Talk:Neo-Nazism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Section Serbia

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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.

[edit] 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] 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] 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] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] Edit request from Emmagangles, 23 September 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Nazism&oldid=464188511"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export