Talk:National-anarchism

Toward Featured Article status?

I am interested in collaborating with anyone who has created a user account to make the National-Anarchism article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet Wikipedia's featured article criteria. --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After a lot of work, I consider the article to be relatively comprehensive. The thing we should now focus on is adding any missing citations and standardizing all citations according to Wikipedia:Citing sources style guidelines. Does anyone have criticisms? If not, we should all focus on this. --Lormeaster (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps by Wikipedia standards but I find the article completely insufficient: it fails to identify pro environmental campaigns conducted by National Anarchists (whereas the Folsom Street Fair Protest is highlighted), Tribal Anarchism a phrase that Troy Southgate has said more accurately reflects his view then National Anarchism and is completely absent, the fact that the Bay Area National Anarchists are the only active street protest NA movement in the world at present, the lack of any quotes or ideas by Andrew Yeoman concerning the definitions BANA uses to describe their ideology, an overabundance of reliance on critics of fascism such as Roger Griffin on fascism when this article is not about fascism, no discussion about NA views of the economy, no discussion of the flourishing of NA groups in California including BANA, SNAC, OCNA, IENA, and Santa Cruz collectives, no discussion of NA views on governance. --Rjuner (talk)

Even if what you say were true, do you have reliable sources to support adding your claims in the article? If not, we have no choice but to rely on critics since they may be the only reliable sources we have. If these critics are silent about new developments in National-Anarchism, the article has no choice but to remain silent as well... That being said, I have edited the article to take account some of your comments. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Radical Right Reference

Here is the reference as regards National Anarchism being of the Radical Right: "In this respect, the ITP and National Anarchy represent a further evolution in the thinking of the Radical Right rather than an entirely new dimension, a response to the new situation of the late twentieth century in which the apparent triumph of materialist capitalism on a global scale requires a greater assertion of the centrality of anti-materialist nationalism." - The Radical Right in Britain by Alan Sykes, Research Fellow at the University of Adelaide, Palgrave 2005, i.e. a reputable academic source.Harrypotter (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. That's an opinion that should be contextualized somewhere in the article other than in the first sentence in the same manner the Fascism article has chosen to present such opinions.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.

This is one example we could follow, especially considering that some scholars argue that National-Anarchism is a synthesis of old fascism and new anarchism. --Loremaster (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See comments at the mediation page and Wikipedia:Lead section#Relative emphasis. –xeno^talk 13:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno's comments on the mediation page. --Loremaster (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

no - all of the academic sources use the descriptions 'extreme right' or 'radical right' as well as 'racist right' when discussing NA PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you care to name the academics sources and provide some quotes or should we simply take your word? --Loremaster (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am getting somewhat irritated with Loremaster?Ghostinthewiki's behaviour. They had to be prompted before they gave any apology for outright lying, an apology which has not yet been accepted and they are no continuing with their old tricks. Academic source shave been given. All this is just a smoekscreen. Where are the academic sour for saying "that some scholars argue that National-Anarchism is a synthesis of old fascism and new anarchism." Harrypotter (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Harrypotter, it should be clear to you by now that I didn't create and use the Ghostinthewiki user account in order to deceive you or anyone else contributing to the National-Anarchism article. I only did this because my Loremaster user account was temporarily blocked because of a misunderstanding over an unrelated article. You are absolutely right that I should have explained myself and apologized to you without being prompted but there is nothing more I can say or do to help you forgive, forget, and move on. That being said, I'm not sure why it is hard for you to understand that the opinion of academics on National-Anarchism's position on the political spectrum (i.e. “far right”, “radical right”, “extreme right”, “groupuscular right”, “racist right”) can and should be contextualized since it is open to debate while the fact that National-Anarchism is at a bare minimum a “syncretic political ideology” isn't. As for the academics who argue that National-Anarchism is a “synthesis of old fascism and new anarchism”, in his essay Co-opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction, Graham D Macklin writes: “the synthesis of ‘anarchism’ with Evolian fascism, which is espoused by NRF founder Troy Southgate whose rapidly evolving political odyssey from (comparatively) orthodox British fascism to the radical, anti-capitalist, ‘post-third-position’ ideology of ‘national-anarchism’ represents a highly personalized and idiosyncratic revolt against the modern world.”; while, in his essay From slime mould to rhizome: an introduction to the groupuscular right Roger Griffin writes: “National-Anarchy [...] seems to be evolving towards a complex synthesis between classic fascism, Third Positionism, neo-anarchism and new types of anti-systemic politics born of the anti-globalization movement.” --Loremaster (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point you fail to realise is that it was transparent that Ghostinthewiki was the identity of someone who was familiar with wikipedia. When asked (twice) whether Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki had another identity, you denied this, deliberately lying. Even just above you seem to find it hard to understand that this is what you did. You need to take this into account when you wonder why you're voice now has a hollow tone.Harrypotter (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Harry, I didn't fail to realize anything since I know what I did and why it was wrong. However, the point I am trying to get you to understand is that the only reason why I lied is obviously because if I had revealed on this talk page that I was in fact Loremaster someone could and probably would have reported me to a Wikipedia administrator for block evasion through sock puppetry. That being said, I don't really care what you think of me since your bad-faith behavior for months now made me lose patience and respect for you a loooooong time ago but it hasn't prevented me from still trying to collaborate with you for the good of this article. So can we please move on? --Loremaster (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki has made quite clear what they think, and in their twisted imagination they hold me responsible for their own bad behaviour. The level of contempt they have exudes from each entry on this page, and the suggestion that they still want to collaborate is merely a piece of flippancy which will convince no-one.Harrypotter (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in convincing you of my good faith since this seems to be a lost cause. However, the only thing that matters to me is that you respect Wikipedia guidelines and whatever consensus is hammered out on the Mediation Cabal page otherwise the National-Anarchism article will be promptly blocked again by a Wikipedia administrator if you choose to simply go back to doing what you were doing before the first block. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly when asked about previous identities when you were posing as Ghostinthewiki, you could have simply stopped trying to achieve your agenda on this page. As regards being reported for block evasions, as this was transparent, this could have happened anyway. So your pretense of this as your singular reason for lying is also transparent. What seems to be happening is that you have an agenda for this page, which you hope to achieve by any means necessary. This seems to include trying to illustrate a point (see also Biggus Dickus). The point of blocking a user - often a temporary measure - is to give them time to pause and reflect on their behaviour. However, this can be done without blocking. I feel you might find it a useful thing to indulge yourself in.Harrypotter (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in the first section of this talk page, (despite my left-wing progressive bias) my only “agenda” is collaborating with anyone who has created a user account to make the National-Anarchism article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet Wikipedia's featured article criteria. After having invested a lot of time and energy expanding and improving the National-Anarchism article (which you can't honestly deny that I have done), I just can't stand to see the quality of this article (or any of the other article I have taken an interest in) being damaged even for one second. This is why I felt compelled to do something wrong I have never done before in light of an unnecessary block on my Loremaster user account. Although I was clearly overconfident, I sincerely thought that no one would notice my block evasion through sock puppetry so it isn't a pretense when I say that the only reason I lied is because I didn't want to be exposed. I honestly considered telling you on the spot but I concluded that you would take advantage of the situation to report me in order to have the freedom to edit the article without any check and balance from me. That being said, I have never disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Everything I did while using a sock puppet was to ensure that the National-Anarchism was protected from damage and that an understanding could be reached on talk page to end a highly disruptive edit war. If there are two people who have been giant dicks, it is clearly you and Paki.tv by consistently refusing to stop reverting the article to add disputed terms until a consensus is reached on the article's talk page. There would be no need for a Mediation Cabal if the two of you respected this basic Wikipedia principle! Lastly, no Wikipedia administrator denied that the original block on my Loremaster user account was clearly not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to a different article. But, as I paused and reflected, I realized that I was being blocked for engaging in the same behavior you and Pakit.tv did — reverting an article to restore disputed content! The only difference between you, Paki.tv, and me is that I was willing to explore a compromise instead of being intransigent but I was blocked before a discussion of such compromise could be reached. Oh the irony... Regardless, even if you were able to prove that I am the big bad wolf you seem to think I am, it doesn't change the fact when in dispute with me or any other editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. So can we please settle the issues related to this article on the Mediation Cabal? --Loremaster (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that 'anarchism' and anarchism are two quite different things.Harrypotter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

True but Macklin uses anarchism instead of 'anarchism' when describing national-anarchism as “a seemingly incongruous synthesis of fascism and anarchism” while Griffin never 'anarchism'. --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not being a huge politics buff, I'm still pretty unclear on this whole left/right etc. business, but from a layman's read, it appears contradictory to matter-of-factly say that it is "radical right" in the lead sentence when the third paragraph in the lead says "Although its synthesis of left-wing and right-wing politics makes its classification problematic, those scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the far right of the conventional left–right political spectrum.[8] [6][9]". Simple stating it is radical right also is problematic per aforementioned Wikipedia:Lead section#Relative emphasis concerns. It appears that only two of the references has called it "radical right" and thus simply saying it is radical right is not representing a balanced, neutral point of view. Also, per our article, radical right is loosely synonymous with far right, so it seems also redundant. –xeno^talk 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism

I requested that Wikipedia administrator User:Xeno call for a mediation cabal to resolve this edit war over the first sentence of the lead section once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In light of the cogent statement by Gnostrat on the Mediation Cabal page, I have replaced "fascism" with "neo-völkisch tribalism" and "anarchism" with "green anarchism" in the first sentence of the lead section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources for contentious claims in the National-Anarchism article

I have two questions for Harrypotter:

1. Why do you believe Alain de Benoist's essay Between The Gods And The Titans published on a fan site is a reliable source to support the claim that Helmut Franke is a “right-wing” writer?
2. Why do you believe a French article entitled Sur le FN et a droite extrème on a militant anti-fascist/anti-racist amitie-entre-les-peuples.org website (whose server doesn't seem to respond at the moment) is a reliable source to support the claim that Requiem Gothiqueis a “far-right” magazine?

--Loremaster (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What gives? Why is it "contentious" to suggest that Helmut Franke is right wing. He was in the Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten, given the category . Also see Emanuel Schäfer - "After the war, he participated in far-right Freikorps groups such as the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt and from 1925-28, the Stahlhelm." Just as you are quite brazen about lying to hide the fact that you were using two identities, I am now drawn to question you so-called "left-wing progressive bias", which by the same coin (a false coin nonetheless) could justify lying in pursuit of your agenda of whitewashing National Anarchism . As for Requiem Gothique see also this which has Cany down as a Nazi Satanist. There is nothing contentious about any of this.Harrypotter (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Franke is “right-wing”. My point is simply that Wikipedia requires you provide a reliable source that describes him as right-wing AND as a member of Stahlhelm. As for your claims about Requiem Gothique and Cany, you have finally provided what seems to be a reliable source! This is good and that's all I ask because Wikipedia guidelines state: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” That being said, I am not interested in whitewashing National-Anarchism otherwise I wouldn't have been the one to add a paragraph in the lead section of the article which explains in details why critics think N-A is crypto-fascist nor would I been the one to expand the criticism section to add more criticisms against N-A! Ultimately, my left-wing progressive bias is proven the countless number of edits I have made on Wikipedia and the subject of the articles I have taken an interest in. Anyone who thinks I am right-winger or N-A sympathizer after reviewing my body of work is a certifiable idiot. --Loremaster (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)