Talk:List of neo-Nazi organizations

Proposed merge with List of white nationalist organizations

It looks like this merge proposal is DOA - it's been up since April of 2011, there's no discussion, and a merge link isn't present on List of white nationalist organizations. I'm removing it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Putting Hadash Under National Socialist Party of Israel is a joke and an insult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.131.2 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hadash is not a Nazi organization

Some one was joking so he/she put Hadash which is an Arab Jewish peace organization under the link "national socialist party of Israel", meaning that because they sometimes stand by the Arab minority they are Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.131.2 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

The article Azov Regiment used to describe the unit as Neo-Nazi, but does not do so anymore. It does describe the label as disputed. I think the Azov Battalion (as it is linked here) should be removed from this list, but since it is a contentious question I would welcome some input from other editors. Sjö (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. A well attended, well researched RfC on the battalion's page recently removed the terms "is neo-Nazi" from its lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Would also remove Social-National Party of Ukraine: far right but not neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Other WP lists such as List of genocides list WP:CONTENTIOUS entries, so this being the case for Azov isn't reason enough to exclude it from this list. Readers can judge for themselves what manner of organization Azov is. We could maybe add it with a note that some scholars disagree with the notion that Azov is neo-Nazi. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a good argument, so if there is contested content on the list of genocides that is no reason to add it here. Instead we should consider WPNPOV. Please see the section Borderline examples for my argument, which I will not repeat here. Sjö (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

True, a better argument could be made, for example that Western media agreed that Azov was neo-Nazi prior to the present war and that it beggars belief that the battalion and the movement as a whole should have changed character in less than one year's time. But above that I'd like WP to be coherent on this. But this Talk page is perhaps not the best place to discuss this issue in full.. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want readers to judge for themselves, it seems strange to put Azov on a list of neo-Nazi organizations, effectively telling them that they are exactly that. Lists are meant for concrete examples. TylerBurden (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to say I support TylerBurden and Sjo position and this is clearly the current consensus. The essay WP:LISTV is useful reading here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to WP:LISTV since it clarifies how lists should be formulated, and even which lists should be removed or at the very least renamed. I will defer to the consensus in here until the situation changes considerably. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I will be re-instating both Azov Regiment and National Socialist group to the ukrainian list of Neonazi groups. Removal of these groups from the list is an act of academic dishonesty and political bias. obfuscation of well documented facts relating to both Social-Nationalist party of Ukraine led by Oleh Tyahnybok, Then known as svoboda party, and then known as the Azov Battalion for the purpose of Political support for them, is not academically fair. Azov Regiment formally displayed and still displays a wolfsangel as their logo, as well as the black sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.38.5.55 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop making accusations when it seems to be you who is engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as said in the edit summary where you were reverted the articles you added are not neo-nazi organizations, what they do have in common though is that they are all Ukrainian, a country being falsely accused of being ruled by neo nazis by propagandists to justify invading it. Wikipedia is not a tool for Russian propaganda. TylerBurden (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Borderline examples

Some fascist and far right groups are listed here which look from their articles like they might not be neo-Nazi. Thoughts?

• Danish Front
• British National Party
• National Alliance (Netherlands)
• Patriot Front (Argentina)
• Ukrainian National Union (political party)
• Australian Defence League
• True Blue Crew

Possibly make sure any deleted are included in the less narrow list List of fascist movements by country? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked the Danish and Swedish articles and talk pages for the Danish Front and they do not describe it as neo-Nazi. Sjö (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that there many borderline examples and that the list could use a bit of pruning. But we should discuss inclusion criteria. Is an organization to be included if the preponderance of reliable sources call it neo-Nazi or is it enough that they have once been called neo-Nazi by someone, or is it somewhere inbetween? Sjö (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls it neo-Nazi, it should be included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It would go against WP:NPOV to include an organization here if there is only one or a few RS that has called it neo-Nazi. List articles are subject to the same core content policies as other articles, and including something here means that we say in Wikipedia's voice that this or that organization is neo-Nazi. WP:NPOV expressly says that we should not present seriously contested assertions as facts, and that viewpoints should be given weight in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. In a list article, such as this one, there are only the alternatives inclusion or no inclusion. This means that including organization X here is taking the position that the majority of RS take the position that X is neo-Nazi. For this reason, I think that the inclusion standard should be that the article should be that the article says that "X is a neo-Nazi group" or words to that effect. That means that the discussions about what to call an organization will take place on that article's talk page.

There is also something else to consider. Some -isms, like neo-Nazism, Islamism, fascism or socialism are commonly used as name-calling against groups that someone dislikes. I recently removed the Republican Party from this list, I have removed "marxism-leninism" half a dozen times from the article about the Swedish Social Democrats and Democratic Party have been called socialist more times than I can count. Thing is, I can probably find reliable sources that support that someone has used that particular "-ism" about those organizations, which means that the mere mention of someone calling organization X neo-Nazi should not be enough to include it in this list.

It looks to me like editors sometimes add organizations to this list either because they dislike them, or because they genuinely believe that the organizations are neo-Nazi, but the editors don't check the articles to see if the claim of neo-Nazism is supported there. In at least some of the articles here, there is no mention that the organization is neo-Nazi, for example Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People's Self-Defence where the word "Nazi" is not even mentioned in the article. Sjö (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I did some more checking (not completed) and the articles about Parti Communautaire National-Européen, Parti Communautaire Européen, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People's Self-Defence and National Corps do not say anything about the organizations being called neo-Nazi. Regarding the Ukrainian organizations, part of the Russian narrative in the Russo-Ukrainian War is labelling those that oppose them as Nazists, and I think that we should be very careful so Wikipedia does not contribute to state-sponsored disinformation.Sjö (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Above, I gave my policy-based view on the inclusion criteria. Based on Wikipedia policy, we should probably remove some of the organizations in this list as improperly cited. Sjö (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

My view on inclusion criteria might be: a preponderance of RSs have defined it as "neo-Nazi" specifically (which is a subset of "fascist" not a synonym for it). For inclusion here, this should be clear from the entry's own WP article first, to avoid requiring multiple citations on this list. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Per this criteria, UNU, True Blue Crew and Australian Def League definitely should not be listed; Danish Front should not currently be included; National Alliance and Patriot Front probably shouldn't be; but BNP probably should be. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove the first four now as there seems to be broad consensus. I'll leave the others for the moment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Links to Orgs: Patrol 36 incorrect

It is linking to the same article as the organization above it, and should be replaced with it's unique link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_36 Wikiuser206 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)