Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Trads

@Venkat TL: Your misleading edit summary here makes no sense, because I explained that I was keeping it "succinct".

Now looking at these edits, made by you in the first place,[1] and removed once[2] by Loew Galitz should be removed again because the piece by contributor on vice.com (not staff) say that "group “Trads” that derives inspiration from neo-Nazi online movements". The group isn't notable and the troll group does not deserve a mention outside Bulli Bai because they are not notable. You have been told that driving inspiration does not makes them neo-nazi but it requires a lot more than just that. RKT7789 too on AfD told you that at best they can be described as fascist but not neo-nazis.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp, Loew Galitz had removed it, @Beyond My Ken had readded it. Loew Galitz had then accepted this. The content is reliably sourced. If the group is notable, then we would create an entire article on this group. The content is reliably sourced and merited here.Venkat TL (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems Loew Galitz hadn't accepted it but instead refrained from reverting further. Just being reliably sourced (which it is not) isn't enough but it is also necessary if it is relevant to the article. In this case, it is not merited at all because you are giving undue weight to non-notable online trolls who are themselves not neo-nazis. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually I did accept: my edit summary: "previous edit by BMK: makes sense, sorry" in response to BMK: "It's an article about Neo-Nazism, NOT an article about "neo-Nazis" per se. If they are "inspired" by neo-Nazism, then they should be discussed in an article about neo-Nazism".

On the other hand, after more attentive reading I would consider the argument that the source cited is non-reliable: the author is of questionable expertise and the statement there was made in passing, without any arguments, just name calling. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Loew Galitz, Please check the version and the more refs below.

“

Trads

The members of an alt-right group inspired by neo-Nazis call themselves "Trads", short for traditionalists. These groups promote rhetoric for genocide of Muslims, Dalits, Sikhs and other Indian minorities. They borrow their vocabulary from the Western alt-right i.e. the neo-Nazi online ecosystem. They reconfigure the Nazi propaganda material. Similar to the western neo-Nazi alt right groups, members of the Trads group operate in packs and even attack the Hindus from Right wing, that try to defend the Muslims. Prominent right wing members try to stay away from the trads. Alt News and The Wire had monitored the right-wing groups for their reactions to trads. Trads were described by the right wing groups as neo-Nazis.

A large and growing community of Indian Hindu Nazis on social media are digitally connected to neo-Nazi counterparts around the world. They glorify and idolize Hitler in their messages shared on the social media.

”

• Sorry, part about Trads not acceptable. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

References

• • "The members of an alt-right group inspired by neo-Nazis call themselves "Trads"" is phrased as if Trans are derived from neonazis, which is false. They only use eonazi tricks, but it is extreme hindutca. period. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Moreover there is no such thing as "an alt-right group<...> Trads" - this is a lose bunch on extreme haters, not a "group" In sociology this kind of phenomenon is called "subculture". Loew Galitz (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "They reconfigure the Nazi propaganda material" - overgeneralization of what is said in the ref. The source mentions only one case. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "Trads were described by the right wing groups as neo-Nazis."Not verifiable. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• The rest is just a descrription of trads as extreme hindutva. Parallel to neonazis is correct, but superficious. In the same way I ca draw parallel with kukluxklan and even with stalinism. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Haaretz article is not free, but I found some extensive quotes form it. The tem "Hindu Nazis" is just a label for "Hindu nationalists". (By the way the suggested piece is cut and paste copyvio.) Of course nationalists of all ilk greet each other (unless they are in the opposite camps), but this does not make them all neo-Nazis. Glorification of Hitler described by Rao has nothing to do with neo-Nazism either. Hitler was a supervillain, but he was a supertalented villain. Of course we must forget him as a Herostratus, but India was not at all impacted by The Holocaust and may praise Hitler, emotionally oblivious to all evil he had brought (After all, butchers Napoleon and Genghis Khan are heroes, why not Hitler?). Heck, even President of Belarus blurbed something about how good autobahns were during Hitler. But this didnt make Lukashenka neo-Nazi. And so on. In short, Haaretz is an opinion piece, not a scholarly article, hence WP:UNDUE. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• I made some changes pertaining to WP:CRIME. Consider adding more sources other than Vice as it seems dead. — DaxServer (t · c) 09:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Should have set as WP:BLPCRIME — DaxServer (t · c) 09:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Second para still seems undue here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would also agree that the content about online trolling on Neo-Nazism#India containing text about the online anonymous groups who are only "inspired by neo-nazis" distracts from the aim of this subject. They are also grossly non-notable as already mentioned above. New additions do not help either since they only lend WP:UNDUE weight to online trolling. Spiegel.de is being misrepresented on both Neo-Nazism#India and Neo-Nazism#Pakistan as it does not even make mention of 'Neo-Nazi' (see WP:SYNTH). To say that Neo-Nazism exists in Pakistan just because many people there are anti-semitic makes no sense since there are many politicians like Idi Amin, Anwar al- Sādāt, and others who admired Hitler and were outright anti-semitic but that does not make them a Neo-Nazi. I am in support of removal of both sections about India and Pakistan here because there is not a single neo-nazi group in these countries. Only driving inspiration does not make somebody a neo-nazi. @The Four Deuces: can you chime in too? Wareon (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting throw everything at the wall approach there. Notability refers to whether a topic should have a dedicated article or not, which is not relevant here and groups inspired by neo-Nazism are within the scope of an article on neo-Nazism. The Indian Trads are an online subculture which is closer to the mainstream right wing (as outlined in the sources) then most neo-Nazis or inspired groups anywhere, more than sufficient weight for inclusion. So none of this sticks really. Regarding Der Spiegel, I'll leave that up to others to consider, its description on India appears a bit too overgeneralised to me but it does talk about contemporary Nazi cultism in both countries (and not just adoration for Hitler or antisemitic views) regardless of whether it explicitly uses the term neo-Nazi. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

There are guidelines whether we should entertain non-notable subjects or not and in this that view is strengthened further by the fact that they are irrelevant to this subject. Der Spiegel is similarly irrelevant because it does not talk about neo-nazism. We can't have different rules for different sections. Wareon (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakte, you are missing the point that the insubstantial connection that you are building between Neo-Nazis and the non-notable trad trolls is WP:UNDUE here. The subject has to be notable and actually be a Neo-Nazi in order to find inclusion here. Trad trolls are neither. See how the article makes no mention of 8 chan users who are Neo-Nazis, clearly because online trolling is far from being noteworthy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying that something is undue because it is not notable, has no basis in any policy or guideline and is a misrepresentation of both. One can justify removing practically anything with such an obscure criteria, it would also make any merge go against this fictitious guideline. Neo-Nazi influence is within the scope of an article on Neo-Nazism just as the Neo-Nazis themselves, which should be apparent. Not to mention an article on Indian Trads might actually be able to pass GNG but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two problems. First, per WP:NEWSORG, these sources are not reliable for analysis unless written by experts, that is, people who have written articles on neo-Nazism for peer-reviewed journals rather than journalists. Secondly, the connection too vague to be worth repeating. It's really just a way of explaining Indian politics to Westerners, even if it means over-simplification. But Indian sources don't make the connection. The Trads' views appear to be influenced by an extreme interpretation of Hinduism, rather than an attempt to transplant Nazi ideology to India. TFD (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be removed because: a) the sources are not scholarly and they fail to provide enough context unrelated to the subject, b) information is not directly related to the subject, c) online bashing isn't noteworthy because on internet you can be anything you want. Orientls (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This argument is fallacious. we accept sources other than scholarly ones. See WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS says, "Editorial commentary, ANALYSIS and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Also, "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 3] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."

Common sense tells us that journalists are not experts in ideological categorization or the far right. I wouldn't expect for example that a textbook on neo-Nazism would have a section on the Trads on the basis that a journalist called them that. We've had this discussion on other articles, and people wanting to add this type of description have always been able to find expert sources.

See also REDFLAG.

TFD (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you need to stop restoring the content here which concerns figures like M.S. Gowalkar, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who were pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish and predate WW2. Neo-Nazism means "the post–World War II militant, social, and political movements seeking to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology". As for the rest of the content which is being disputed, you really need to provide more explanation than a simple one-liner that contradicts WP:IRS. Wareon (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, scholarly sources haven't covered the Indian Trads yet, they are too new a phenomena at this stage so journalistic sources would have to do for the time being, attribute if you feel necessary. Their relation to neo-Nazis is however hardly an extraordinary claim considering that they are a part of the Hindutva movement. When it comes to Hindutva itself, it's not an "interpretation of Hinduism", extreme or otherwise, you wouldn't find scholarly sources that describes it as such. Instead you'll find that practically any scholarly source that makes it a subject, discusses it as a form of fascism or a fascistic movement and goes in-depth about its relation to and inspirations from Nazism. To give a snapshot, see the following quotes.

When that revived spirit administered a "purging" of Jews in order to "keep up" the purity of race and culture, it was, for Golwalkar, a manifestation of "race pride at its highest." It was a "good lesson" that Hindustan could learn from and profit by. This moment was an illustrative one in Golwalkar’s overall effort to distinguish pure nationhood from a disabling "democratic" conception, as a "haphazard bundle of friend and foe, master and thief." ... Hindutva, as a political mobilization of right-wing nationalist feelings, did not merely adopt select structural fixtures, a grossly orientalist vision, and providential Aryan enthusiasms from the West. The general concept of nationhood in this terrain was aligned with a German tradition of organismic thinking that came into being in the latter half of the eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries. It involved idealizing a nation and its vital expressions in the form of Gestaltung (a creative self-fashioning) and Kulturpolitik (culture as politics of self-determination and evolution). ...

Basu, Anustup (2020-09-21). Hindutva as Political Monotheism. Duke University Press. p. 29. doi:10.1515/9781478012498/html. ISBN 978-1-4780-1249-8.

The Hindu Mahasabha openly supported the Third Reich, promoting an Aryan connection between Nazism and Hindutva. Savarkar, then president of the Hindu Mahasabha and close affiliate of the RSS, made continuous reference in writings and speeches to Germany’s treatment of the Jewish population as a model for India's Muslim ‘problem’. In response, the NSDAP (Nazi Party) paper, Völkischer Beobachter, featured Savarkar’s approval of German occupation. RSS leader Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar adopted a more extreme position, arguing that ‘being a Hindu was a matter of race and blood, not only a matter of culture. In turn that was an idea which was strikingly similar to the racial myths elaborated in Germany, more than in Italy. ... In Hindutva, representations of 'the people' are thus central to the relationship between belonging and the imagined community. Described as 'pure' and 'authentic', the idea of the Volk, with its Germanic origins, can be embraced in Hindutva, as can a focus on the Aryan past. ... Nostalgia for a mythic Vedic 'golden age' is a current running throughout the Hindutva narrative. ...

Leidig, Eviane (2020-05-26). "Hindutva as a variant of right-wing extremism". Patterns of Prejudice. 54 (3): 215–237. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2020.1759861. ISSN 0031-322X. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue comes up all the time with far right groups, because they tend to fall apart and reform. In those cases we rely on recognized experts. In the U.S. for example, the SPLC keeps a current list of neo-Nazi organizations. If you can't find any it means either that your analysis is incorrect or that the group lacks weight to be noticed by experts. We cannot read through the literature and make our own judgments or rely on those of non-experts. TFD (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not my analysis is it? In India, we don't have an SPLC equivalent that directly tracks far right formations and I doubt such an organisation would be able to operate freely in the present circumstances, for instance Amnesty International offices were folded due to government pressure. The closest we have is Alt News which has contributed to The Wire piece. They have expertise in tracking digital disinformation and linking Western alt right activities to Indian online subcultures would be within its scope. After that we would have to wait for academic journals or books to cover them which could take a year or so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Alt News is in no way an "expert" source by any stretch of imagination for this subject. And Alt News didnt contribute to the Wire article, the editor contributed in his personal capacity. Unless Zubair becomes a recognised expert in this area, his analysis can not be taken to be reliable. Your highlighted paras from scholarly sources are about pre WW2 actions, not neo nazi movements. The several comments right above yours have made that amply clear. I suggest you to drop it unless you can find expert sources explicitly describing these online trolls as neo-nazi movement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Wire article refers to Alt News rather than solely Zubair and their analysis mostly pertains online propaganda which is within their area of expertise. The "several comments" you're talking about is a single comment that claims that Sarvarkar and Golwalkar were "pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish and predate WW2", which is more or less nonsensical. They were contemporaneous to and active both before and after WW2, and I don't think I need to qualify the rest. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Direct quote from the Wire report, where your claim comes from - "With inputs from Mohammad Zubair of Alt News". I dont think I need elaborate further. My point stands. The other part of your reply, refer to statements by Loew Galitz, Wareon and User:The Four Deuces. They have explained it above rather clearly. I still dont see the issue here, you are providin the same unconvincing arguments over and over. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you may not like the association being made but you can't go about misrepresenting policy (as you did earlier alongside Wareon) or people to achieve your ends. Neither Galitz nor TFD have stated anything akin to Sarvarkar and Golwalkar predating WW2 which is incorrect anyways, nor have I repeated the same arguement. And "With inputs from Mohammad Zubair of Alt News" does not translate to "the editor contributing in his personal capacity" particularly when it's also mentioned in-line in The Wire report as, "[w]hen Alt News and The Wire monitored..." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand you are failing to satisfy the requirement for the content inclusion but your back to back imposition of your poor understanding of the subject would not lead others to change the scope of the article. Wareon (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Last week BBC also published a detailed article on The Tards. I have added this new reference. "Trads vs Raytas: The young Indians spreading hate online". BBC News. 11 February 2022. Retrieved 20 February 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That report does not even mention Nazis, let alone any mention of Neo Nazis. It instead explicitly calls them "trolls", which is the correct classification. Dont see how that report is relevant to this page. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes someone an expert is explained in WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. [Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.]" The link to subject-matter expert provides further information: "In the scientific and academic fields, subject matter experts are recruited to perform peer reviews." TFD (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes the BBC source further confirms that these online users are dedicated to trolling and they are not obviously related to Nazis. If they were obviously related then BBC would have mentioned so. Wareon (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have removed the section on Neo-Nazism#India after discussion above where 5 people seemed to be in favor of the removal, and only 3 were in favor of inclusion. I removed Neo-Nazism#Pakistan since no written objections were raised against it. Since the trad-related content was new and was removed before as well I would recommend WP:BRD. Consider gaining consensus before including the disputed content in question. Wareon (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

Please change the White Supremacy to Aryan Supremacy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsW0XYd2Gc 38.43.55.113 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia

Sparta Battalion

The Bataillon acts in Ukraine but under Russian umbrella, so it is a Russian problem. Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Rashism

Should be described in Russian section. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

'Under serious police pressure, the amount of racist and neo-Nazi acts began to decline from 2009 in Russia'

The phrase comes from 2016 book and ignores recent changes. The referenced description does not support the above phrase. Which pages of 'Kolsto, Pal (24 March 2016). New Russian Nationalism: Imperialism, Ethnicity and Authoritarianism 2000--2015. Edinburgh University Press.' do? The phrase has been added. together with several other ones, described as 'Rm unsourced', which rather misinformed. Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated sections?

#Analogous European movements and #Around the world/#Europe: I see no reason of splitting. The countries listed do not overlap, so section merge is trivial cut/paste. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the material can be moved to Neo-Nazism#Europe for consistency with the rest of the article.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I have moved all subsections. Now some integration is needed, especially the Finland subsection.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian POV

The page suggests that Ukraine is the most neo-Nazi country of the world. It is a Russian narration. At the same time the Russia subsection is very short after recent edits.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Analogous European movements

The section is a residue, should be moved.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in culture

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv56fgmk Nazism and Neo-Nazism in Film and Media Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Slovakia

The band mentioned has a typo. It was called Biely Odpor, not Bely Odpor 78.99.194.247 (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Rsk6400 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Source of OSCE report on russia directly sponsoring nazism in europe

• https://twitter.com/USAmbOSCE/status/1539943694047989760
• https://osce.usmission.gov/the-russian-federations-ongoing-aggression-against-ukraine-15/

-- Kreyren (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the sources is that the U.S. made the claim to the OSCE and that the evidence was that a handful of Western neo-Nazi activists trained with Partizan, which they identify as a far right group in Russia. But I cannot find any information about the group or outside confirmation of the claim. TFD (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It refers to Russian Imperial Movement.RKT7789 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There was an article about this in the Moscow Times,[3] which I assume is a reliable source. There is also an article on Stanford's website.[4]

There is no indication in the sources I provided that Partizan has any ties to the Russian government. It seems that at least when neo-Nazis trained with Partizan, it was an opposition group. So you would need a reliable source for this connection. It might be true, then again, it might not be true.

TFD (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:@Kreyren: C/O Futures Terrorism Research states "RIM is actually closely aligned and directed by the Russian regime—likely via the Federal Security Service (FSB)—not opposed to it." in its article on RIM. Thoughts? RKT7789 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The author of your source assumes that because the RIM is allowed to operate in Russia and recruits foreign fighters, it must be part of the Russian state, although which part is unknown. So basically, they are using the same argument as the U.S. government, without direct evidence. TFD (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sweden?

Sweden 176.10.146.230 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What about Sweden? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

Add hyperlink to “racism” Osalbahr (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Romanyism

This is a WP:BRD debate.

Beyond My Ken removed anti-Romanyism from the list of defining neo-Nazi ideologies in the lead (it is still in the body, under "Definition"). I reverted on the basis that it is certainly still a feature of European neo-nazism – especially in Eastern Europe, but also elsewhere in Europe. It is an essential aspect of their "racial purity" trope.

BMK reinstated the deletion, declaring that "the article is not about neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe, it's about neo-Nazism IN GENERAL".

I don't follow this logic. Anti-Romanyism in European Nazism is not a fringe aspect, involving just a few small groups. The article is about Neo-Nazism world-wide, so I see no convincing reason to exclude Eastern Europe. If there is one, let's see it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Which is it, European neo-Nazism, as you say above, or Eastern European neo-Nazism as you said in your edit summary? It makes a difference whether anti-Romanyism is generally park of the ideology throughout the whole of Europe or only in one region. Certainly its entirely absent from American neo-Nazism except perhaps as a part of a generalized xenophobia. If a certain aspect of neo-Nazism is only prevalent in one area, but not in any other, then it really is not definitional for the ideology as a whole. That's not "excluding Eastern Europe", it's using what is common throughout all regions to define it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But the article is not thus limited in its scope. It opens with

Neo-Nazism comprises the post–World War II militant, social, and political movements that seek to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology. Neo-Nazis employ their ideology to promote hatred and racial supremacy (often white supremacy), attack racial and ethnic minorities (often antisemitism and Islamophobia), and in some cases to create a fascist state.

I mentioned Eastern Europe because we have a citation for it. The article Anti-Romani sentiment has many many more citations. I believe it to be one of the defining features of European neo-Nazism, just as it was in the original Romani Holocaust. My reaction to your remark anti-Romanyism is not a feature of US neo-Nazism is a "so what?". If that argument prevails than each one of the characteristics can be deleted in turn because there is some country somewhere that has a neo-Nazi group that doesn't espouse it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Add at the bottom of the 'United States' section in 'Around the world':

The most followed Neo-Nazi on social media is American rapper and record producer Kanye West. On December 1, 2022, West appeared on InfoWars and proclaimed "I am a Nazi." He openly praised Adolf Hitler, stating "every human being has something of value that they brought to the table, especially Hitler." West also denied the Holocaust, claiming that it was "factually incorrect" that Hitler killed six million Jews. 108.4.235.242 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no evidence at this time to support your premise that West is "the most followed Neo-Nazi on social media". The fact that he has made anti-semitic statements and otherwise expressed admiration for Nazis does not make him a notable example of neo-Nazism. When and if some reliable, published source reports that this is true, it may (or may not) be appropriate to report this here. Until that time, it is not. West's statements are being reported at his biographical article. General Ization ^Talk 02:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

This is about Neo-Nazism, not about admiring Hitler

@Jay942942: To show that Amin's regime in Uganda was Neo-Nazi, you'll have to produce sources that describe it as such, not as something similar. Since Uganda has a rich political tradition of its own and a totally different cultural background, I personally doubt that it makes sense to describe Ugandan politics in terms closely related to European history. BTW: Using edit summaries on a regular basis would make life easier for other editors. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Taking that approach, would you support removing the extensive discussion on this page of the Greek junta, the Polish NOP/ONR, the Italian neo-fascist movements like MSI/NF/NA, the Serbian Radical Party, etc? As they do not have sources showing they are neo-Nazi, but discussion is either about (1) distinguishing them from neo-Nazism (NOP, ONR), or (2) indirect association with neo-Nazis through splinter groups or collaboration (MSI/NF), if there is any discussion of their relationship with neo-Nazism at all. In fact, the description of the Serbian party describes them as a neo-Chetnik party – an anti-Nazi group – without any source or mention of them actually being neo-Nazis. There are other pages to discuss movements associated with neo-fascism, far-right politics, the radical right (Europe), and right-wing dictatorships.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you think that something you added was wrongly deleted, don't delete something that appears similar in order to make a point. While I haven't read through all your examples, since there is nothing about neo-Nazism in the paragraph about the Greek military dictatorship, I would agree to its removal. But if someone can show its relevance to the topic and that it is usually discussed in standard texts on neo-Nazism, then it may be mentioned, provided the connection is made. TFD (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting to make a point, just saying it's important to agree on a consistent approach which editors can follow. Either this article is taking a "broad" approach, or a "narrow" approach towards defining neo-Nazism, and it's up to the Talk page to determine that. I'm fine with the things I've listed being discussed on a case by case basis, and I'm not intending to remove content prior to consensus.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"Chetnik = Anti-Nazi"

Uhh....20% of their page is about their collaboration with the Axis.RKT7789 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly not a Nazi group if it spent years fighting the Nazis, and interpreting neo-Chetnik as neo-Nazi is even more of a stretch.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the paragraph about the Greek junta - don't see how this relates to "Do not disrupt WP to illustrate a point". Don't have time just now for the other (possible) problems, but I doubt very much that Italian neo-fascism should be deleted given the close connection between Nazism and fascism (i.e. Hitler and Mussolini). Rsk6400 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that one. Wouldn't Italian neo-fascism – especially forms like the MSI and CasaPound – be a better fit for the neo-fascism page? Could leave mention of SS-inspired terror groups like Ordine Nuovo and National Vanguard that clearly draw on Nazi ideology. I would also suggest removing the image of Borghese, as there is no information on his article page that suggests he was a neo-Nazi himself, but I'm fine with the paragraph discussing him in the context of Nazi Delle Chiaie's support for his coup attempt. Could replace him with an image of Delle Chiaie instead, if you want an image there.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Fundamentally, which reliable source described the Greek Junta as "Neo-Nazi"? Quite probably as fascist in behaviour but that is not the topic of this article. I don't see how removing off-topic material is "disrupting Wikipedia". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

change "kayne west identified as a nazi" to "kayne west IDENTIFIES as a nazi" 2603:3015:2601:E600:C93E:71C1:94AB:B281 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Trads" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Trads has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 16 § Trads until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Russian neo-Nazis in Ukraine

@Pizzigs: You removed sourced text about Russian neo-Nazis among the Donbas separatists twice. According to WP:BRD, you should rather take it to this talk page after seeing that other editors (in this case: I) disagree. Since the Donbas is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, and since the groups are described as neo-Nazi, I don't see why they shouldn't belong here. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do the German Nazis invading other countries belong to articles describing Nazism in those countries? Does it make them French, Czech, Polish or Soviet Nazis? Pizzigs (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the text violated both WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION by highlighting certain views and withholding information about political repercussions of the organizations' activities. Pizzigs (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about Russians who have moved into the Donbas recently or rather Russian-speaking Ukrainians among the Donbas separatists? I understand that there may be some category slippage here, especially as some folks may have changed their citizenship legally or hold dual citizenship, but the distinction really does matter. And perhaps more to the point: how do reliable sources describe these groups? As Russians or as "separatists"? If they're separatists I'd argue that makes them Ukrainian. When a conflict like this is all about denying the existence of a national group, in this case Ukraine, these difficulties are both thorny and inevitable. Let's make sure to resolve this one amicably here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles such as this one refer to Russian nationals who traveled to Ukraine, and groups like the Russian Imperial Movement and Rusich are clearly based in Russia and made up of primarily Russian volunteers, although the latter is not relevant. Even if there are some Ukrainian collaborators and separatists serving in their ranks, these groups should be transferred to the Russian section. Additionally, I believe WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION issues need to be addressed, especially the excessive use of Likhachev's investigation which is cited six times in this article. Pizzigs (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why the nationality of the neo-Nazis we're discussing wouldn't be relevant for a section that's organized by nationality. Certainly there's no prohibition on mentioning groups like RIM and Rusich in both the Ukraine and Russia subsections. Or have I misunderstood your point? If so, would you mind rephrasing it?

Regarding the Likhachev piece, which is from 2016, I agree that we shouldn't be relying on it excessively. But looking over the text it doesn't appear that we currently do. Of the six times it's cited, only twice is it the sole source. If it lines up with what other reliable sources are saying, that speaks in favor of it being WP:DUE.

Above all, I think we should be looking for more recent sources, especially to support sentences written in the present tense. So much has been in flux since last year's invasion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few examples of the kind of sources I'm talking about:

1. Rita Katz, "Neo-Nazis are exploiting Russia’s war in Ukraine for their own purposes," The Washington Post (14 March 2022)
2. Robert Farley, "The Facts on ‘De-Nazifying’ Ukraine," FactCheck.org (31 March 2022)
3. Charlie Smart, "How the Russian Media Spread False Claims About Ukrainian Nazis, The New York Times (2 July 2022)
4. Mark Townsend, "Pro-Kremlin neo-Nazi militia inciting the torture and murder of Ukrainian prisoners," The Guardian (2 October 2022)

Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

None of these articles addresses the issue in question. The first one (WaPo) in fact describes the influx of Western neo-Nazis to Ukraine to fight against Russia. The second one (NYT) disproves Russia's claims of widespread neo-Nazism in Ukraine; however, again, the pro-Russian neo-Nazis aren't mentioned. The third one (Guardian) mentions pro-Russian neo-Nazis in Ukraine, specifically the Rusich group, but without specifying their nationality or country of birth.

• Sections are organized by nationality, which is why Russian neo-Nazi groups fighting in Ukraine should be moved to the Russian section. I don't understand why it is even controversial. Pizzigs (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

These are the type of articles we should be using to determine what is WP:DUE to include in the section. Believe it or not I am not arguing against you. I'm seeking to collaborate with you to find the appropriate way to discuss present-day neo-Nazism in the Russia and Ukraine subsections. But if you don't understand why it was controversial for you to completely remove discussion of groups comprised of both Russians and Ukrainians from the Ukraine subsection, I suggest that you re-read the above. This is how Wikipedia works. Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)