Talk:American Nazi Party

Was the Nazi Party really it's name?

Was the Nazi Party really it's name? 'Nazi' was originally an insulting term for a National Socialist.--Hexiva 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Dr. William Pierce in a conversation that I had with him, the organization was originally called American Nazi Party but the name was changed to National-Socialist White People's Party in 1966, at Dr. Pierce's insistence as I understand, because he did not think that the word Nazi conveyed seriousness. --Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.19.8 (talk • contribs)

Obviously that's not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The decision to change the name was made by Rockwell in 1966, but it did not become official until January 1, 1967.^{[citation needed]}

National Socialist Movement

Shouldn't the above DAB be at the hatnote of this aricle? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}

"The party was based largely upon the ideals and policies of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP in Germany during the Third Reich but also expressed allegiance to the Constitutional principles of the U.S.'s Founding Fathers." --- Wikipedia

That is contradictory and not only that, you don't cite a source. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it expressed such an allegiance does not mean that it wasn't doublethink; a lot of people have very bizarre ideas about what the principles of the Constitution and the founding fathers are! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is doublethink to think that founding fathers are like that, unless they have never read ANY of the founding documents. Unlike them, I have read the Declaration of Independence. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with you, Dude! Look at people like Scott Walker and whoever the gauleiter of Michigan is: they claim to be conservatives and patriots! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they ARE patriots and that is the problem. To be unpatriotic is to follow in the founding fathers' footsteps. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 04:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Collin

• Wheaton , Elizabeth (2008) Codename Greenkil: The 1979 Greensboro Killings University of Georgia Press ISBN 978-0820331485 pp46 says that the Collin was half Jewish was part of an FBI smear campaign. I think this should be refelected in the article, thoughts? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a kinda fringey assertion. What are her claimed sources for this? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What she is saying is that they used the fact that he was half-Jewish in an attempt to oust him from his position. She is not suggesting it isn't true. You can view it on G books. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy wall street endorsement

any opposition to adding this material to the article? if so, please cite policy for excluding this material. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC) http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001

To this article? It's mindbogglingly trivial (who cares what these scum say?), but not against policy if properly sourced. We've had folks trying to add it to the articles on the Occupy movement, in order to slander the latter by association.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But you have to be clear which group you're talking about: the Suhayda guys, or....? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

is there another group using the same name? The American Nazi Party put out a statement on Thursday that was supportive of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Rocky Suhayda, the party's chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the article. The Suhayda bunch has no connection to the group this article is about. You'd have to create a new article about the Suhayda gang, to which this statement could be attached. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

i read the article, i did not see anything about a different group, they said the ANP. you could make a disambiguation page if a different ANP(1) exist, however the rs is clear, ANP. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Read American Nazi Party#Namesake organization. I'm not sure the namesake group is notable enough to write about. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

the rs states ANP not a group claiming to be the ANP but is not accepted by the other ANP, perhaps you would like to start a disambiguate article to delineate the two groups? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So far I've been unable to uncover any evidence that the new group is notable enough to bother; all I see is press releases they issue, usually being used to demonstrate that whatever they endorsed must be evil. (Of course, in many cases it is; but it is evil for objective reasons, not because somebody with a swastika on his letterhead say it's good.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

notable is determined by the amount of coverage given by reliable sources like medimatters. your original research is immaterial to notability. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's impossible; just expressing skepticism. I already linked to the relevant guideline once in this discussion, about four indents ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

notability, which is what i think we are arguing, is neither impossible nor skeptical, rather factual. the guideline you reference refers to the notability of the subject matter, the ANP, which is not disputed, you are trying to exclude material about the ANP based on OR you believe proves the RS mistakenly reported about a fake ANP group. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The original ANP is notable; that's not under dispute. The question is whether the new organization which uses the same name is notable. It's as if somebody started a new company called Sears & Roebuck that ran a coffee shop. If Sears Holdings Inc. didn't sue them, would the new company be notable enough to deserve an article? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)