Talk:Neo-Nazism

Semi-protected edit recquest on 21 April 2021

Afriforum doesn't support Apartheid. But it's trivializing it. Instead of "which supports Apartheid", I would write "which trivialize/belittle Apartheid. Marko8726 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Since none of the four sources for the paragraph about AfriForum mentioned Nazism or neo-Nazism, I removed the paragraph. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

The section about Ukraine seems to be an attempt to gaslight the reader into believing that Ukraine's far right has a strong hold of its politics, e.g. cherry picking the 10 percent of the vote in Kyiv and placing second in Lviv while failing to mention the context and the overall performance of these parties nation-wide, which is slim.

"The war witnessed no rise in popularity for radical nationalist political forces. Oleh Tyahnybok had fared better in the elections of 2010, when he won 1.43% of the vote, and this was even before Svoboda had gained support for opposing the Yanukovych regime. After democratic forces carried the day on the Maidan, ultra right-wing groups stopped being regarded as a necessary “counterweight” to the “anti-national” Yanukovych regime, as they had been in 2010-2013. In the elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which took place on 26 October 2014, Svoboda failed to exceed the election threshold with 4.71% of the vote and lost its standing as a parliamentary fraction.27 Meanwhile, Right Sector garnered a mere 1.8% of the vote in these elections, though Dmytro Yarosh was duly elected in a single mandate electoral district decided by majority vote. A. Biletsky was elected in the same way"

Source (French Institute of Foreign Relations): https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/rnv95_uk_likhachev_far-right_radicals_final.pdf Ihatelies1399 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You haven't said what specific changes you want. Before asking for a change, you should work toward consensus with other editors. You will find that easier if you don't begin your post by accusing them of gaslighting. TFD (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Parliamentary branch, not paramilitary branch

The Nordic Resistance Movement has a parliamentary branch, not a paramilitary branch. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. Nordic Resistance Movement contains both words ("paramilitary" and "parliamentary") in different contexts. This article currently says "political movement with a paramilitary branch", which seems more logical than "political movement with a parliamentary branch": Very few political movements have a paramilitary branch, so mentioning it explicitly if one exists makes sense. On the other hand, political movements often have a "parliamentary branch", and mentioning it would be unusual. Also, as far as I can tell, there currently are no Nordic Resistance Movement members in any local or national parliament. In conclusion: I think "paramilitary branch" is correct. I'll add a {{cn}} tag though. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

They did have local parliamentary representation between 2014 and 2018. And they are criticised by Nordic Strength for having a parliamentary branch. Also if you openly had a paramilitary branch (the article says “self-identifies”), that would be illegal, and law enforcement would not have any of that. Also, they self-identify as a “kamporganisation”, which don't not really translate that well, but perhaps “activist organisation” would be better translation than “political movement”, and an activist organisation (or “kamporganisation”) does not necessarily have a parliamentary branch. Finally, https://xn--motstndsrrelsen-llb70a.se/par-oberg/ states that Pär Öberg (who represented the Nordic Resistance Movement between 2014–2018 in Ludvika) is the head of their parliamentary branch. There are on the other hand no references anywhere to a paramilitary branch. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Thanks. I wonder what the best translation for "kamporganisation" might be. Google translates it as "combat organization". I looked for other options and found se:Schutzstaffel: "Schutzstaffel [...] var en paramilitär kamporganisation" en:Schutzstaffel: "The Schutzstaffel [...] was a major paramilitary organization" But I guess "paramilitary organization" wouldn't be correct, as you indicated. Maybe we should replace the current claim by "self-identifies as a National Socialist combat organisation with a parliamentary branch"? Or maybe we should just delete it. We don't have any WP:RS. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Paramilitary branch" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A comment that provides neither sources nor reasons is pretty useless. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

According to https://xn--motstndsrrelsen-llb70a.se/vilka-ar-vi/, they self-identify as a “revolutionary national socialist activist organisation and a registered political party”. Maybe someone could read their how they define “kamporganisation” and come up with a better translation than “activist organisation”. The word “kamp” itself is often translated as “struggle” or “fight”, but it cannot be translated as “combat”, and if a cardinal is put in front of it, it is translated as “-athlon” (competition). Additionally, under their explanation of what they mean when they say they are a “kamporganisation”, they say that they are a “civil and legal resistance movement”, which directly contradicts the article's claim that they self-identify as having (meaning openly has) a paramilitary branch. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not sure how to translate "kamporganisation", and I'm not sure how the Swedish NRM self-identifies. I've read/skimmed a few sources ([1], [2], [3]) but didn't find a usable definition that mentioned something close to "kamporganisation" or "parliamentary branch". The sources you provided are interesting, but they are primary sources, and we could only use them for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" (WP:PRIMARY). What we've been doing here is partly WP:OR.

I'll just delete the sentence from the article. There are too many open questions. If someone finds better sources, we might be able to reinstate the description. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I've restored it, as there is no consensus here for deletion. The sentence has been marked as needing a citation, so let's give that some time, especially since "kampforganisation" obviously refers to the paramilitary, i.e. "fighting organization" [4]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Yesterday, I tagged the claim. Now I changed my mind and deleted it. Deletion of unsourced claims doesn't need consensus. See WP:BURDEN. 2. You apparently haven't read the discussion above. The word "kamporganisation" (not "kampforganisation", which – except for the missing capitalization – would be German, not Swedish) does not mean "paramilitary". P.S.: If you (like me) speak German but not Swedish, and you'd like to understand the differences between "Kampf" and "kamp", this might be useful. Quotes: "Der kamp ist im Schwedischen das neutralste Wort für einen Kampf und drückt daher jede Art von Kraftmessung aus [...] In den meisten Fällen handelt es sich bei kamp daher um keine bewaffnete Auseinandersetzung, oder sie wird als sekundär betrachtet. [...] Das Wort strid wird vor allem bei militärischen Auseinandersetzungen benutzt in denen Waffen eine wichtige Rolle spielen." — Chrisahn (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You didn't provide a source for the claim that the NRM has a "paramilitary branch". But whatever. I changed "paramilitary branch" to "terrorist group". — Chrisahn (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be clarified that it is just some people that call it a “terrorist group” as this is not a designation made by any governmental agency or the organisation itself. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Another source "engages in paramilitary exercises". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A more reliable source is needed, they don't seem to have any citations, which is especially important as the seem to be a part of Amadeu Antonio Stiftung which makes it a potentially biased source as it is an anti-far-right organisation. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• For those wondering, here is how the NRM currently describes what "Fighting organization" (Kampforganisation) means:

"Fighting organization means that we are not only a party that stands in elections, but instead we also fight extra-parliamentary on all fronts that are conceivable to achieve our goals. We ran in the 2018 election and will run in more elections in the future, but this is by no means the core of our business. We are a civil and legal resistance movement. The resistance movement is not a loose network, group of friends or think tank and therefore has an internal power structure with managerial positions and established commitments. ... Furthermore, we work consistently to raise the quality of the activists in the organization, partly by strengthening everyone as individuals: physically, mentally and cognitively and partly by welding the group together and preparing it for all possible trials that may come our way in the future. This quality-enhancing work takes place through physical training, study circles, outdoor activities and various educations. [5]

For those who believe this bullshit, I remind everyone that in the early days of the Nazi Party in Germany, the SA paramilitary was cloaked as being the "Gymnastic and Sports Division" of the Party. "Extra-parliamentary" indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Again: There are important differences between "Kampforganisation" (the German word you're using) and "kamporganisation" (the Swedish word we're actually talking about). See above. 2. The Google Translate link you posted doesn't seem to work, but the Nazis provide their own translation: https://nordicresistancemovement.org/who-are-the-nordic-resistance-movement/ And it mentions "parliamentary branch"! Yay! The thing we've been discussing all this time! But they say: "We do have a parliamentary branch and we stood for election in 2018, but this is in no way the core of our activities." So there's probably no point in adding "parliamentary branch" to our article. 3. Not that it matters, but the SA was only called "Turn- und Sportabteilung" for a short time very early in its history (Nov 1920 to Nov 1921). — Chrisahn (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The mention of the parliamentary branch is in a different section, not the one I quoted which is labelled "Kamporganisation" and which Google (not me) translated as "Fighting organization". Outside the context of the page, Google gives "combat organisation" as the translation of Swedish "kamporganisation". [6], while DeepL gives "fighting organisation" [7]. The Dutch translation of "kamporganisation" is given as "camp organisation", but not the Swedish. Certainly there can be no doubt that when the NRM referes to "kamporganisation" they're not talking about going camping or the parliamentary branch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

While Google Translate is very bad at transferring meaning and nuance of meaning correctly, it got it almost sort of right this time. "Kamp" can refer to struggle in general, but "kamporganisation" in contemporary usage usually refers to organisations involved in armed or otherwise violent struggle. Many of the corpus hits I find are derogatory uses, but there is a tradition since the 1930s of fascist organisations using it about themselves. Labour unions sometimes identified as "kamporganisationer" in the early 20th century, but there's been a semantic shift since then. It would be wildly misleading to call NMR/NRM "parliamentary" given that they have never been close to getting representation in parliament, and the current phrase "political organisation" is misleading; they registered as a political party and got all of 0.03 percent of the votes in the 2018 elections, and their previous local political representation was on the Sweden Democrats ballot. I'm not sure "paramilitary" is an ideal descriptor since I don't think that term is often used about insurgents – Swedish "paramilitär" on the other hand is sometimes used about forces who are on the same "side" as the regular military forces of a country, but more frequently about violent and weaponised groups threatening the democratic government. The NMR/NRM definitely do the latter, it's part of their explicit goal. --bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

“Kamporganisation” means “organisation that struggle towards a goal despite facing hardship”, see for example how Wiktionary defines “kämpe”. This definition by no means that's that violence is being used, but neither does it exclude that possibility, however, the word “kamp” is normally not associated with violence. The reason “fight” comes up as a possible translation is because there are no good translations, but it is a possible translations in some contexts, for example “frihetskamp” would be translated for “freedom fight”. The word “fight” does not necessarily imply violence. There is no explicit goal of using violence, in fact it is explicitly stated that it is not the goal. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

“organisation that struggle [sic] towards a goal despite facing hardship” – that is one potential use of the word, but it does not represent actual usage in contemporary Swedish – see my post above, which is based on corpus serches (using the KORP corpus). As I say, there's been a semantic shift in the past 100 years. Wiktionary is even less of a source for the semantics of a word than Google Translate, and trying to use the definition of kämpe to prove anything about kamporganisation is a case of apples and magpies. It is of course true that kamp is not inherently associated with violence, but that is also irrelevant since the issue here is the compound kamporganisation. (Surely you wouldn't argue that kampsport, "martial arts", is not associated with any form of violence just because it happens to contain the morpheme "kamp"?)

But all this is a side issue, since this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't need to fall back on what an organisation says about itself, when there are many reliable secondary and independent sources talking about that organisation. There is no explicit goal of using violence, in fact it is explicitly stated that it is not the goal. If that refers to NMR/NRM, it is an incorrect statement. Maybe they claim that they don't condone violence (do they say that?), but every single independent and reliable source that describes them would disagree. Våldsbejakande, roughly "encouraging/embracing violence", is a very common adjective used by neutral observers. Why would Wikipedia not be honest about that? --bonadea contributions talk 18:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Since the article no longer makes a claim about how the NRM self-identify, and no longer tries to translate “kamporganisation”, there is no point in continuing this discussion. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's nothing that they say themselves expressively, I fail to see how it could be an explicit goal. If it is a goal, it's an implicit one. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Iceland

The Nordic Resistance Movement is also active in Iceland. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:0:0:0:7CD (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Finland

Finland had a notorious neo-Nazi leader Pekka Siitoin (1944-2003). He started as an ardent anticommunist who organized terror campaign against pro-communist media. In 1976 one of his followers burned communist printing house. Siitoin was jailed. After his release from prison in 1982, he demanded overthrow of goverment and forming a new regime based on fascism. He did get much media coverage. Si, he ended up calling himself the Fuehrer of Finland. He used swastika flag as his symbol and promoted nazism. He received lot of media coverage in the 1990s. However, he was out of date. He continued his neo-Nazism until his death (2003).

Source: Iiro Nordling; Long Shadow of Finland’s Fuehrer: Life and legacy of the notorious Finnish occult neo-Nazi Pekka Siitoin. Amazon 2021. ISBN ‎979-8546175634.

This lede sentence is wholly nonsensical

Hello, I have issues with this sentence: Neo-Nazis seek to employ their ideology to promote hatred and white supremacy, attack racial and ethnic minorities (which include antisemitism and Islamophobia), and in some cases to create a fascist state. Nazism was not anti-Islamic; on the contrary, Hitler and his allies courted the Arab world by complimenting alleged aspects of Islam (while obviously excluding Arabs from their racial empire). See: Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world. "Islamophobia" describes bigotry towards Muslims but it's a clumsy way to describe racial bigotry toward Arabs (obviously, a religion whose adherants reside in the tropics would tend to have darker skin tones, so it's correlates with race, but it isn't race, so the suspect sentence is just plain wrong--I'm sure the hate will continue even if the Middle East disowned their prophet and became the capital of Atheism). Neo-Nazism isn't exactly Nazism, sure, but it's terribly ironic to claim it's anti-Islamic when the O.G. Nazis in the Third Reich went out of their way to praise the faith. I think "Islamophobia" should be replaced with a more meaningful and relevant label, like "anti-Arabism", or we should change "racial and ethnic" in the problem sentence to "racial, ethnic, and religious". There is only one good source in the body that describes Anti-Islamic Neo-Nazis (MEMRI); the sourcing for the Russian one is a Youtube video that appears to not be WP:RS anyway. I don't think there is a strong basis for using the label "Islamophobia" in the lede of this article, in addition to being a nonsensical label as it's currently applied (my chief complaint). 2600:1012:B027:972:69BE:5B10:FC81:EA10 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1012:B027:972:69BE:5B10:FC81:EA10:But anti-arabism isn't accurate either, as neo-nazis oppose muslims regardless if they're arab or not. NSU killed turks, Russian neo-nazis kill Caucasian people, Kurds are targeted likewise, for example, and none of them are arab. Islamophobia might not be a perfect word but it's the best we've got.RKT7789 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about neo-Nazism, not Nazism. There's no reason why they should have the exact same policies, any more than an American conservative politician today would have the exact same policies as conservatives in the 1930s. Most racists anyway have no problem with other ethnic groups so long as they stay where they are supposed to be or not occupying land that they want. TFD (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

OP here, what if we replaced "ethnic" with "ethnoreligious"? That would help describe antisemitism too. I think "ethnicity" and "race" are different in some sort of academic sense, but it seems too technical and therefore redundant for the lede and to most readers, including relatively sophisticated ones, I would think. I don't think using "race" and "ethnicity" interchangeably has the potential for harm, unless you study this stuff for a living and are trying to get tenure. I know the "Islam isn't a race, therefore Islamophobia isn't a thing!" canard feeds off of stuff like this, and it's easily avoidable with the fix I just outlined. Wikipedia ledes need not be fodder for right-wing rubbish. An entire industry exists because Venn-diagrams don't translate into language well, but Wikipedia need not feed it. 2600:1012:B024:8975:502F:8B09:C90A:F0C9 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)