Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austria

"The Freedom Party's current leader, Barbara Rosenkranz, running in the Austrian presidential election, is controversial for having made allegedly pro-Nazi statements."

Barbara Rosenkranz is definitely not the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party - that's Heinz Christian Strache. So please change the sentence to "Barbara Rosenkranz, a member of the Freedom Party, running......" or something like that. --Balestrano (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

British National Party's inclusion as a neo-nazi party

I believe a serious error has been made in the inclusion of the British National Party as a neo-nazi party. The BNP which existed between 1960-1967 was openly Nazi, however the current BNP to which the link takes you to is a completely different party, in organisation & ideology. If there is further dispute, I would invite people to check the BNP policies, which I imagine will be attainable on their wesite, www.bnp.org.uk, which I believe show the party as being far from nazi.

The BNP's policies don't seem to contain the word "Nazi" at all, either in support or opposition. However, I think your point is justified, with respect to the present-day BNP. After all, it is on record against anti-semitism, which is hardly a neo-Nazi stance. I will remove it from the list. --Unconventional (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, the inclusion of BNP leader Nick Griffin as being involved in neo-nazi activity is surely an error? 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.102.236 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Here I must differ with you. Although there is evidence Griffin has lately repudiated his earlier beliefs, the article includes him in a list of "Individuals who have been involved in post-war Nazi and neo-Nazi activity". Note have been, not are involved. At most, a {{fact}} tag would be needed here. --Unconventional (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"the article includes him in a list of "Individuals who have been involved in post-war Nazi and neo-Nazi activity" Precisely, after all this is also the rationale for David Duke to be involved in this article as well. --Spitzer19 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm re-adding them as they had neo-nazi policies until recently (anti-semitism etc) and are still very nationalist but also have some socialist views. Computerjoe's talk 17:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not logical. Anti-semitism is not neo-nazism! The BNP may be nationalist (it is), it may be socialist (probably too), that makes it national-socialist, not nazi or neo-nazi.

Nationalism isn't like communism, it is not international - quite the reverse. A national-socialist in Britain is hardly likely to support a national-socialist in Germany. He or she is even less likely to support neo-nazism in Germany or elsewhere. Don't confuse support for nationalist policies with nazism. They are quite different. It is almost like confusing green politics with socialism. They may appeal to similar groups, but are not the same.124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Germany - integration

A number of articles describe the same facts, see Far right in Germany, Strafgesetzbuch § 86a. The articles should be integrated.Xx236 (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, no.
  • Strafgesetzbuch § 86a deals with a particular part of the German criminal code.
  • Far right in Germany deals with, well, the far right part of the political spectrum in Germany.
  • Neo-Nazism, i.e. this article, deals with a particular part of the far-right spectrum, not restricted to any one county.
While the topics are vaguely related, there is no particular reason to merge these. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not being precise. The article Far right in Germany discusses only neo-nazis, so it should be rewritten according to the German one. But the current content of the article and Germany paragraph of Neo-Nazism describe the same subjects.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Xx236 is right. The article Far right in Germany should be removed and given sub headding in this article. I think... Check it out I guess :S .indigochild777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

Section Serbia

Serbian Chetniks are considered nazie group in almost all other countries except Serbia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.220.70 (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Three of six references are un-accessible. Find the new ones or remove the text previously supported by these (defunct links) references.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The cure for Dead Links is *not* to remove material that was properly sourced when it was added, but rather to attempt to find better sources. See WP:CITE#Dead_links Rifter0x0000 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No evidence that it was ever properly sourced.--68.100.93.247 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany's Federal Minister of the Interior: Schäuble, not Schroeber

There's a mistake in paragraph 6.2 (Germany>Legal Issues) of this article.

The name of Germany's current Minister of the Interior is Wolfgang Schäuble, not Wolfgang Schroeber, as stated in the article.
See, e.g., the website of the Ministry of the Interior (BMI): http://www.en.bmi.bund.de/cln_012/nn_148176/Internet/Navigation/EN/AboutUs/Organization/organization__node.html__nnn=true 217.232.67.187 (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Lars T. (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Peru

Peru Movimiento NacionalSocialista Despierta Peru http://www.unsperu.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.148.138 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

why is this article closed?

common open it, whatever happened to anybody can edit.Talk to Magibon 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Some topics attract excessive vandalism. This article is under "semi-protection" which means that anyone can edit it after they've had a registered account for several days and have made some other edits, IIRC. Or, if it's something urgent you can describe the intended edit here and one of the regular editors can make it for you.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

removed a claim that has failed verificaton

I've removed the claim that Aaviksoo attended the event "accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols". This is factually incorrect, Aaviksoo never attended, nor were there any youths "dressed in Nazi symbols", let alone "crowds", as this news clip from that time shows. Martintg (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this video would disprove anything the other reliable source says. It's like saying "in the World War II, German's did not shoot anyone", and then presenting a video where they are not shooting as a proof. You need a source which explicitly denies what the other source says, not WP:OR based on some video. Offliner (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
When there is a [citation needed] tag, it means it is unsourced and can be removed at any time. The video show that Aviksoo never attended nor "crowds of youths dressed in Nazi symbols" either. --Martintg (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the other sourced paragraph, which you also removed without explanation. How does the video show that Aviksoo never attended? It is only a short clip, and it's unclear when at where it was filmed, and if it indeed is from the same event. Also, some people indeed seem to be carrying nazi symbols on that video. Offliner (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a BLP violation to continue to insert material regarding Aviksoo, as the source is contentious. See WP:GRAPEVINE --Martintg (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Some text improvements

Simplified the first sentence - do not see any 'ideologies' ever mentioned in the references.

The Serbia section text is referenced by broken links. Accordingly I've removed all text 'referenced' this way.--Historian35 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, the cure for Dead Links is *not* to remove material that was properly sourced when it was added, but rather to attempt to find better sources. See WP:CITE#Dead_links Rifter0x0000 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

'Discussion'

The existing definition of Neo-Nazism

"The term neo-Nazism refers to post-World War II social or political movements or idologies seeking to revive Nazism, or some variant that echoes core aspects of Nazism such as racial or ethnic nationalism or Völkisch integralism."

heavily suffers from inaccuracy and ignorance. The references as given are not supporting the 'ideologies' notion at all. If it makes sense to talk about ideologies, then two of the 'ideologies' shall be fully named, explained, and referenced - at least. Behind the Neo-Nazism is the Nazism exclusively - I do not see any other 'ideologies' in any available and serious reference. The 'Völkisch integralism' is a nonsense: the first word is linked to the 'Völkisch movement' which - if mentioned - bears no more weight than any American white supremacist group or the Russian Neo-Nazis. The second one (integralism) - is a generic term - which, together with Völkisch - and as given in a Wikipedia article - means nothing specific nor elaborated.

Initially, I was not aware of the 'discussion' I've found now in the Archive 2 of this talk page. Looks like that the two people, who were pushing idea about 'ideologies' do think that counting a great number of references (where many of them are even not linked to this subject) and quoting some of them meaninglessly - is a way of demonstrating their knowledge and (non-existent) expertise. At the same time - these two were blindly rejecting anything coming from other people - if it is against their point of view.

The Wikipedia owners must start re-viewing two nonsenses existing now inside the editorial rules: no editorial board and unconditional right to edit articles given to all. This way ignorance and un-ethical behavior are un-restrained and seriously harming this on-line edition credibility, accuracy, and integrity.--Historian35 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There was extensive debate about the lead, and consensus was reached. Major changes to the lead have to get consensus.

Note: the two main opponents of the consensus version of the lead were banned from Wikipedia.

Here is a link to a mediation page about the lead.

BFP

Hello, I just want to point out that the 'British Nazi Party' stated in the UK section is really called the British First Party, so please changed it, thank you. (217.42.240.189 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} In the list of Neo-Nazi organisations within Britain/UK The British National Party is listed, this is completely false and no doubt purposely claimed with the intention of discrediting this organisation, the British National Party has not endorsed Nazism and as such should be removed from that list.

Thank you.

PhilipEndean (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it as it was not supported by a reference, but be aware that many mainstream British sources do consider the organisation to be Neo-Nazi, and so it may very well find its way back into the article. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request: Can someone remove Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging from the list of neo nazi organizations in Africa?

You can argue all day that they are racist and whatnot, but even the article itself disproves the connection between the two groups. 68.206.254.228 (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Edit Request: 'Consequently, there are few neo-Nazis in Russia'

This statement is incorrect, and the cited source does not make this claim. Anyone who takes 5 seconds to google 'Neo-nazism in Russia' will realize that it's one of the largest sources of neo-nazi violence in the world. Please fix this. The converse is true, there are many neo-nazi's in Russia, even with political support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.180.121 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition of neo-Nazism

This article gives the impression that any kind of right-wing nationalism or racist beliefs are synonimous with neo-Nazism! Could someone please justify (for example) the inclusion of the Austrian Freedom Party, or the Croatian Democratic Union, or the Serbian National Alignment, in the list of neo-Nazi parties?! Because although they believe in defining a national identity based on a common and distinct ancestry, AFAIK none of them describe themselves as fascist, nor glorify the German Nazis in any way, and all of them also differ from the German Nazi movement on a number of ideological points! Were the authors of this article trying to be factually accurate, or were they trying to tar all nationalist organizations in Europe with a broad brush?! So could someone please give a specific, concise definition of the term "Neo-Nazism", and revise this article so that it lists only those groups whose ideology fits this definition?! 67.170.215.166 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does exactly that!

Discussion of "Neo-Nazism" should be restricted to adherents of Nazism (not necessarily Hitlerism). It is NOT the same as racism, zenophobia, or right wing extremism. Many right wing groups are violently opposed to Nazism, just as left wing groups may be racist or zenophobic. One can go further. Nazism is a revolutionary socialist doctrine. In a sense it is not right wing at all, but left wing. Remember that many members of the nazi party were former socialists. The conservative right wing in Germany was wary of the nazis. But many of the left joined them - in opposing communism. The party spanned left and right wings. This is logical. For if the political spectrum is seen as a circle, when you go to the far right you eventually meet the far left, and vice versa. The only characteristic that separates communism from nazism is a belief in the supremacy of a class rather than of a race. Who is to say which is a worse sin?124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bleiburg

The Bleiburg massacre is not historically disputed!!!! Please change it right now! --190.172.198.184 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to provide any reliable sources for your claim? Also, welcome to wikipedia. Please check out the five pillars and ask if you have any questions. Phrasing things less combatively might get you further. Best of luck. 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Austrian Freedom Party

The statement that the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) "served as a shelter for ex-Nazis almost from the beginning of its history" is very emotive, POV, and biased. The party included members who may have been nazis, or ex-nazis. But the same can be said, to a greater or lesser degree, of all parties. Would it be acceptable to say the the "Communist party served as a shelter for ex-Nazis almost from the beginning of its history", yet that also is true.124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

American Nazis

There are overtly Nazi groups in the USA. There are also Skinheads. They are not necessarily the same, though membership overlaps. The National States' Rights Party was not a neo nazi party, it was a white supremacist party. They are not the same at all.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The sedition trial of 1944 had no convictions. No nazi or neonazi groups were outlawed as a result of the trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.202.27 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Neo-Nazism in Serbia" article to this one

I propose that Neo-Nazism in Serbia be merged into this article's section on Serbia. I think that there is enough content on the Neo-Nazism in Serbia page and it would be better to place it all here instead of providing a link and putting content elsewhere. I understand that this is a serious matter and that is why I wish a consensus is needed before making changes. GuzonjinSin (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Count of murders in Germany since 1989/ Post-reunification-Progroms

At First: Sorry for my bad Englich and therefor taht i can only give links in German.

The collection of Nazi crimes in Germany is probably a bad joke

According to official figures, since 1989, more than 40 people were killed by Nazis in Germany:

http://www.netz-gegen-nazis.de/artikel/todesopfer-rechtsextremer-gewalt-seit-1990-offiziell-jetzt-46-inoffiziell-143-0975

But many do not trust the official statements, because there are "good" reasons to falsify the statistics, because due to the particular history of Germany are Nazi murder for the German authorities with a special embarrassment afflicted. Unofficial figures are believe at broad parts of the population and are spread by the press reports, the figure is over 140 people. A memorial list from 2008:

http://www.zeit.de/2008/20/Von_Nazis_getoetet

The same applies to all other official statistics on this subject.

To forge these statistics is quite simple: the political motivation of the perpetrators is not taken into account. Be detected after the German law, the political motivation every time. It must be proven, the perpetrators had expressed Nazi or anti-constitutional (eg in Germany under penalty banned swastika) leave symbols. Thus, for example Devastation by the Nazis at Turkish snack bars as burglary recorded in coincidence with vandalism. If, to stay with the example, the Nazis have left no swastikas or similar, then this deed as "not political" included in the statistics. Even then, if the offender is convicted more than once clearly, or it is proved that he is Nazi (eg if he is in a Nazi Party).


It should be mentioned: "Ordinary people" from the neighborhood applauded the Nazis at the pogroms during the reunification period (eg, Rostock-Lichtenhagen), as has those buildings has burned. There are numerous Internet video evidence, eg at Germany only "mainstream media", "Der Spiegel" and "dtagesschau":

Ausländerfeindliche Krawalle gegen Asylanten in Rostock - Spiegel-TV von August 1992 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhNoRWPrj9g

Ausländerfeindliche Krawalle in Rostock gegen Asylanten - Tagesschau vom 26.08.1992 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x96bb0Sg1Ss&feature=related

It is also considered that here convinced Nazis with people from the neighborhood has acted together. At the videos you can see, there are parents with their kids among the arsonists. Police and fire brigade intervened only after two days. The superiors had sent no reinforcements. That's in Germany 44 years after the end of the Third Reich were pogroms should be mentioned!

Furthermore, it should be noted also the outrageous term using the Nazis for the bombing of Dresden: "Bombenholocoust" (bomb Holocoust) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.97.190 (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Croatia - modern day Ustashe part

Hi guys, there is a Wikipedia article on the Croatian Liberation Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Liberation_Movement), to whom the article refers to when addressing modern day Ustashe, maybe someone can link to it. Also the official Croatian state publications list the headquarters to be in Marija Bistrica, not Zagreb, and member count to be 650 people: http://hidran.hidra.hr/stranke/s028368h.htm.

Also, I've googled out that the US secret service classified them as a terrorist Ustashe sympathizer organization in the 70's, link: http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/hop.htm, if anybody is interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.125.159 (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Emmagangles, 23 September 2011

Can you please change the name of the author used as reference no 71. The surname should read 'Shields' not 'Sheilds'.

Many thanks

Emmagangles (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeffery Hall

I created a page on Jeffry Hall, who was murdered by his 10 year old son, and I included a link to this page. Would it improve this article by mentioning Jeffry Hall?

Also, does anyone see mistakes or bias the Jeffry Hall article?

Wikfr (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, why would this improve to the article? This is just someone you saw in the news and thought would help? It doesn't have any involvement with "neo-nazism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.236.199 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Fascism: Past, Present, Future on Viktor Yakushev

This is very untrue, and I've spoken to Viktor Yakushev and can confirm this is untrue. Laqueur, Walter never really interviewed him as he claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.236.199 (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn 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 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What about Latvia?

Nazi Waffen-SS veterans openly hold annual parades in Riga in March - a practice that divides the society there but is specifically allowed by the state. (Alex.K.NY (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC))

Netherlands

Just wondering, how are the antisemitic actions of Moroccan, Turkish and otherwise Islamic communities in the country related to neo-Nazism? If anything, it's an expression of antisemitism in the Islamic faith and a clear-cut indication of the rise of Islamism among members of the second and third generation. --NFSreloaded (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just removed the same section for a second time. Looking at you, ScottyNolan. --NFSreloaded (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

turk nazi party

Are there reliable sources for this information? Currently it's sourced to the organization's website only. I couldn't find any on a cursory search but there could be language issues. I deleted the material and the editor who added it re-added it. Please discuss. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

talk, It is done. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 20:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Croatia

First of all to make some things clear. There is no such thing as Ustashe headquarters in Zagreb, and any kind of Ustashe worshiping is forbiden by law, but that law doesn't forbid old comunist simpatizers to march with comunist propaganda and comunist accesories. Croatian liberation movement was movement to make Croatia free from Yugoslavian paws. It was shut down at 1996 after the war ended and Croatia was recognized as free and democratic. Their sabotage acts which were called ustashe terrorism by yugoslavian headquarters in Belgrade were an easy trick into breaking Croatian national spirit and making them unwilling for any kind of freedom fight.

As a Croat who considerd him self a neo-nazi in young teenage days, I am fully ashamed for those acts and only thing that connects me with neo-nazism is hate towards it. After opening my eyes and seeing we are all same and equal in the eyes of God only thing I am willing to fight for is freedom of all and freedom of religion choices.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.153.181 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  • This section is well referenced. We might add the recent "Za dom" shouting by Croatian soccer player Simunic.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Brazilian neo-nazi" isn't

He is Giorgos Katidis, a football player with greek team AEK.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/european-football-aek-athens-player-katidis-nazi-salute-225642391.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.197.189 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

distinction to the term neofascism ?

should be work in lede,since there is an equally extensive page on neofascism.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete censored photo?

The article contains a photo which is censored (hidden faces). If we're against censorship of information, then we should delete this photo entirely because we shouldn't accept censored material in order not to support censorship. We should only have either fully uncensored photos or no photos at all, not photos that have had portions of them censored, for whatever reason they were censored. We, readers, have a right to know the identities of everyone appearing in any photo taken in public places. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're an editor also. But no, readers don't have the right to know the identities of people in photos in public places. WP:CENSORED is about "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are we allowed to put racism and antisemitism but homophobia has to become anti-gay activism

This seems incredibly pov to me suggesting that homophobia isn't as important or as valid as racism or antisemitism.–Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is racism allowed on Wikipedia?

This article is riddled with germanophobia and anti-German content. Funny how that is OK. But everyone else has to be protected!184.155.130.147 (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see it. TFD (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
One example is the constant reference to Neo-Nazis being white supremacists. When was there ever a correlation? There are Neo-Nazis that are black, Indian, Austronesian, Asian, etc. Trying to mix Neo-Nazism and Nazism with something ridiculous like white supremacy would be akin to writing a wiki on Protestant Christianity stating that Protestants are all Republicans, overweight, and are sexually attracted to 6 year old girls.184.155.130.147 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Because an extremely significantly large portion of Neo-Nazis are white, and of that group, nearly all of them also believe in white supremacy to some extent. 117.56.215.14 (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV?

Not sure who this article is attempting to smear the most.

The German National Socialists were only a "far-right" group if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist. Collectivized thinking, viewing all people as members of specific groups ("all jews are evil/all aryans are good") is the hallmark of the LEFT. To sane people (i.e. the rest of us), socialism is recognized as a SELF-DESCRIBED leftist movement. Contrast this with the *actual* far-right, where individuals do not need government at all because all dealings should be between individuals (no group identity). Adolph would *not* have approved. He was a leftist.

The myopic view of this article's authors is underwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.200.14 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your view has been expressed before and in fact is popular in some circles. But it is not a mainstream view. An the Nazis never described themselves as "leftist" and even if they did, this article is about neo-nazism. TFD (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How is that the "actual far right"? Would Louis the XVI agree that "individuals do not need government at all because all dealings should be between individuals"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.6.161 (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Nazism

Add the article please. http://mexannik99.deviantart.com/art/In-the-Ukraine-of-fascism-is-no-497709400 http://mexannik99.deviantart.com/art/Fascism-in-Ukraine-there-is-not-490653001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.215.67.128 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DeviantArt? Really? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

March in Leipzig photo

Hi, the image shown which purports to be a Neo-Nazi march in Leipzig in 2009 clearly shows an anti-fascist flag in the bottom left corner, so it looks to me like it's actually an anti-nazi march. Please can update the photo description to reflect this. Thanks, Bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.16.140 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The photo's own creator describes it as "Neonazi demonstration in Leipzig, Germany" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#mediaviewer/File:Nationale_sozialisten_leipzig_recht_auf_zukunft.jpg). Sometimes neo-Nazis coopt anti-fascist imagery, partially to confuse people (see http://www.antifa.cz/content/big-neo-nazi-crib)Spylab (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Serbia: BBC article

It is clear from the article that the BBC journalist makes no connection between "Nacionalni stroj" and Neo-Nazism. Consequently I've deleted the Serbia section.--96.255.144.49 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that this phrase from the article, "the activists of "National Front", an organization that advocates the superiority of the white race", pretty clearly links the group to Neo-Nazi-ism without actually using the phrase. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the sources do not call them neo-Nazi, and therefore it is inadequately sourced. While Nazism is racist, not all racists are Nazis. TFD (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK. I guess I don't see the distinction between being a white supremacist and a Neo-Nazi, but I understand your point. By the way, just judging by this article's appearance on the Special:PendingChanges list, I have noticed a conscientious effort to remove any mention of Serbia from this article recently. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I have tried Google book searches and found mention of neo-nazism in snippets, so the description is probably accurate. But if there is so little information about them, I do not see the relevance of including them, except to say that there are Serbian nazis too. Anyway, there are white supremacists in some parts of Eastern Europe where there is traditional hostility to Germans and therefore would not identify with Nazis. TFD (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scalhotrod: Please, make distinction between your personal opinion and reference. You did not support your point of view with any valid reference. In this case, we do not have a secondary or a tertiary reference ever given linking "Nacionalni stroj" and Neo-Nazism. Being a white supremacist is not the same as being a Neo Nazi.--96.255.144.49 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
All the above support the claim that Nacionalni stroj are indeed a Neo Nazi group, so back in it goes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 96.255.144.49, nobody "won or lost", we simply followed Policy and properly referenced the article. If the sources did not exist, the content would have stayed out, simple as that. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Question: "Neo-Nazi" Vs "neo-Nazi"

Which should it be? I see both used with almost equal distribution. Pedantic it may seem, but surely only one variant should be used - New sentences notwithstanding, of course. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Neo-Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked Checked and confirmed as correct. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Overly referenced in Turkey section

Apart from neo-fascist[87][88][89][90][91][92][93] Grey Wolves and the Turkish ultranationalist[94][95][96][97][98][99] Nationalist Movement Party there are some Neo-Nazi organizations in Turkey like the Turkish Nazi Party[100] or the National Socialist Party of Turkey,[101] mainly based on the internet.[102][103][104]

Do we nearly need that many references? 7 in a row is pretty excessive, 1 or 2 should really suffice. Thoughts?--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You're quite correct, Awesomewiki64. It's an obvious case of WP:CITEKILL but, as it's a by-product of edit warring, it's probably best not to simply delete some of the references, but to consider WP:Citation merging (AKA bundling) until in case the use of just a couple of selected citations are challenged further down the track as not being enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Spain

There is no description of spanish national-socialist movements, why? To name a few: Alianza Nacional, Democracia Nacional, Frente Nacional, the now-dissolved CEDADE, etc... 88.7.105.215 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on volunteers like yourself to add content. However, Alianza Nacional does not appear to be neo-Nazi, but neo-fascist. I have not checked the others. TFD (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
In the entry of the Alianza Nacional article: "National Alliance (AN) (Spanish: Alianza Nacional) is a far-right and openly nazi political party in Spain." 88.7.105.215 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The source cited on that article is rioja2. I have no idea of whether it is a reliable source or not. I gather that it is an interview with Pedro Pablo Peña but, as I don't know Spanish, Google translate isn't adequate for the nuances. Are there any other reliable sources to back this up? If Nazi sympathies are that open, I'd imagine that there would be other sources to confirm it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we please not refer to Nazism as right-wing?

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it really shouldn't be hard to understand that nazism was not associated with the right-wing. The Nazis supported national socialism, gun control, nationalized healthcare, and a plethora of other policies that are politically left/socialist. Authoritarian =/= Far-right. There's a reason why there's verticality and horizontality on political compasses. Horizontal reflects left v. right, and is a measurement of policy. Vertical reflects authoritarian v. libertarian, and is a measurement of personal freedoms allowed from the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-rod916 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 April 2016

Nazism is closely associated with the far right-wing by huge number of sources. It is the archetypal far-right wing party. While the political compass online test is popular, especially among Libertarians for some reason, it has no academic weight behind it, and is not widely accepted as informative. That the Nazis are far-right is a settled issue which is supported by many reliable, academically-based sources both here and at Right wing politics, Far-right politics, Left–right politics, and elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed lots of times. We say they are right-wing, per policy, because that is how they are classified in mainstream sources. We do not use our own arguments to determine where they fit in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Both Russia and Turkey should be listed under Europe.

The listing of the Secular Republic of Turkey under Neo-Nazism was entered originally under the European category and was always there until recently. Why was it moved to Asia? Why hasn't Russia been moved to Asia too? Turkey like Russia is a Transcontinental nation physically & politically in Europe. Istanbul is a Great European City, a nation in the UN, NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, ORGANISATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE, ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF THE EEC SINCE 1963 AND IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR FULL EU MEMBERSHIP. Turkey's first President, the Blond Haired, Blue Eyed Ataturk founded the nation as Western, European & Secular. Both Russia and Turkey should be listed in the Europe category. Aryan121 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The White Citizens of Turkey are made up of White Europeans, Byzantines, Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, Circassians, Caucasians, Albanians, Bosnians, Chechens, Russians, White Turkified Anatolians. The Christian Bible tells us the Turks are descended from Japheth: the Father of the European Race and Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party's Office Of Racial Policy classed Hungarians, Turks, Finns, Estonians having the same bloodline & linguistic origins, as Aryans belonging to the White European race in 1936. Aryan121 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

These classifications were always questionable, and are now properly regarded as pseudoscience. Whatever nonsense the long-dead NSDAP Office of Racial Policy used is irrelevant here, since this is about Neo-Nazism, which has no central organization. Since both Russia and Turkey belong to both continents, the arrangement of this table is as much about convenience as anything else. If you would like to propose a policy-based reason for moving them from one section to the other, go ahead. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Serbia

The addition

See also: Neo-Chetnikism in Serbia

During the Second World War, the Serbian movement which at times collaborated with and at times opposed the Axis powers, were the Chetniks under Draža Mihailović. The Chetniks differed from other ultra-nationalist and fascistic groups such as the Croatian Ustaše, in that they did not claim to be a revolutionary movement; they were more conservative as staunch supporters of monarchism, Orthodox Christianity and a Serbocentric Greater Yugoslavia. They shared the anti-communism of the Axis powers and collaborated against the Yugoslav Partisans. Unlike other movements, they were not accused of atrocities against the Jews and even gained Jewish support for a time before they went over to the Partisans. After the war, with the ascent of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Chetnikism was criminalised, but the flame kept alive by diaspora groups such as the Serbian National Defense Council. During the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Chetniks returned as supporters of Slobodan Miloševic.

makes no sense. "Neo-Chetnikism" is not an English phrase. The rest of the text above is a POV, a personal opinion. The removal of this text was already accepted by a reviewer.--178.222.129.66 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I accepted because there was no citation, and further the text does not actually discuss how the group is a neo-nazi group, rather discussing their activity during WWII (you can't be a new nazi when the nazis haven't gone away yet). I don't see how it's relevant, but I don't know the history of the whole movement. Honestly though, the text does not explain how the group is involved in neo-nazism. Being anti-communist does not a nazi make. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ultranationalism, etc.

@Ks159081: Hello. This is regarding this revert. There are a lot of changes here, and several problems which need to be addressed.

  • Why was ultranationalism removed?
  • Antisemitism is a subset of racism, but it's more than that, also. Jewishness is not unambiguously a race, and the primary importance of antisemitism in neo-Nazi movements should not be understated.
  • These changes were not good English. Was "handicaps" being used as a noun to refer to a group of people, as the other terms were?
  • Saying "even modern Catholics" is a form of editorializing, as it implies that this would be surprising, but it doesn't explain why.
  • Neo-Nazis have not initiated the Fourth Reich. This is a hypothetical state which hasn't happened yet, not something that is in progress. The paragraph should not imply that this is underway.

Thanks, please discuss before restoring. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hello. I'll be solving your problems now.

  • Ultranationalism, really sorry, I didn't know what I was really thinking and should've added Xenophobia, I've thinking all-night I've should've add that.
  • Thinking now with what you just type to me, I understand why Antisemitism would be put as a different belief than Racism, as I know being Jewish doesn't just mean a "Ethnic group" but part of a Religion, but as like I said before, it is a form of Racism and I thought it would be appropriate to add on with Racism, if you still agree.
  • "Handicaps" means a group of people in my opinion, I've should've made it to "Disabled people" but I thought it would be good to just put "Handicaps" instead.
  • I put Catholics down because well honestly I wouldn't but I saw the term "Catholics" in the Brazil's section of this page, so that why, same with putting Muslims and Homeless people down as well.
  • Now this confused me, about "Fourth Reich", you said they have not they never initiated the Fourth Reich, well it still on there as it was reverted back, and its always have. So this is not really my issue.

Thanks for typing to me, and hope you discuss back, please. Ks159081 (talk) 07:22 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

section analogous movements

I am not sure I understand the special status of the countries listed in the section "analogous movements". It may have had some meaning when it first was created ( dont know when), but these distinctions seem to be blurred now, at the end of 2017, as I read it. Even teh introductory sentence of the section is gibberish.

I propose to merge countries of "analogous movements" with the "around the world section". --Wuerzele (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Hyperborean racial doctrine

Per WP:UNDUE, we are supposed to give ideas their appropriate weight based on what is said about them in so-called reliable secondary sources. The 'Hyperborean racial doctrine' is currently presented in such a way that a reader could be forgiven for concluding that it was one of the central ideas in Neo-Nazism. Yet the only secondary source quoted for this doesn't even mention it by name, and makes it clear there are a bewildering variety of such exotic cults on the fringes of Neo-Nazism (thus on the fringes of what is, at least currently, thankfully already a fringe phenomenon), and this thus appears to be just one of many such 'fringes of a fringe' ideas, and thus presumably needs to be presented as such.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have flagged the section with the 'undue' template, which unfortunately refers to the article rather than the section. If anybody knows of a template that only refers to a section, please feel free to use that instead.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead again

Beyond My Ken, regarding this edit of yours, let me point out several things. In the first place, yes, I am aware of the outcome of the request for comment. I believe, however, that it is a misreading of that outcome to think that the lead must use the specific phrase "and implement" for all time to come, as though the language must from now on be frozen in stone and can never be changed in any way. For example, you will note Kierzek's comment that the lead could "be rephrased for grammar" and Icewhiz's comment endorsing "any other similar phrase/wording". Furthermore, I had a clear rationale for my edit, which is that the text I added ("Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism, seeking to employ it to promote hatred and attack minorities, or in some cases to create a fascist political state") conveys the same meaning as "implement" and makes "implement" unnecessary. The current version of the lead is frankly badly written and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Even if you insist on "and implement", and it really is both terrible writing and entirely unnecessary, what possible reason could there be for removing mention of the fact that neo-Nazis seek to employ their ideology to promote hatred and attack minorities or to create a fascist political state? It is basic factual information, and should not have been removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary for me to point this out, but just so that there is no ambiguity, let it be noted that this edit by me did not remove "and implement", which I'm content to leave in the article for now, even though it is lousy writing. Rather it restored a reasonable addition which there is of course no consensus against. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content

Midnightblueowl, you recently removed a large amount of content with the edit summary, "removing unreferenced information". Most of that information was indeed unreferenced, but some of the material (that concerning Richard Walther Darré) did have a citation. Would you agree to having the cited stuff restored, or is there a problem with the citation in your view? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: my mistake; I must have taken something referenced out in error as part of my removals. I have no objection to its reinstatement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the mass changes from Midnightblueowl, why remove the antisemitism and neofascist sidebars? Removing the explanations of racism of the ideology? Adding {{fact}} tags where there are obvious sourced facts? We just had a RfC for changing a few words, why would editors totally rewrite the article without discussing the changes first? Dave Dial (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Why have three separate sidebars to start with? It's just messy and superfluous. Moreover, I think it's misleading to state that anything is an "obviously sourced fact"; the reality is that vast swathes of this article is missing in-line citations to academic sources; most of the sources that are used are random press and free web sources. That's a major issue. Let's not hide from the fact that this article is in a pretty bad state. It needs an awful lot of work to pull it up to scratch. I was WP:Bold, added some far better cited information, removed some unreferenced information, and one editor objected to my changes. Fair enough, that's how Wikipedia goes. But this article is never going to actually be pulled up into GA and even FA quality without some serious work from committed editors with a fair bit of experience and access to the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If the article is relevant to three separate subjects, then "messiness" is not a legitimate reason for deleting relevant sidebars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
But it would be relevant to tens of different subjects. Why not a right-wing politics sidebar? A politics sidebar? A racism sidebar? At what point do we say enough is enough? I would argue that one sidebar is more than enough, and actually isn't even necessary or useful. They're just clutter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit by Dave Dial. Midnightblueowl's changes seem perfectly reasonable to me, and I believe that they should be restored. Her version of the lead is better in every way, and I cannot see any legitimate reason for removing the content she added - the fact that changes were not discussed beforehand should never, by itself, be a reason for removing content that improves the article. Let's not elevate process over substance. Midnightblueowl is right that the article needs major changes to improve it, and I would ask Dave Dial to reconsider and accept some or all of her changes, judging them on their merits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Dial:, it would be good if you could articulate specifically what it is about my additions that you dislike/disagree with? Fair enough if your main issue is simply with the fact that I was bold with my edits rather than asking folks at the Talk Page first, but do you actually have a problem with my phrasing of the lede or with the academically referenced information which I added? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl:, Dave Dial has not responded despite having had an opportunity to do so. I suggest that if no one responds or makes any further objection or comment, then you should at least consider restoring your changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Is that how this works? I've listed a few reasons why I disagreed with the changes, another editor also agreed. There is no timeline on restoring contested material. Dave Dial (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that Midnightblueowl's mass deletions with only perfunctory explanations was not a good way to approach mass deletions and should remain undone. It's time for the "D" in BRD and to deal with deletions one at a time and n more depth. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Dave Dial, where did you explain how the content Midnightblueowl added to the lead did not improve it? Explaining how added content does not improve an article seems like a basic obligation for anyone who removes it - so far as I can see, you simply have not done this. I would direct the same inquiry to anyone who supports the removal of that content. Should I assume from your comment that "There is no timeline on restoring contested material" that you actually don't object to having the lead material restored? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
As I stated, I listed a few of my objections above. If an editor has proposals to improve the article, it's up to them to present them and get consensus. If they are bold and reverted, it's up to them to discuss why the changes improve the article. So you've got things backwards. And no, you should not assume that, as anyone reading my objections would know. Dave Dial (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The relevant part of the comment you linked to above reads, "We just had a RfC for changing a few words, why would editors totally rewrite the article without discussing the changes first?" In other words, you removed Midnightblueowl's additions to the lead purely and only because they were not discussed first? What would make you think that other editors would consider that reasonable? Midnightblueowl's changes improved the lead because they added relevant information that helps readers understand Neo-Nazism. There, that's your explanation of "why the changes improve the article". Now, can they please be restored? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. And no. Dave Dial (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
For the benefit of those following this discussion, Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads as follows:

Neo-Nazism refers to a range of fascist and far-right groups existing after 1945 which adhere to the ideology of Nazism or are otherwise heavily influenced by its example. They are chronologically separated from the original Nazism of the German Nazi Party, which was banned in 1945 following the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. Many of this ideology's adherents do not refer to themselves as neo-Nazis, instead favouring the terms National Socialists or Nazis.

Although it had sympathisers and imitators across the world, the original Nazism of the German Nazi Party was focused on the situation in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. Neo-Nazism differs in having a more transnational character, focused on building an international alliance of groups which share a desire to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarian Fourth Reich. As with the original Nazis, neo-Nazis are biological racists and believe in the existence of a distinct, inherently superior Nordic race, which they regard as the purest survival of an ancient Aryan race once dominant across much of the world. Embracing anti-semitic conspiracy theories, they believe that Jews are the enemies of the Aryan race and have continually worked to undermine it. They view Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler and the other Nazis as heroic figures who attempted to retake Nordic-Aryan control from the Jewish conspiracy. They typically claim that the Holocaust—the extermination of around six million Jews by the Nazi government—never occurred and is a lie designed to discredit Nazi Germany in world opinion. Other neo-Nazis accept the Holocaust occurred but praise it as a victory for the Nordic-Aryan race and express a desire to restart it to eradicate Jews, people of color, homosexuals and other groups. Forms of neo-Nazism, such as Esoteric Hitlerism, combine Nazism with occultism, Heathenry, and Satanism; others, which are part of the Christian Identity movement, combine it with Christianity.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany and their Axis allies in the Second World War, various Nazis either escaped to Latin America or were rehabilitated within German society. Some of these met up with sympathisers elsewhere in the world and continued to promote Nazi ideas. In the United Kingdom and United States, younger individuals took up the cause, and in 1962 formed the World Union of National Socialists, an international umbrella organisation bringing together neo-Nazi groups like the U.S.-based American Nazi Party and British National Socialist Movement. Due to widespread social stigma against Nazism, neo-Nazi groups were unable to achieve electoral success, with some neo-Nazis seeking to gain greater acceptance by forming far-right political parties from which overt Nazi references were absent; these often faced active opposition from anti-fascist groups. Other neo-Nazis formed paramilitary groups and engaged in acts of violence, including bombings and assassinations targeted largely toward minority groups and leftists. In the 1970s and 1980s, neo-Nazism established a presence within the skinhead subculture and began to promote its message through white power music, and in the 1990s it spread through the former Eastern Bloc. Neo-Nazi groups also sought to build links with various neo-fascist, white nationalist, and identitarian groups as part of broader far-right groupings like the alt-right movement.

Neo-Nazism remains a fringe movement, even within the broader far-right. In various countries, including Germany, the display of Nazi imagery and Holocaust denial are criminal acts, and may neo-Nazi groups and individuals have faced legal restrictions and bans because of their activities.

Anyone reading it can see that it is much longer and more informative than the current version of the lead. Dave Dial apparently does not accept that the increased length of the lead makes it better or more informative for readers. Perhaps Dave Dial should explain what he would consider an acceptable case for Midnightblueowl's version of the lead, or any portion of it? I cannot see any reason why he would be unable to do that, unless perhaps that he simply refuses to consider Midnightblueowl's changes on their merits for some unstated reason. If the real problem is that the words "and implement" are not in Midnightblueowl's version of the lead, adding the words "and implement" to her version would be quite simple. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems that you might not understand the fundamental situation. A suggested change to an article has been reverted, and comments provided on why the reversion was made. It is now the responsibility of the editor who made the Bold edit to get a consensus of the editors on this page to agree to the changes. So far, that has not happened, and without a consensus, the changes cannot be restored. Simply repeating the suggested changes or admonishing the reverting editor are unlikely to bring about a consensus.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is to be as specific as possible about why the changes are an improvement, and not to deal with broad generalities such as "it's longer and has more information", since longer is not necessarily better – given that the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article, and not to be a mini-article itself – and not all information is created equal.
So far, I've seen nothing to convince me that the suggested changes are an improvement to the article. I can certainly change my mind, but I want to hear detailed arguments on why I should. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, you are of course correct that "longer is not necessarily better". However, as I am sure you have noticed, the current lead is very short. Its shortness is all the more striking given that the article as a whole is very lengthy. Wikipedia guidelines dictate that the longer an article is, the longer its lead should be. See MOS:LEADLENGTH: "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." So in this case it is reasonable to expand the size of the lead. The article has some 9,027 words and 59,325 characters, which means that, according to the guideline just mentioned, the lead should be three or fourth paragraphs long, not two paragraphs long, as it currently is. In this particular case, then, somewhat longer is better. So much for the length issue. If you actually require a talk page commentary on Midnightblueowl's version of the lead, then I can and will provide one; or maybe Midnightblueowl will do that herself, if she is so inclined. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, you're laboring under a fundamental misunderstanding: Wikipedia editing guidelines never "dictate", they only ever "suggest", so your argument is fallacious from point one. One is never required to expand a lede section due to word count. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No, one is not "required" to do it, it's just a good and sensible idea. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not a "good and sensible idea" to expand a lede if it doesn't need expanding. You've yet to establish why it needs to be expanded, invoking all sorts of irrelevant arguments instead. Your purpose here is to get a consensus of editors to agree that the proposed changes need to be made, but you've said nothing about the necessity of the specific content of those changes, or the lack of necessary content in the current lede, preferring instead to throw around generalities and guidelines. Please stop doing that, and make some arguments which deal with content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The lead does need expanding in order to provide proper coverage of the article subject. Wikipedia's guidelines are a basic point of reference in deciding what content is suitable for an article, so of course they are not irrelevant. Please stop dismissing them. I'll reply in more detail soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Another generality. I asked for specifics about the content you feel is missing. If you're not going to provide that, there's really no need to continue to post. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Another point (and getting to the main point I made above and the title of this discussion section) which seems to be missed in discussion above is that it's not only about the merits of some new material. The burst of edits in discussion also has mass deletions entangled into it. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The addition of material to the lead and the deletions of material from other parts of the lead are different issues and can be dealt with separately. Beyond My Ken is on weak ground by insisting that guidelines should simply be ignored. The whole reason guidelines exist is so that editors have objective standards to measure articles, and to prevent everything from being a matter of personal opinion (they help discourage editors from making arguments of the "it looks fine to me" kind, which are difficult to respond to because they are inherently subjective).
The current version of the lead consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph consists of a definition of neo-Nazism, some generalities about neo-Nazis not liking minorities, a mention of the fact that neo-Nazism exists around the world, that it borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, and that it often denies the Holocaust. The last paragraph mentions that neo-Nazism is legally restricted in various countries. The lead as currently written may possibly satisfy readers looking for a dictionary-type definition of neo-Nazism and a small handful of fairly obvious points about it; one might reasonably suppose that many readers would want more detail than this, however. Midnightblueowl's version of the lead also begins with a definition of neo-Nazism ("Neo-Nazism refers to a range of fascist and far-right groups existing after 1945 which adhere to the ideology of Nazism or are otherwise heavily influenced by its example"); I would agree that her opening sentence is not perfect. There would be room for a compromise version between that opening and the current one ("Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism") and Midnightblueowl might be willing to discuss this if she is still interested (I am certainly still interested). Personally, I think the current opening sentence is in some ways better than Midnightblueowl's version. For example, its "consists of" expression is better than Midnightblueowl's "refers to" wording, since "refers to" sounds too much like a dictionary-style definition. However, her version has the advantage of mentioning that neo-Nazism is on the far-right part of the political spectrum, which is a basic fact that should be in the lead. Presumably for any political movement, one wants to make clear where exactly it falls on the political spectrum? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The second sentence of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "They are chronologically separated from the original Nazism of the German Nazi Party, which was banned in 1945 following the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War". That is an important part of her expanded version of the lead that would be worth keeping, since it clearly establishes how neo-Nazism is distinct from the original Nazi movement, and thereby helps readers to understand its historical background, and exactly what it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The third sentence of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "Many of this ideology's adherents do not refer to themselves as neo-Nazis, instead favouring the terms National Socialists or Nazis." I would agree that this is not necessarily crucial information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead begins, "Although it had sympathisers and imitators across the world, the original Nazism of the German Nazi Party was focused on the situation in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. Neo-Nazism differs in having a more transnational character, focused on building an international alliance of groups which share a desire to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarian Fourth Reich." This is much clearer and more specific than the corresponding material in the current version of the lead ("Neo-Nazis seek to employ their ideology to promote hatred and attack minorities, or in some cases to create a fascist political state. It is a global phenomenon, with organized representation in many countries and international networks"). It gives readers more context that helps explain the subject, and again helps clarify the distinction between Nazism and neo-Nazism. It also states explicitly and in so many words that neo-Nazis are opposed to democracy, which is not stated directly in the current version of the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead continues, "As with the original Nazis, neo-Nazis are biological racists and believe in the existence of a distinct, inherently superior Nordic race, which they regard as the purest survival of an ancient Aryan race once dominant across much of the world." Again, that is more useful to readers than the current version of the lead, which states that neo-Nazis endorse "racism", without being clear about which particular version of "racism" is involved. "Racism" by itself is vague and can mean a variety of different things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The next sentence of the second paragraph of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "Embracing anti-semitic conspiracy theories, they believe that Jews are the enemies of the Aryan race and have continually worked to undermine it." Again, that is more specific and more helpful than the current version of the lead, which notes that neo-Nazis are anti-semitic but explains nothing about specifically what anti-semitism means, and does not mention the neo-Nazi interest in conspiracy theories. Wikipedia readers have a wide range of backgrounds and different levels of education and it would be wrong to assume that they all have a good understanding of anti-semitism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The next sentence of the second paragraph of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "They view Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler and the other Nazis as heroic figures who attempted to retake Nordic-Aryan control from the Jewish conspiracy." I agree that this part is not absolutely necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The next sentence of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "They typically claim that the Holocaust—the extermination of around six million Jews by the Nazi government—never occurred and is a lie designed to discredit Nazi Germany in world opinion." This is important information that should be retained. The current version of the lead notes that neo-Nazis engage in Holocaust denial but gives no details about what Holocaust denial is; again, it is mistaken to assume that all of Wikipedia's very diverse readers necessarily understand just what Holocaust denial is or what motivates it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Continuing, the next sentence of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "Other neo-Nazis accept the Holocaust occurred but praise it as a victory for the Nordic-Aryan race and express a desire to restart it to eradicate Jews, people of color, homosexuals and other groups". In my opinion, that part (like some of Midnightblueowl's other additions) is not absolutely necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Continuing, the next sentence of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "Forms of neo-Nazism, such as Esoteric Hitlerism, combine Nazism with occultism, Heathenry, and Satanism; others, which are part of the Christian Identity movement, combine it with Christianity". Again, I am not convinced that this is absolutely necessary information, as all of these mentioned views would presumably be minority opinions even among neo-Nazis. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Continuing, the next sentence of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "After the defeat of Nazi Germany and their Axis allies in the Second World War, various Nazis either escaped to Latin America or were rehabilitated within German society. Some of these met up with sympathisers elsewhere in the world and continued to promote Nazi ideas". This is important information about the historical background of neo-Nazism, in that it shows a connection between the original Nazi movement and neo-Nazism. It should definitely be in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The next portion of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "In the United Kingdom and United States, younger individuals took up the cause, and in 1962 formed the World Union of National Socialists, an international umbrella organisation bringing together neo-Nazi groups like the U.S.-based American Nazi Party and British National Socialist Movement. Due to widespread social stigma against Nazism, neo-Nazi groups were unable to achieve electoral success, with some neo-Nazis seeking to gain greater acceptance by forming far-right political parties from which overt Nazi references were absent; these often faced active opposition from anti-fascist groups. Other neo-Nazis formed paramilitary groups and engaged in acts of violence, including bombings and assassinations targeted largely toward minority groups and leftists. In the 1970s and 1980s, neo-Nazism established a presence within the skinhead subculture and began to promote its message through white power music, and in the 1990s it spread through the former Eastern Bloc. Neo-Nazi groups also sought to build links with various neo-fascist, white nationalist, and identitarian groups as part of broader far-right groupings like the alt-right movement." This is much more specific and helpful information that anything in the lead as it gives readers a basic background on the history of neo-Nazism and what exactly it is that neo-Nazis do, which is barely mentioned in the current version of the lead. Obviously it is important that neo-Nazi groups have in some cases attempted to involve themselves in electoral politics, including in some cases without identifying themselves as neo-Nazi and seeking some different label to use for themselves. The involvement of neo-Nazis with the skinhead movement is a prominent feature of the movement, something anyone wanting to know about it should understand, but the current version of the lead says nothing about it at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The final portion of Midnightblueowl's version of the lead reads, "Neo-Nazism remains a fringe movement, even within the broader far-right. In various countries, including Germany, the display of Nazi imagery and Holocaust denial are criminal acts, and may neo-Nazi groups and individuals have faced legal restrictions and bans because of their activities." One can compare that to the equivalent portion of the current version of the lead, which reads "In some European and Latin American countries, laws prohibit the expression of pro-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic, or homophobic views. Many Nazi-related symbols are banned in European countries (especially Germany) in an effort to curtail neo-Nazism". I would say each version has its merits, and a compromise version would be possible. Midnightblueowl's version has the merit of explaining that neo-Nazism is fringe even within the far-right; this is basic information that anyone interested in the subject would benefit from knowing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems that you can either cite generalities, or provide a wall-of-text which the vast majority of editors will approach as TL,DNR, but are unable to summarize the specific changes proposed, as opposed to giving an ultra-detailed blow-by-blow of every verb, noun, period, and comma.
    What I think needs to be done here is .... nothing. There is clearly no consensus for the proposed change, and you are unable to give a concise and usable summary of the changes, which might help convince editors otherwise. I have no particular problem with the lede as it exists, and it seems that other editors either agree, or are unconvinced about the value of the proposed changes. Therefore, this issue is, in my opinion, DOA. Please do not insert the proposed changes until such time as a consensus of editors agrees that it is an improvement on the current lede. Similarly, there is no consensus for the mass deletions made in conjunction with the new lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The term "wall of text" is just a generic insult that does not address anything. You requested specifics about the changes I wanted; I provided them. I did not discuss every "verb, noun, period, and comma", as you wrongly state, but obviously the issues are complex and my response needed to be long, so why complain about it? Sometimes it is not possible to "summarize" everything into a brief comment; too bad. The complaint that I am unable to give a "concise and usable summary of the changes" proposed is bizarre. It does not matter that I was not "concise"; I just needed to make a good case, and I did. If other editors cannot be bothered reading my comments, that is unfortunate, but it is not a failing on my part. I have not yet arrived at a list of definite proposed changes, so it is not a matter of inserting anything at this stage. Wikipedia encourages bold editing, so I do not have to wait for consensus on the talk page for every individual change I might decide to make - as I'm sure you realize. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually, the purpose of a talk page is communication. If you cannot provide information in a way that other editors can take it in, then you're not communicating, and the fault is yours and no one else's. Blaming the reader for the shortfalls in your comments may make you feel batter, but it does nothing to help communicate the information you wish to put across. Until you are able to succinctly summarize the specifics of the value of the proposed change, no one is required to swim through the waterfall of verbiage you posted. You may think otherwise, but it really doesn't matter: I can almost guarantee that no one is going to spend the time and effort necessary to get whatever points you are trying to make, which means your wall-of-text is useless. You certainly don't have to listen to me, that's your privilege, but as it stands you haven't helped yourself in the least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • From WP:BOLD:

    Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to feel insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. But some significant changes can be long-lasting and harder to fix. If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice.

    Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page. [Emphasis added]

    In other words, BOLDness is not an excuse to deliberately ignore take page discussions or consensus. There is currently no consensus for the proposed changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have not yet made any specific proposed changes. I have discussed in a general way what needs doing; that's all. I have given specific reasons for my views, but the details of what could be added remains to be worked out. Discouraging changes to an article for the sake of it is not constructive, and neither is trying to keep the lead ultra-short just for the sake of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So you posted 12,537 bytes about proposed changes that you're not advocating. I think we're done here, since you're simply wasting everyone's time with nonsense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It is your comment that is nonsense, because you misrepresented what I said. As I said, I discussed in a general way what needs doing, the details of which remain to be worked out. That's reasonable enough. Your formula about my discussing changes that I am not advocating is your weird distortion of what I said. Maybe you should take a break from this, if distorting my comments in a bizarre fashion is all you can do? It appears that you simply want to stop people from changing the lead for the sake of it and keep it very short for the sake of it. Helpful? No. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anyone with a normal grasp of English should be able to understand what I wrote very easily. If they do not want to bother reading it, that is not my fault. You write that, "Until you are able to succinctly summarize the specifics of the value of the proposed change, no one is required to swim through the waterfall of verbiage you posted". What are you talking about? It is not a matter of a single "proposed change"; there are various changes that need to be made, and I've discussed them, giving specifics about their value. Rather than advocating a single "proposed change", I will be quite happy to add material bit by bit. A piecemeal approach is fine by me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
IMO there's a pretty simple answer. Deal with everything in smaller pieces. IMO, you could even try putting in a little piece at a time on a bold basis. And good condensed informative edit summaries I think would be good. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Please, please deal with everything in smaller pieces and use informative edit summaries. We have WP:TLDR for a good reason. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Editors are not going to read through your giant walls of text. If you can't, or will not, summarize your proposals, mark me a No in the change category. The Lede and body are good as is. Dave Dial (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • You are not in a position to say what other editors are or are not going to do, Dave Dial. Speak for yourself and not for others. Presuming that I am still interested, I will make specific proposals in future, and I will make them as short as possible. The lead leaves out important information - such as the involvement of neo-Nazism with the skinhead movement, the exact nature of its racism, and its historical background - so no, it is not "good as it is" - what a bizarre suggestion. WP:LEADLENGTH gives good advice. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Doug Weller, WP:TLDR is an essay that states, "The tl;dr label is often used to point out excessive verbosity". I was not excessively verbose in my comments above, though granted they could have been better expressed. It would be more useful to comment on the current state of the article. Do you share the view that the lead is absolutely perfect as it is, despite the fact that it is extremely short, leaves out obviously important information, and is not in accord with Wikipedia's guideline on the length of leads - or is it just possible that it could somehow be improved? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @FreeKnowledgeCreator: I think you're being too literal about the essay. Your post really is too long to digest, and please, could you not sign so often if you are writing what is basically one continuous post? In the past when this sort of massive post has occurred I've done what I'm doing now, ask the editor to break it down into chunks that can easily be discussed and focus on a single point. As to your question, I'm sure the lead can be improved, I just think it needs to be done one step at a time. How about restructuring your post into several separate sections so that discussion of each is kept together? The way it is now that's not possible. If you do that, adding edit summaries would be of benefit also. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
        • It's just an essay, for goodness sake, not a policy or even a guideline. I am not going to re-write anything I've written above, now that it is on the talk page, but I will be quite happy to summarize it in a new, streamlined and shortened comment. Thank you for granting the incredibly obvious point that the lead could be improved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I think that the general advice given is good, without focusing just on that one TLDR point. I think that the "do it in smaller pieces" is an important part of the advice. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced content

Beyond My Ken Did you intentionally restore this unsourced content [6]? Can you read the rest of the paragraph (I removed here) [7] and explain why this quote is relevant to the subject of Neo-Nazism? If you intend to restore it, can you please also add some context to make the relevance of this quote clear to readers? Seraphim System (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I did restore it intentionally, but I realize now after looking at your removal of it that I shouldn't have. Somehow I got the context all wrong. However, I do think that the sourced material you deleted in your second edit is pertinent to the subject. Please explain on what grounds you deleted it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I already did. I am removing it again, please don't restore it again unless you can explain in your own words why it should be in the article. Seraphim System (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I read the source again - the article is fascinating, but all the details about the relationship between Hindu nationalists and the Nazi Party (itself) fall outside the scope of this article. (From the lede Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism.) The source says Hindu nationalists distanced themselves after the war so I don't think we can ignore that. I've added a brief summary that notes the formal distancing, as well the the continued interested among some Indians on an individual level of certain aspects of Nazism, in particular Nazi mysticism. I think the rest of the details could be added to Hindu nationalism and probably a number of other articles. Seraphim System (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, OK. It's pretty dry and boring though - some details on the contemporary "interest" would be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll check to see if I can find some more details to add from other sources. Seraphim System (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive_3&oldid=1089892843"