Talk:Neo-Nazism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neo-Nazism article. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| Archives: 1, 2 | ||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
[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)
[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)
[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)
[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)
- 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)
- 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)
[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] Croatia section
In the article's history of changes I found a much better text - which shall be further updated and improved. Some spelling fixes, removal defunct links and replacement by the active ones were done.--Historian35 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 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.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive_2#Neo-Nazism_is_an_ideology.2C_not_just_a_movement
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive_2#Invisible_editing_spacer
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive_2#Lead
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive_2#Lead_rewrites
Note: the two main opponents of the consensus version of the lead were banned from Wikipedia.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AEliasAlucard
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASmerdyakoff
Here is a link to a mediation page about the lead.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Neo-Nazism So as you can see, the lead has been looked at extensively, and hopefully nobody is interested in going through the whole argument again. Spylab (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
[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)