be kept in the opening sentence, or if it should be reverted to the original version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey and comments

  • Support "implement". "establish", "put into effect" or any equivalent phrasing which receives consensus. When I first saw LightandDark2000's edit, I was considering reverting it, until I thought a bit deeper about it.
    To "revive" means to bring back to life, but it doesn't, in this context, say anything about whether the revived ideology is put into practical effect or not. One can "revive" an ideology by bringing it back into the public eye, publicizing it, making it the subject of civic discussion, "putting it out there", or re-creating it as an acceptable civic choice. All of these techniques would make a "dead" ideology be viable again. But Neo-Nazis don't simply want Nazism to be talked about or to remove the social stigma from it, they want that ideology to be be put into effect, to have the power to institute the various parts of the Nazi ideology. To fulfill this goal, the neo-Nazis would have to take over a country -- by legal or revolutionary means -- and actually make Nazism a functional ideology, not simply something that is discussed.
    Historically, the Nazi ideology existed long before Hitler actually achieved the power he wanted in Germany. Before that time, Nazism was merely a possibility, afterwards, it had been put into effect and became the official ruling ideology of Nazi Germany. It is the dichotomy between these two states of being, the first with the potential to be powerful, and the second to have the actual power, that I believe "and implement" (or an equivalent phrase) makes clear.
    (If anyone wishes additional thoughts about these, there is byte and byte after byte of discussion between myself and FreeKnowledgeCreator in the two threads above this one that one can peruse.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of all the WikiProjects listed at the top of this page, as well as on the talk page of Nazism, the latter per NeilN's suggestion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Most Neo-Nazis, especially the more hardline ones, do want to the their ideology put into effect. They even have manifestos on such goals, and some branches actually have a long-term plan for spreading/realizing their ideology across the world. I think it's important to mention this facet, just like how al-Qaeda and ISIL don't just dream of a "Caliphate" - they actually want one, and they are working towards building a Salafist "Caliphate". I'm fine with revising the exact wording though, if there is a better way to say it. 'LightandDark2000' (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
It is misguided to hold a request for comment about a particular phrase, and expect to establish consensus for the use of the phrase "and implement", or the equally bad alternatives "and establish" or "and put into effect." They are all poor writing. LightandDark2000's comment, "I'm fine with revising the exact wording though, if there is a better way to say it" is reasonable. The language Beyond My Ken is so attached to is so poor that it really should not be difficult to find something better, clearer, more specific, or more informative to readers. Specific and concrete information about neo-Nazi goals would be helpful to readers; a vague phrase like "and implement" isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of "and implement" / establish / or any other similar phrase/wording. Revive is not specific enough (and could, for instance, be a merely "artistic" revival of symbology). Was a RfC truly required for this?Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • What does "similar" mean, in this context? How similar does a phrase or wording have to be to the "and implement" wording to be acceptable? I don't believe anyone is going to believe that reviving Nazi ideology means "a merely 'artistic' revival of symbology", whatever that means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Revive is not specific enough - while a reasonable reader would assume this would go beyond, say, mere use of symbols - we should not rely on such parsing and should be specific. In "similar" I mean any close synonym to "and implement", conveying that I am willing to support other phrases with the same meaning.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
        • If you want something specific, that's fine. I just noted that "Specific and concrete information about neo-Nazi goals would be helpful to readers". A problem with phrases such as "and implement" or "add establish" is that they don't convey anything helpful about what neo-Nazis want to do or how they plan to achieve their goals. So why not abandon the idea that the lead has to have some such phrase and replace it with something that would actually be helpful to readers? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
          • This RfC was rather narrowly scoped. In the scope presented (and the current lede), I believe "revive and implement" is better than "revive". I could see how the lede could be further improved with more specifics (e.g. - what implementation would mean) - however I will note that it might be difficult to craft this in a concise manner as the various neo-Nazi movements are rather diverse (so they might all agree on revival and implementation - but differ on specifics - something that might be lede worthy as well). I'll note that the lede could be longer than the present 1.5 paragraphs - so it could definitely be possible to be more verbose.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Regardless of differences between the various neo-Nazi organizations, it ought to be perfectly possible to craft a description of neo-Nazi objectives and methods to replace the awkward "and implement" language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support "implement". This with the understanding that the sentence may be rephrased for grammar. Kierzek (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support "and implement"—Revive alone suggests resuscitating the credibility of the ideology, not making it policy.--Carwil (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While some neo-nazi organizations may proclaim they merely desire a rebirth of the ideology, Nazi policy would follow if such a group ever came to power. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for just "revive" (invited by the bot) "Weak" because all of the above arguments for "revive and implement" and the reasons behind them are good, and it would be fine either way. But since the ideology already exists, what could "revive" mean other than "implement"? Any minor differences between the two are hypothetical and variable between the proponents. So IMO "revive and implement" is sort of just a more grammatically awkward way of saying "revive".North8000 (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for just "revive" mainly for reason given by North8000 (what could "revive" mean other than "implement"?), but also because it seems more important to get to the 'nub' which is later in the para, the aspects of Nazism, which neo-Nazis endorse/embrace (ie why they are generally equated with Nazism, even when they profess no connection). Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adding "...and implement" as revive might mean "rehabilitate", while "implement" suggests putting into practice. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adding the first three academic sources I checked included the aim to implement a national-socialist social order in their definitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Is there support in sources for a wording in which it is part of the definition of neo-Nazism that they necessarily seek to implement the Nazi ideology (wich implies that all neo-nazi groups have work politically to change the wide society), as opposed to simply revive the ideology and practice it in private forms? If there is no such sources I think it is a bad idea to include the suggested wording.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two sources provided. I'm certain that I would be able to provide as many other citations as you would like, but FreeKnowledgeCreator accused me of "overcitation" with with second one (when, of course, he was the one who had demanded citations). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither of those sources states in so many words that "it is part of the definition of neo-Nazism that they necessarily seek to implement the Nazi ideology" and I think it would be unrealistic to expect to find such sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Maunus: As I said, as many citations as you like can be provided. I'm almost certain I can give you one for every group on List of neo-Nazi organizations. If that is the case, then a formal definition is not really necessary, just a good dose of WP:COMMONSENSE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Maunus: I'm curious as to why you would accept "revive" without a specific citation that says that every neo-Nazi group wants to revive the ideology -- after all, maybe they're like book clubs, and just want to discuss it (and maybe to examine each others collections of Nazi trading cards) not to revive it -- but require one for "implement". Haven't these groups made their purpose more than abundantly clear in both their rhetoric and actions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
See the first sentence of the third opinion provided by Rhinopias above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Maunus: Any thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the best approach would be find examples of how "Neo-nazism" is defined in other secondary and tertiary sources. The SPLC source ptovided incidentally says specifically that some groups "emphasize simple hatred, others are more focused on the revolutionary creation of a fascist political state" - i.e. some are content merely sharing their ideology and having an outlet for their hatred while many others do work to change society politically. I can't access the other source by Gay.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The SPLC is talking about relative behavior. They're not sayng that all neo-Nazis don't share basically the same goals, they're saying that some focus on the hatred, at the expense of acting to establishing a Nazi-style government while others focus on revolutionary action, at the expense of just spreading propaganda and hatred about Jews, homosexual, and immigrants, among others. These are relative differences, not absolute ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I would phrase it differently, the SPLC definition talks about actual practices, which differ even though the ideology may be shared among all groups. But there is no reason that the definition should emphasize ideology over practice - and by adding "implement" we are basically saying that unless they work explicitly on the implementation part they are not really neo-nazis. I think it is better to have a more encompassing definition that does not risk excluding some groups that ought to be included. I think we need to focus on how reliable academically published sources about neo-nazism define the concept.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, is Kathlyn Gay and Enslow publishers a good source? She seems to be a writer of non-fiction for teens, and probably can be expected to simplify issues a bit on that account. It should be able to find better academically published sources on neo-nazism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, because the concept is so intuitively obvious, it didn't surprise me that a lower-level source would have a definition, when higher level sources wouldn't. As I said, I stopped looking for sources after FreeKnowledgeCreator castigated me for "overcitation" [30], [31], after demanding that "and implement" be cited, [32], [33], then denied that citation was ever a major issue for them. [34]
But I'm totally open to new sources, so please feel free to look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the quality of citations should be a major issue for everyone. I think the original wording is equally intuitive, since, in my understanding, the only thing that really is required to be a neo-nazi is to express adherence to a nazi ideology after 1945. There may me many different ways of doing this. But again, we should defer to the best sources not to our intuitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Neo-Nazism is a general term for post-World War II white supremacist individuals and groups whose goal is to establish a new order based on the doctrines of Nazi Germany.. "[35] (supports "implement" as part of definition).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Kingsepp, E. (2006). Nazi fans" but not Neo-Nazis: The Cultural Community of" WWII Fanatics. Critical Studies, 28(1), 223. (This work distinguishes between Nazi fans who are interested in nazi culture and history, but without wanting to implement it as a political project, and calls only the second "neo-nazism").·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support addition - sources are clear that this isn't a historical reenactment group, these scheißkopfen want to implement that ideology in the real world. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for the addition, although the distinction is fine enough that I'm not sure it makes a huge difference either way; it might also be worth stepping back, looking at what we're trying to say here, and rewording the entire sentence if people still have issues over wording, clarity, and how it parses. But either way, once this RFC is closed, please move the citations after the word "implement" to the end of the sentence for readability purposes. --Aquillion (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Revive is sufficient. It covers a fairly broad field which corresponds to what people usually think about the subject . Addint ;;and implement leaves it open for them to see, we're just talkingtheoretically or historically. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Drop both "implement" and "ideology of": The problem is the "ideology of Nazism" phrasing. Why "ideology of"? Why not simply "Nazism", as in "revive Nazism"? It is hard to "revive" an idea, an ideology, but you can revive a movement, or a person, or an institution....something that acts. Ideas don't act. I would say drop "implement" and "ideology of" and simply say "revive Nazism", and maybe add "in varous ways". Indeed I would cut even more and write the sentence "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II movements seeking to revive Nazism in various ways." --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I think the problem with that is quite simple. Nazism was a specific political movement represented by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. That movement was destroyed when the Nazi Party came to an end. Contrary to your suggestion that "you can revive a movement", Nazism in the strict sense cannot be revived inasmuch as the now long destroyed Nazi Party cannot be simply brought back into existence. Probably not even neo-Nazis would want to try to re-create the specific political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945. So, they want to revive its ideas or their understanding or reinterpretation of those ideas. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019

Please change: "In the German Democratic Republic a former member of SA, Wilhelm Adam, founded the National Democratic Party of Germany." to "In the German Democratic Republic a former member of the SA, Wilhelm Adam, founded the National Democratic Party of Germany." because the former sentence is grammatically incorrect (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung, https://www.britannica.com/topic/SA-Nazi-organization). Thank you. FilmTheory (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done But in the future, please be clearer about what you want to have happen, for instance "In the sentence X, please add the word "the" before 'SA'" Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Neo-nazism vs. neo-fascism

I've deleted improper content of the Serbia section added by someone. The added content is about alleged neo-fascism in Serbia. We have two different Wikipedia articles: Neo-nazism and Neo-fascism and there is no need for arbitrarily mixing their contents on the basis of some "closely-related" or "relevant" opinion--Богаљ Рајовић (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The existence of two distinct Wikipedia articles is completely irrelevant. The fact that an article on a given subject exists does not mean that its subject matter is irrelevant to a different article. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that because the material on the Serbian Chetnik Movement states that the organization was "oriented towards neo-fascism", this makes it irrelevant to neo-Nazism and inappropriate to an article on the subject. Such a position is ridiculous. There is no reason a neo-Nazi group cannot be "oriented towards neo-fascism", and suggesting that fascism and Nazism are not related is stupid. You have no consensus for removing that material, and should not continue to remove it in the absence of consensus. So far, you have not tried seriously to establish a consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"Gay" vs "Homosexual"

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the description "homosexual". It's a atraight-forward description of a person's sexual orientation. "Gay" is fine as well, except (1) it's more informal than "homosexual", and we are an encyclopedia, and (2) It's somewhat ambiguous, as in many contexts it refers to homosexual men, as in the expression "LGBTQ" is which "L" stands for "Lesbian" (i.e. female homosexuals), and "G" stands for "Gay" (i.e. male homosexual}. Certainly there's nothing wrong with a homosexual woman referring to herself as a "gay woman", but the ambiguity of the word is still a fact, meaning that the unambiguous terms is the better choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have asked FKC to take this dispute to talk, where a consensus discussion can decide if the expression "anti-homosexual demonstration", which was added to the article five years ago on 28 June 2013 [36] should be changed to "anti-gay demonstration". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the term gay is sufficiently used in reliable sources today to be acceptable for describing relatively recent events, while homosexual seems dated or derogatory. TFD (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can see you saying "dated" since it is an older term, (not all that much older, actually - "gay" has a much longer history than you might think), although I disaqree, but I'm really going to need a citation from some reliable sources to accept that "homosexual" is "derogatory". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, It's worth while taking a look at the article Homosexuality and compare it to the article Gay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A lot of people don't. It is confusing that terms widely accepted years ago become considered derogatory, and are discontinued even by the New York Times and other publications.[37] TFD (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You're referring to the euphemism treadmill, in which words that are coined as polite or neutral descriptors become disliked and are replaced by another euphemism, which in turn becomes disliked and is replaced by another, and so on. But, again, you said that "homosexual" is considered "derogatory" – can we please have some cites for that before it get repeated as fact? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The term "gay" is current preferred terminology for a person attracted to the same sex. It is dated to insist that it is informal. I would agree that there are some specific contexts in which "homosexual" is a better term, but this is not one of them. The context here is that of describing an anti-gay protest in Russia. Such protests are directed against gay people as a self-identified group and their assertion of their identity, not simply against homosexuality as a condition. Thus in this context "gay" is actually more accurate. It is baseless to suggest that people are going to be confused about whether the term also applies to lesbians here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2018 ;(;UTC)
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Let me sum up the situation for you:
  • "anti-homosexual demonstration" has been in the article for 5 years, it is the status quo of the article
  • User:Catrìona changed it to "anti-gay demonstration" [38]
  • I reverted with the edit summary "Can you explain the need for this change?" [39]
  • As of yet, Catriona hasn't responded
  • You restored the change with the edit summary "restoring one reasonable change - the term "gay" is now usually preferred to "homosexual"; it is also shorter, which makes it better in a caption" [40]
  • I reverted to the status quo ante, with the edit summary "we're an encyclopedia,right? Take it to talk" [41]
  • You did not start a talk page discussion as requested.
  • While I was writing and posting the first post in this thread [42], you reverted again, with the rather non-sensical edit summary "Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and "gay" is now the preferred term. Two editors prefer "gay" versus only you preferring "homosexual"; you should not be reverting under such circumstances" [43] I assume you were counting yourself and Ctriona as the "two editors", but you must be aware that that is not how a consensus is determined, it's determined by discussion on the talk page, and at the point you posted it, I was still writing the first comment to start that discussion. You had already had an opportunity to start the discussion, but chose not to, and chose to revert instead.
  • I reverted, with the edit summary "I asked you to take it to talk, where I have started a discussion. The article stays in the status quo ante during discussion - you know that" [44]. You've been here long enough to know that per BRD, the article stays in the status quo ante while a consensus discussion is going on.
  • You reverted again, with the edit summary "Two editors supporting the other version means you should not be reverting under such circumstances. Your views do not override those of multiple other editors" [45] This, too, is non-sensical, as the consensus discussion was just getting started, and I had every right to restore the status quo ante, while you had no right to restore to your preferred version
  • I am - of course -- prepared to go with whatever consensus says. In this consensus discussion, at this moment, 2 editors in this discussion have opted for "gay" (yourself and The Four Deuces) and two editors have opted for "homosexual" (myself and K. e. coffman) Therefore, there is currently not a consensus. Even if you count Cartiona, that's one 3 against 2, hardly a clear consensus for a discussion which has just begun.
  • Per WP:BRD, the article should be in its original state. Would you please self-revert to the version which has been in effect for 5 years? Once this discussion is over, and the editors participating have come to some clear consensus, the article can be changed to relfect that consensus. In the meantime, it's the Wikipedia norm that the article stay the way it was until the dispute is settled.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Concerning the meat of the discussion, could you please provide citations to neutral reliable sources which indicate that either (1) "Homosexual" is discouraged, or (2) that "Gay" is preferred, a statement you've made twice now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I made the change because "anti-gay" seems like the more common and natural expression, whereas "anti-homosexual" sounds stilted. This is supported by Google search, with over 12 million results for "anti-gay" and only 286,000 for "anti-homosexual" (almost two orders of magnitude). "Anti-lesbian" hasn't caught on either, and "anti-gay" is frequently used for homophobia in general. Furthermore, the skinheads are opposed to gay men, but it's not clear that they're opposed to lesbians, or how virulently so. The reasons stated by FKC also make a case for a change. But mostly I am puzzled why the choice between two semantically equivalent words has been allowed to blow up into an extensive discussion, when there are more important issues with this article. Catrìona (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm afraid your comments above look like a wall of text, a waterfall of verbiage that other editors might not be very inclined to read. We do have WP:TLDR for a reason, you know. Please do at least try to summarize your points more simply. I think the only point that is actually important is that there are presently three editors who prefer "gay" versus two who prefer "homosexual". It is not clear to me why you would expect me to self-revert under such circumstances. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, you replied to my post, "can we please have some cites for that before it get repeated as fact." You missed the link I provided to "NYT Trend Story: The Word 'Homosexual' Is Offensive"]. Language usage changes and in the past few decades there has been a trend of replacing terms that are considered sexist, racist, Euro-centric etc. TFD (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
FWIW here's another NYT story on the matter. I do think "anti-gay" is better wording. BMK seems to be correct that "anti-homosexual" was the "stable" wording, and so perhaps replacing it (after the first revert) should have wanted until consensus developed here — or perhaps removing loaded language, especially when multiple editors did it, is justifiable under WP:NPOV. In any case, it would have been helpful if the original editor had explained the change ("clarification" is not really an explanation since the denotation of the terms is basically the same), but given what has been said above, further editing to put "homosexual" back in is probably unwise. -sche (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Material needed by the lead

I believe that the lead requires additional material as noted. It needs to note that neo-Nazism is on the far-right of the political spectrum, something it currently does not note explicitly. It needs to note of neo-Nazis that "They are chronologically separated from the original Nazism of the German Nazi Party". It needs to note explicitly that neo-Nazis are opposed to democracy and to provide added context to explain the history of neo-Nazism. The lead needs to note which particular version of racism it is that neo-Nazis believe in, in particular that they are biological racists and believe that the Nordic race is inherently superior. The lead needs to explain clearly what anti-semitism and Holocaust denial are, it needs to note that neo-Nazis are interested in conspiracy theories, and it needs to note that escaped Nazis, such as some of those who escaped to Latin America, helped influence neo-Nazism. It needs to note the involvement of neo-Nazis in electoral politics, and their involvement with the skinhead movement. I suggest that some of the text visible in this version of the lead should be restored to help explain all these matters. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I've converted your thoughts into bullet points so that they can be more easily considered. I've also added some comments.
  • It needs to note that neo-Nazism is on the far-right of the political spectrum, something it currently does not note explicitly.
  • BMK: That seems like a reasonable and easily implemented suggestion.
  • It needs to note of neo-Nazis that "They are chronologically separated from the original Nazism of the German Nazi Party".
  • BMK: I think that saying "post-World War II" in the article is adequate
  • It needs to note explicitly that neo-Nazis are opposed to democracy and to provide added context to explain the history of neo-Nazism.
  • BMK: Problem is, there really is no coherent "history of neo-Nazism", because its history is the combination of the history of all the small fringe groups that pop up and disappear. There certainly seems to be a disproportionate amount of neo-Nazism around now, but I'm not sure (and I don't see evidence either way) that this is not simply the effect of the increased attention they're receiving. In my youth it was the American Nazi Party and the John Birch Society (not exactly neo-Nazi, but close) that got everyone's attention. Maybe a "family tree" kind of thing would be useful, of which groups came from what earlier groups and who influenced whom, but it would have to be very careful to avoid OR and would have to be cited out the wazoo. In any case, that would have to go into the body of the article before it could be summarized in the lede.
  • The lead needs to note which particular version of racism it is that neo-Nazis believe in, in particular that they are biological racists and believe that the Nordic race is inherently superior.
  • BMK: I would agree that beefing up their identification as white supremacists would be a worthwhile change to the lede.
  • The lead needs to explain clearly what anti-semitism and Holocaust denial are, it needs to note that neo-Nazis are interested in conspiracy theories
  • BMK: It wouldn't hurt to briefly clarify anti-Semitism and Holocause denial in the lede, but I don;t think that the average reader really needs much more than the words" the concepts are fairly well known. As for conspiracy theories, well, all too many people -- on the right and on the left -- believe in conspiracy theories, more's the pity. It's not really a defining feature of neo-Nazism; in fact political conspiracies are more and more a part of the right considered as a whole.
  • it needs to note that escaped Nazis, such as some of those who escaped to Latin America, helped influence neo-Nazism.
  • BMK: You're going to have to present evidence of this, because I've never heard that this was the case. I would, in fact, doubt very much that it is true.
  • It needs to note the involvement of neo-Nazis in electoral politics, and their involvement with the skinhead movement.
  • BMK: Despite how distressing it is that even one neo-Nazi is considered to be a legitimate electoral candidate, the involvement of neo-Nazis in electoral politics is extremely minimal in the US. Elsewhere, extreme-right parties have been careful to position themselves slightly outside of strict neo-Nazism, and present themselves as populists. That muddies things up and makes it difficult to make sweeping generalizations about electroal politics in the lede. Still, this is an area that should be probably be discussed.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, I welcome the fact that you have decided that some of material from Midnightblueowl's version of the lead might be appropriate after all. You appear to be suggesting that some of her added material might have been original research. It would have been helpful if that could have been stated explicitly, as it would have made the reversion of her version of the lead seem less unreasonable. It would also have been helpful if it could have been shown, rather than just asserted, that her additions involved original research. If Midnightblueowl were asked, she might very well be able to indicate which sources support the material she added, but I am unsure that she is still interested. There appears to be a climate at this article that tends to drive away editors interested in improving the article in any substantial sense, and that is unfortunate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll state again that it's a mistake to assume that readers of the article necessarily know what anti-semitism and Holocaust denial are. Remember that some readers of Wikipedia will be quite new to the subjects discussed in articles, and that some readers will be children. An explanation of what these things are does not have to be specially long, but some explanation definitely is needed. I also believe that conspiracy theories are much more central to neo-Nazism than they are to the beliefs of "all too many people -- on the right and on the left", so material about neo-Nazi advocacy of them would be entirely appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: "have decided", they never said otherwise. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be more helpful if you could say how you think the lead should be improved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would stop taking veiled swipes at people. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Beyond My Ken, I do not think that this edit, which changed "seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism" to "seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism" is reasonable. I think that it is unnecessary, bad writing, and confused. A reader of normal intelligence can be expected to understand that if someone thinks an ideology should be revived, then they also think that the ideology should be acted upon. Actually reviving an ideology by definition means taking action based on that ideology. The editor who added "and implement" perhaps assumed that reviving an ideology does not necessarily involve acting upon it. The assumption is incorrect; reviving an ideology by definition involves acting upon it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's hypothesize for a moment that the Nazi ideology had existed (as a whole, not simply in parts) before Hitler and the NSDAP. Then, when Hitler came along, and made the ideology acceptable and attracted large numbers of voters, it would have been "revived" -- but it would not have been actually "implemented" until the Nazis came to power.
Right now, although there are quite a few neo-Nazi groups (much too many, in fact), it cannot be said that the Nazi ideology has been "revived", because it is, in fact, reviled by the vast majority of people. If (and let us all hope this never happens), Nazism begins to be accepted by large numbers of people, it can then be said that Nazism has been "revived" as an ideology, but until neo-Nazis actually take over a government, by force or by democratic means, and actually run a country, it cannot be said to have been "implemented". That is the difference, and that is why the addition of "implemented" by another editor was a reasonable one. It is not sufficient for the neo-Nazis that Nazism be widely accepted, they want it to be put into effect as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. While discussion in ongoing, the article stays as it was. Do not assume that your argument was definitive by reverting again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The existence of a distinction between reviving an ideology and "implementing" it is not important. Anyone can assume that if someone advocates "reviving" an ideology, that this means that they want governments to take action based upon it and thereby "implement" it. That was my original point. Why would anyone assume that someone would advocate "reviving" an ideology but not taking action based on it? Besides that, I also have to note that "and implement" is awkward and incorrect language. The word "implement" has several meanings, the most relevant of which seems to be to "put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect". An ideology is not comparable to a decision, plan, or agreement; no source that used correct and formal language would say that an ideology is "implemented" like an agreement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion -- and I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of other editors -- there is absolutely no ambiguity in the phrase "to revive and implement", as no other definition of "implement" fits it. Further, an ideology is indeed very similar to a decision, a plan or an agreement -- what is an ideology if not beliefs that have agreed upon between people, a common decision amongst a group, or a plan of action? As for formality - if anything, the phrase is just a tad too formal. It could be replaced with the phrase "to revive and put into effect". If you have another suggestion -- aside from removing "and implement" entirely, I mean -- I'd be pleased to hear it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not suggest that the phrase "to revive and implement" is ambiguous. Rather, the problem with it is that the inclusion of "and implement" is unnecessary and poor writing, as well as a confused and incorrect use of language. I am holding open in front of me the 12th edition of The Chambers Dictionary. It gives several different meanings for "implement", the most pertinent one being, "to give effect to, to carry out; to fulfill, complete or perform." It does not make sense to speak of performing an ideology, and while it might possibly make sense to speak of completing an ideology, that is not what "implement" was intended to mean in this case. An ideology is of course totally dissimilar to an agreement because in the nature of things not everyone is going to agree with any given ideology, and because there are always disagreements even among people who share the same basic ideology, and for other reasons as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Since you admit that "to revive and implement" is unambiguous in its meaning, then it is not poor writing, in that it expresses what it means to convey, and whether there is another definition of "implement" is irrelevant, since the phrase is, in your words "not ambiguous." Therefore, this complaint really comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not sufficient grounds for a change without a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that because something is unambiguous, that therefore it is good writing? Or that "unambiguous" means "expresses what it means to convey"? The problem is not that there are multiple definitions of "implement", the problem is that if you consider properly the meaning of the word "implement", you can see that it is not the correct word to use here. A properly written, professional encyclopedia would never refer to "implementing" an ideology because that is not how one writes. Insisting on proper use of the English language is not what WP:IDONTLIKEIT was meant to prevent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's "good writing" and then there's "good writing", it all depends on the context. We are an encyclopedia, and the purpose of our writing should be to convey information clearly and unambiguously. If -- as you admit above -- the phrase "to revive and implement" is "not ambiguous" -- meaning that no other interpretation of it is conceivable, no matter how many definitions of "implement" there may exist in a dictionary -- then it properly conveys the information it intends to convey. Therefore, in the context of an encyclopedia, it is "good writing." It's certainly not going to win any literary prizes, but that's not its purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Until you come up with an alternate phrase or word to consider, or at least an alternate argument against "and implement", I think my participation in this discussion is at an end, since it's become quite repetitive, and it's already moving into WP:LAME territory. If you come up with something new, or other editors chime in (I rather think they've stayed away because it's all rather silly), I may comment again. Mind you, that doesn't mean that you can change the article, since there is still no consensus for the removal of "and implement". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is trying to be taken seriously as an accurate, reliable reference work. That means that it should use strictly accurate and formal language. Your assumption that because a phrase is unambiguous that it "properly conveys the information it intends to convey" is incorrect. A statement can be entirely unambiguous but still be incorrect or poorly written if it uses language incorrectly. It is incorrect to speak of "implementing" an ideology. I note your failure to respond to the point that the addition of "and implement" was entirely unnecessary. Should I assume that this is because no reasonable response is possible? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, if you want an example of a correct use of the word "implement", an example would be, "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism, gain power, and implement policies based on their ideology." That would be a possible wording for the lead - except that the part about neo-Nazis wanting to gain power and implement policies based on their ideology is 100% unnecessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I understand the nuance in adding implement, but the source used for this sentence (almost exactly, at the beginning of #Definition) does not include another word, only revive. If we're to argue that the source's use of only that word is not sufficient, where does the body support the inclusion of a more specific word/phrase to convey "and act upon" or similar? Another source attached to the sentence uses the word propagate ("the attempt to propagate"), which is slightly different from revive—perhaps to spread or increase vs. to renew, respectively—but doesn't really change the sentence's overall meaning. I think meanings of revive fit the sentence, e.g. "to restore to consciousness or life" or "to restore from a depressed, inactive, or unused state : bring back" (M-W). It would make more sense to keep the lead sentence as concise as possible to give the reader the picture and prevent them from becoming discouraged, and then splitting the sources at the beginning of #Definition into separate sentences to describe the ways, in their subtle forms, that Neo-Nazism is being revived, propagated, completed/realized/implemented, etc. Whether or not "put into action" is implied when an ideology is "revived", I'd be interested in seeing a source that has a short definition of the term and uses something to mean "put into action". Rhinopias (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for a reasonable and concise third opinion. It was and remains my view that taking actions based on an ideology is indeed part of the meaning of reviving that ideology. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead too short

The lead fail to "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." WP:LEAD There is a lot that has no mention, especially about the history and the contemporary issues. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator could you explain why is pointless? Rupert Loup (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Certainly. If the lead is too short and some material is missing that should be present, then simply add that material. The template accomplishes nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The purposes of templates "are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made". WP:TC If I could do those changes I'll do it my self, but I doubt that I can do that, english is not my first language and the result may be poor. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The template simply puts onto other people what you -- if you think the lead is too short -- should do yourself. The vast majority of clean-up tags are useless in the same way: just fix it, don't tag it.
And if someone removes your tag, it means they disagree with it, and it is therefore disputed. Dispited edits are discussed on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

CRO; Penal code amendments

I'm not sure if this section should be included in the article because I think that it was added to imply Neo-Nazism in regards to the Constitutional Court's practice prior to my explanation on why the Court actually annulled those amendments (which is merely due to procedural breaches and not because the Court was against their content as implied before; And by the way, that verdict is significant for the whole Croatian legal system because the Court set out its position on what the organic law is, thus defining it, because it wasn't defined by the Constitution). What's your opinion? United Union (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"In 2003, a group of 56 Croatian MP's voted in favor of amendments to the Croatian penal code which contained provisions prohibiting the public display of Nazi symbols, the propagation of Nazi ideology, historical revisionism and holocaust denial. Later that year, Constitutional Court of Croatia annulled the amendments since they were not enacted based on the constitutionally prescribed procedure requiring the majority of 76 out of 151 MP's. The Court didn't question the amendments' content but merely legislative procedure true which they were enacted since the Court is authorized only for that. Nevertheless, an amendment was added in 2006 by which any type of hate crime based on factors such as race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religion or national origin was explicitly prohibited."

Criticism section

The article includes a "criticism" section mentioning some comments two people made about Neo-Nazism. I am sure that section was well-intentioned, however, in my view, it does not serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and should be removed. There are many things wrong with it. The fundamental problem is that it is not appropriate to include "criticism" of an extreme political ideology that obviously has no mainstream acceptability or credibility, as though that ideology were something that needed to be debunked or discredited by Wikipedia. Mentioning "criticism" of Neo-Nazism implies that the ideology might be considered credible in the absence of criticism of it, and that is not something Wikipedia should be doing. In the absence of anything whatever that might suggest that Neo-Nazism is an acceptable mainstream view, it is counter-productive to Wikipedia's credibility to include a section arguing against it. Instead of including "criticism" of Neo-Nazism, as though it were an arguable view that required some counter-argument to disprove it, the article should simply note that it is not a mainstream position, that it is illegal in some countries, and so on. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's absolutely no need for a "criticism" section. It would be somewhat like the articles on murder or rape having a "Criticism" section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Just want to add my voice to this, I agree with the change. NZFC(talk) 04:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neo-Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Greater Russia" propaganda and the Ukraine

I think we need to be very careful in the Ukraine section to avoid falling into Russian state propaganda. There is no doubt that Svoboda, Right Sector and the Azov Battalion are very much on the far-right of politics, however, categorising these groups unambiguously as neo-Nazi is highly questionable. These groups look back to Stepan Bandera and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as their inspiration, who was at times pro-Axis and at times anti-Axis. This isn't like the Golden Dawn scenario where the leaders have all been photographed in Nazi uniforms, promoting Hitler in their literature or have Nazi tattoos. In the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine in general (including Banderaites), the former are very cleverly, in a slight-of-hand Byzantine way, trying to portray the Euromaidan/Ukrainian position as "Nazism" in general as a justification for invading territories. The reality is far more nuanced than that. Especially since the Russian side in Donetsk, etc, are backed up by Duginites, Russian National Unity elements, who have a far better claim to the title neo-Nazi. IMO we should neither be pushing Russian or NATO propaganda but remain objective. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The article said Svoboda (aka the "Social-National Party of Ukraine") "combined radical nationalism and neo-Nazi features. The party adopted Nazi symbols, although it is trying to distance itself from its neo-Nazi past, according to non-Russian propaganda reliable sources.[46] The article never said that the Right Sector was neo-Nazi. It is a coalition that includes among other groups Svoboda. TFD (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The only source used for that claim is a self-published article by Ivan Katchanovski, who in the article expresses his own personal opinions about one of the symbols they used (which is itself disputed by Svoboda).
Katchanovski's wider coverage of the Euromaidan is also highly controversial. For example he has posited a conspiracy theory that the Snipers' massacre where numerous Ukrainians civilians were killed was a hoax or false flag used to oust President Yanukovych (to which Ukrainians have taken slight offense). He obviously has a dog (or rather a bear) in this particular fight, so we would need some better sources demonstrating their neo-Nazism.
It is not that the original Nazism and Banderism are a thousand miles apart ideologically, they are obviously part of the ultra-nationalist milieu, but it is big fish to try and attach the specific label "Nazi" itself to these Ukrainian groups in Russian propaganda, for obvious reasons. So we need to be careful to be accurate. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of the information comes from a variety of "Western" reliable sources (see diff). Per WP:RS policy: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.
Ukraine: Svoboda Party Building Close Relations with Germany's Neo-Nazi NPD Party. International Business Times. March 19, 2014.
Svoboda Fuels Ukraine’s Growing Anti-Semitism. Algemeiner Journal. 24 May 2013.
Gay rights march in Ukraine sparks homophobic violence. News.com.au. 7 June 2015.
Protesters with neo-Nazi symbols – SS-Volunteer Division "Galicia" and Patriot of Ukraine flags
Local Jews in shock after Ukrainian city of Konotop elects neo-Nazi mayor. The Jerusalem Post. 21 December 2015.
Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists. The Daily Telegraph. 11 August 2014
Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden. BBC News. 16 July 2014
Ukraine's Neo-Nazis Won't Get U.S. Money. Bloomberg. 12 June 2015
Congress Has Removed a Ban on Funding Neo-Nazis From Its Year-End Spending Bill. The Nation. January 14, 2016.
US lifts ban on funding 'neo-Nazi' Ukrainian militia. The Jerusalem Post. 18 January 2016.
How the far-right took top posts in Ukraine's power vacuum. Channel 4. 5 March 2014.
Azov fighters are Ukraine's greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat. The Guardian. 10 September 2014.
Ukraine's revolution and the far right. BBC News. 7 March 2014.
Ukraine city to hold festival in honor of Nazi collaborator. The Jerusalem Post. 28 June 2017.
Ukrainian parliament recognizes militia that collaborated with Nazis". The Jerusalem Post. 13 April 2015
Ukrainian Government's Neo-Nazi Links. Telesur. 25 August 2014.
Is the US backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine?. Salon. 25 February 2014. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems Claíomh Solais is adding text without sources at all and with refs to his own opinion. Is it only my speculation that such edis are disruptive? Cathry (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been some improvements, but still a lot of problematic interpretations in this section, which gives it a bit of a Greater Russian patriot stench and it needs to include mention of pro-Russian neo-Nazis in the Donbass and rest of the East on the other side. A lot of this is very tendentious and strays into taking sides on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I'll just give two examples for now;

Our article claims: "The Svoboda party mayor in Konotop reportedly has the number "14/88" displayed"

The Jerusalem Post article we cite says, "According to reports, Semenikhin drives around in a car bearing the number 14/88."

What reports these are the Jerusalem Post does not say, making this complete hearsay and since we are using this as supposed evidence to portray the Ukrainians as Hitler-loving neo-Nazis, we would need some better evidence for this claim than mere anonymous rumor.

Our article claims: "has implied that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor."

JP reference says:

"However, while the mayor attempts to make sure his statements never cross over into outright anti-Semitism, many things he says can be interpreted in such a way, he continued. As an example, he referred to a recent statement by Semenikhin in which the mayor refused to apologize for anti-Jewish actions taken by far-right nationalists in World War II, intimating that it was because those responsible for the Holodomor famine of the 1930s were largely Jewish."

So, the Jerusalem Post actually claims that Semnikhin does not make anti-semitic statements, but has stated the people involved in the "Holomodor" were largely Jewish, not that "the Jews were responsible". We would need to see a direct quote as evidence for this, since in common practice, Jews come in third in the traditional Banderite list of hostilities, behind Russians and Poles. The usual Banderite line on "the Holomodor" is that it was a Muscovite-Russian imperialist attempt to wipe out Ukrainian culture and nationalism. The anti-Jewish angle is secondary. Anti-semitic aspersions isn't necessarily evidence that they are neo-Nazis, the Poles and others in the region aren't particularly friendly with Jews either, yet that doesn't mean they want to revive Hitlerism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Head of Israel-Ukraine association surprised at agreement signed by Ukrainian opposition and Svoboda". Ukraine General Newswire-Interfax News Agency. 23 October 2012. — The head of the Israel-Ukraine inter-parliamentary association, Israel is Our Home Party MP Alex Miller, has said he does not understand why the Ukrainian opposition signed a coalition agreement with an "anti-Semitic" party - the Svoboda All-Ukrainian Union… According to the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, Svoboda is a fascist party, and its full name - the Social-National Party of Ukraine - was chosen in association with the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP).
Weinthal, Benjamin (28 December 2012). "Wiesenthal ranks top 10 anti-Semites, Israel-bashers. Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Egypt catapults two religious figures into No. 1 spot". Jerusalem Post. — The Wiesenthal Center also cited Oleh Tyahnybok (No. 5) from the fascist Ukrainian Svoboda party. He urged purges of the approximately 400,000 Jews and other minorities living in the Ukraine and has demanded that the country be liberated from the "Muscovite Jewish Mafia." Ukrainian MP Igor Miroshnichenko was cited for anti-Jewish remarks as well: He called Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis a "zhydovka" (dirty Jewess).
Likhachev, Viacheslav (September–October 2013). "Right-Wing Extremism on the Rise in Ukraine". Russian Politics and Law. 51 (5). — In their propaganda, SNPU ideologues were more open, describing the confrontation with "Muscovite influence" as racial. SNPU publications proudly called the Ukrainian nation the "root of the white race." Ukraine was viewed as an "outpost of European civilization" and Russia as an "Asiatic horde." Ukraine—according to Andriy Parubiy, one of the SNPU leaders (who later joined Our Ukraine)—must "confront the aggressiveness of the pernicious ideas of the Asiatic world, today embodied in Russia.
Shekhovtsov, Anton (2013). "17: From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda.". Right Wing Populism in Europe. Routledge. pp. 251–2. — The Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA), KUN and Svoboda are also Russophobic and anti-semitic. Moreover, 'white racism' is overtly or covertly inherent in the doctrines of the UNA, Svoboda and All-Ukrainian Party'New Force' (Nova Syla), and most evidently manifests itself through the parties' anti-immigrant positions.!
Stern, David (13 December 2013). "What Europe Means to Ukraine's Protesters". The Atlantic. — But Svoboda's positions are somewhat at odds with the EU's ideals of tolerance and multiculturalism, to put it mildly: It is a driving force behind Ukraine's anti-gay rights movement; the party's platform supports distributing government positions to various ethnicities according to their percentage makeup of the population; and, despite recent claims to the contrary, it remains, at least among its leadership, a deeply anti-Semitic organization (one deputy in parliament has described the Holocaust as a "bright period" for Europe.) -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive_1&oldid=1090572257"