Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pakistan

Hello, the section on Pakistan and it's reference to a 'Der Spiegel' article is utter nonsense. You cannot hold a conversation with a barber as proof for rampant Neo-Nazim in Pakistan. The swastica image on the article is from India, and also the article is lumping India and Pakistan together. BTW, I am not a Pakistani and I hate Neo-Nazim. But you know....this section has to go. The article is protected so I cannot remove it. But I request it's deletion until someone comes up with something more solid. You can find anglophobia and some degree of (street felt) sympathy with the axis in most former British colonies, it doesn't mean that they endorse Nazi, Neo Nazi or Japanese Imperial views or even know about what these views are. 37.24.145.224 (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The source is reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2019

I want the article in "Analogous European movements" to include Metaxists, essentially an authoritarian-totalitarian Greek ideology akin to fascism. Some such modern day Greek Metaxists such as Golden Dawn also have affiliation with neo-Nazism. 2605:E000:A44D:9200:613B:4214:3D5B:D96E (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources describing it as being analagous to Neo-Nazism, and then describe your request in the "Please change X to Y" format. Thanks. – Þjarkur (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

{{re|Þjarkur]] looking at Golden Dawn (political party) I see this sourced text:

"

Scholars and media have described it as neo-Nazi and fascist, though the group rejects these labels. Members have expressed admiration for the former Greek dictators Ioannis Metaxas of the 4th of August Regime (1936–1941) and Georgios Papadopoulos of the Regime of the Colonels (1967–1974). They have also made use of alleged Nazi symbolism, and have praised figures of Nazi Germany in the past. According to academic sources, the group is racist and xenophobic, and the party's leader has openly identified it as nationalist and racist. Many groups and political parties advocate for the Greek government to dissolve Golden Dawn.

This isn't an article I edit very much so I'd rather not to it myself. But if you think it belongs and really don't want to do it, ping me. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a poorly sourced claim

I have made a somewhat minor edit by removing the allegation of 50 to 70 thousand neo-Nazis in Russia sourced to the report by the ABC News. The report itself can no longer be found on the abcnews.com web site (was it retracted?). The version of the report saved at the archive.org attributes that number to a single journalist and does not specify how he arrived at the number.

It seems to me that the fairly significant claim (more than half of the world's neo-Nazis are in Russia) ought to be better sourced. Tristes tigres (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit was reverted by the admin Doug_Weller. I believe he is in the wrong. Tristes tigres (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you read his edit summary? [1] Do that, and then read our policy on verification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fortune.com study

As reported by an article on Fortune.com, a right-wing outlet, 6% or in other words almost 20 million americans openly identify as Nazis. Is there a reason why this is not mentioned in the passage about neonazism in the US? The only thing I could think of, since it is known to be right-wing biased, might be bias as to the outlet keeping the number far too low - but has someone looked into this before and falsified it or what?

Here's a link, last visited 11:10 (GMT+1) 26.07.2019, article written October 2018: https://fortune.com/2018/10/22/far-right-americans-just-six-person-study-says/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:120b:7f0:2ab0:b018:4d8f:f19f:8dbf (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Fortune is a conservative magazine, which technically means it's on the right of the political spectrum, but referring to it as "right wing" is really not appropriate, because it gives entirely the wrong impression, that Fortune is aligned with paleoconservatism, Fascism, the alt-right, or the far-right, when in reality Fortune is entirely a mainstream magazine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You also mis-state what the article says, which is that in a survey of 8,000 people, "only 6% ... fit the definition of far right", according to Fortune. If you look at the study itself [2], conducted by More in Common, those surveyed did not "openly identify" themselves, they were asked questions, and then the researchers put them into various categories based on their answers. The "far right" category Fortune referred to consisted of more than neo-Nazis, and was identified by the researchers as "Devoted Conservatives", i.e. they "are deeply engaged with politics and hold strident, uncompromising views. They feel that America is embattled, and they perceive themselves as the last defenders of traditional values that are under threat." What that means is that the study is more nuanced than Fortune makes it appear to be, and a lot more nuanced than you made it appear. The study says nothing whatsoever about there being 20,000 self-confessed neo-Nazis in the U.S., and is not an appropriate source for this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit 19:45 (GMT+1), 26.07.2019 Are there any editors who don't behave toxic and are unbiased to (or educated to?) write on the matter available?

To address the only substance I can gather from the only response thus far, the people who answered were indeed categorized by the study as far right based on answers given and not asked what they self-ascribe as - which means that they openly answered questions to the result of them being categorized as such. They openly answered in this manner, but instead of a simple "I am X" it's like "a, b, c are my answers" and those answers, given the way they were, just so happen to fit that definition at least as set by the methodology of this study. That is identification, just not self-identification. I can provide a link to a dictionary if needed, but that is off-topic discussion. - The methodology of the study can be addressed as a critique, why this article is not included if anyone answering thinks that may be the barrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:120b:7f0:2ab0:b018:4d8f:f19f:8dbf (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Beyond my Ken's reply. While neo-Nazis would probably fit into this group, it is incorrect to refer to the group as a whole or even any substantial part as neo-Nazi. TFD (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed. The source doesn't appear to mention Nazism or neo-Nazism, so it should not be used for this article. Articles must be mainly based on sources which discuss the topic itself, to avoid WP:OR. Additionally, when someone rushes to label perfectly reasonable explanations as "toxic", other people's willingness to go into detail will quickly disappear. Do not confuse this with winning a debate. Grayfell (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit 21:21 (GMT+1), 26.07.2019 Ok, Thanks finally for some answers. On-topic, it doesn't directly, specificly only concern neonazis so I guess only things that explicitly do this are included and not things that include neonazism among other info.

For some off-topic stuff: Neonazism does fit into this category (far right) by definition, even here on wiki in the article this talk happens on - the thing that would be "true" to say there is that the category of far right also includes things like for instance white supremacy, which largely agrees with it, and fascism, of which neonazism is a subgroup of. The distinction made here is definitionally then, which is 100% good since it's factual, when on a policy base it's usually but not always the same outcome (even if the labels themselves are different) which I would emphasize since that is the point of asking different questions instead of polling what people self-ascribe (which is part of the methodology of the study). However, I understand what you mean. What was given by the first reply was not a "perfectly reasonable explanations" by any stretch. It is distincly provocative and nobody will, in fact I have to return, take that seriously now when writing styles like that (immediate accusation of oversimplification, stuff like ***you*** in bold font which is very immature in this situation, attempts to distance things like conservatism from the label right-wing which is open display of a bias that has a huge effect on this topic right here, ...) get ignored and supported by other community members. That is genuine alienation towards people who are not already a part of wikipedia, but who use the website for quick info. There's nothing more I can write on that really. Do not shift this to "no winning debates" when issues are addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:120b:7f0:2ab0:b018:4d8f:f19f:8dbf (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for "off topic stuff". See WP:NOTFORUM. If you have specific, actionable suggestions, please propose them, and also sign your posts properly. If, for example, you know of a reliable source which says what percent of the far-right are neo-Nazis, that would be relevant. Neo-Nazism is a subset of the far-right... but so what? Wikipedia has many articles on the far-right, but this article is specifically about neo-Nazism. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But note the source does not use the term far right, but "devoted conservatives." They are not implying that this category corresponds to the far right, whichever definition is used. I suppose Fortune used that term because devoted conservatives are the most right-wing "tribe" that the study identified. The study anyway has attracted criticism because it claims that 86% of the population (the broad center) share a consensus in how the U.S.should be governed, viz., by centrist Democrats and Republicans with similar policies. TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis problem

Is sometimes neo-nazis is also part of terrorists? Scout MLG (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To be a neo-Nazi, one has to believe in the ideology of Nazism. To be a terrorist, one has to execute or plan terrorist acts. Terrorists can be of any ideology, but a neo-Nazi is not necessarily a terrorist, nor are all terrorists neo-Nazis. The fact that some neo-Nazis have planned or carried out terrorist acts is not enough to say that neo-Nazi are terrorists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. To claim an entire group of people to be terrorists just because they believe a more fringe belief that most people disagree with is wrong. The NSDAP or some modern Equivelent would not neccesarily be a terrorist organization. Some Nazis are terrorists, not all. Not all terrorists are Nazis either. Let their beliefs isolate them, not the labels you give them, it just underplays their bad Ideas. Wegwerf 23 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

SPLC

At least one of the citations is from a contested source that many people would say is untrusted because of their history of publishing opinion peices as well as defaming others. That being the Southern Poverty Law Center at [7]. That article may be honest, but others published by them are not. I believe it is not wise to cite them because of their reputation and the baseless accusations put forward by them against some semi-controversial figures. I believe since they have done this, it is not wise to accept them as a factual source. Wegwerf 23 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Bushwah. The SPLC has been found to be a reliable source numerous times at WP:RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

I ask to add citation needed at In Austria, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) served as a shelter for ex-Nazis almost from its inception. I have found this : with DOI :

https://dx.doi.org/10.16997/book30.i

Thanks Alexcalamaro (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Citation passes verification and substantiates claim. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• George Lincoln Rockwell pipe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Double Standards: Russia & Turkey Both in Europe

Hi Guys & Gals, I'm a Geography Teacher & Historian and Ask Kindly that if Russia is still allowed to remain in the Europe Category on this "Neo-Nazism" wiki page, a nation that is up to 85% in Asia bordering China & the Sea of Japan? Then another European Nation that is 5-10% in Europe in the Balkans, in the UN, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, COE Council of Europe, EU European Union "Accessing" Member Nation called "Turkey" should Also be RETURNED BACK to her Original Europe Category. To Summarize European Turkey's Right to be Returned Back to be listed Next to her Black Sea Neighbor Ukraine on this Page is Listed Here: The Republic of Turkey is a White European Nation with a Secular Constitution.

The Turkish Republic is a Member Of the UN United Nations, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation since ‘1952 (The 1st European Nation the Original Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) (But Russia 85% in Asia and Asian Armenia have never been invited to join, even Germany joined years later and then Spain only join in 1982, 30 years later!) Continuing, Turkey is a member of the Council Of Europe since '1949 (Again the 1st European Nation the Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) (But Russia 85% in Asia was only let in, in 1996 and Asian Armenia in 2001) Turkey has a European Latin Alphabet too is also...an EEC European Economic Community Associate Member since '1963 and EU European Union Joining Member in Accession,

G20 Industrial Nations, WTO World Trade Organisation, OECD, the Western Europe Branch of the WEOG Western European & Other Groups, also in the OSCE Organisation for Security & Cooperation In Europe, EU Customs Union, EFTA European Free Trade Association, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Business Council with it’s Russian & Ukrainian neighbors, UEFA Union Of European Football Associations, Eurovision Song Contest & European Travel Insurance Listings, GPS Giant TomTom European Listing plus too many more to list here?

The Secular, Balkan & Black Sea European Republic Of Turkey is home to St. Paul the Turkish Born Inventor of Christianity.

Christian Teachings state that the Citizens of Turkey are descendants of Japheth: The Father of the European Race via Gomer. The Germans are also descendants of Gomer. German Historian Stefan Ihrig’s Book: “Aryan Ataturk In The Nazi Imagination” even documents that the Nazi Party’s Office Of Racial Policy classed Turks, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, Moldovans as Aryans and part of the White European Race in 1936 because all 5 have the same bloodline & linguistic origins.

Wikipedia itself states the birthplace of the Turks is the Belukha Mountains in Siberia, Russia.

Turkey's West is in the Balkans 5-10% and Rest in Byzantine Anatolia Home Of The East Roman Empire that only reaches the European Caucuses of the Former USSR.

Turkey was founded by the Blond Haired & Blue Eyed WW1 Hero "Ataturk" as a European & Western Nation.

As for the people, the White European Citizens of Turkey are made up of many various White Europeans. The descendants of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire including the Original Siberian Turks whose DNA has practically vanished plus Bosniaks, Albanians, Greeks, Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, Kazakhs, Circassians, Assyrians, Russians, Slavs & Turkified Anatolians. Rockwell the founder of the American Nazi Party also stated in his book & manifesto that Turks are part of the White European Race Ref: Hate Crimes Volume 3, Google has many references to the NSDAP’s & ANP’s facts. The United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Authority lists Southern Europeans: Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Sicilians, Sardinians, Greeks, Turks, Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots & Armenians all under their Identification Code: IC2. The Freemasons Grand Lodges of the World list it’s Istanbul, Turkey Lodge under it’s European Category with Russia and all other European nations. The DNA Ancestry Research Lab: “23 & Me” have both Turkey & it’s White European Citizens in their European DNA pool. According to American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008), today's Turkish people are more closely related with Balkan populations than to the Central Eurasian populations East of Russia’s Ural Mountains,[136][137] and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the White European Turks and their Siberian ancestors, despite the historical relationship of their languages (Both the Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Siberian populations).[138] Multiple studies suggested an elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement model to explain the adoption of Turkish language by the White Anatolian indigenous inhabitants.[130]k[›][134]

A study involving mitochondrial analysis of a Byzantine-era population, whose samples were gathered from excavations in the archaeological site of Sagalassos, found that the samples had close genetic affinity with modern Turkish and Balkan populations.[139]

Another studies found the Peoples of the Caucasus (Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, Chechens, Circassians) are closest to the Turkish population among sampled European (Italian, French) populations.[141][142][143][144][145][146]

The Secular Democracy founded in 1923 is a European & Western Nation with a European Penal code founded by the “Father of the Turks” their Blond Haired & Blue Eyed WW1 Hero Ataturk

> 1. The United Nations Official Website Page Titled "The Economic Commission > For Europe" lists Turkey, Cyprus & Russia in Europe http://www.un.org/Depts > /Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf > > 2. The Official Website for NATO states in Article 10 states that > membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the > principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North > Atlantic area” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm > > 3. The Official Website for The Council Of Europe includes Turkey in Europe > http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states > > 4. The Official Website for the EU European Union states that Membership > criteria – Who can join? The Treaty on the European Union states that any > European country may apply for membership & Turkey is already in accession > negotiations http://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/p > olicy/conditions-membership_en Thank You David Davewikifan2020 (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Half of the world's neo-nazis are in Russia?

According to ABC article quoted on the page, "In a country that lost more people defeating the Nazis than any other country, there are now an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 neo-Nazis, half of the world's total." There is no information in the original article where these numbers come from. Russia's population is less than 2% of the world, the claim seems highly dubious. Suggest removing it or putting or 2A02:2168:A4BE:FA00:A009:BF16:8363:40A8 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly "dubious" to me. Demographics aren't spread evenly across the world, so the fact that Russia's population is 2% of the world population really has no connection to its having half of the neo-Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not spread evenly, but suggesting that Russia has as many nazis as all the other countries combined is a bold claim and should probably be backed with something more than unsourced "estimation" of a journalist. No other sources or articles confirm this claim. 46.242.11.239 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to have information about who came up with the estimate 'half of the world's total' and on what basis. On the other hand, we're not stating it as fact - it's clearly a quote (In a 2007 news story, ABC News reported, ...) and thus readers will know it's just a claim by a single source. I think that's good enough for now.

As to the credibilty of the claim itself: 1. Yes, Russia has only about 2% of the world's population, but roughly 10% of Europe and North America, where neo-Nazism is likely much more common than in other continents. 2. It's hard to draw a line between neo-Nazis and other right-wing groups. We don't know what definition of neo-Nazism was used for that estimate. Maybe there were more people in Russia who openly sympathized with Nazism than in other countries in 2007? I don't know. 3. There are few other numbers, but in 2012, there were (according to the Verfassungsschutz) 6,000 neo-Nazis in Germany. If we assume that the percentage of neo-Nazis in the rest of Europe and North America is similar to Germany, there would be roughly 80,000 neo-Nazis in these continents, and if the number 50,000 to 70,000 is correct for Russia, the estimate 'half of the world's total' might actually be too low. (Of course, that's just a rough guess. I'd reckon the Verfassungsschutz used a narrower definition of neo-Nazism than the ABC source, so it may be off by a factor of two or ten or whatever.)

In conclusion: The numbers may be off by a factor of two or more, but it's an interesting historical estimate anyway, and it's just a quote. ABC is generally a reliable source. No need to mark it as 'dubious'. Chrisahn (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If we all agree that the definition of neo-Nazis used in the article is unclear and the numbers may be off by a factor of 2-10, there is probably no reason to keep this statement. It seems more like an unsubstantiated claim rather than interesting historical estimate and it may confuse readers. 46.242.11.239 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not surprising. Far right groups in most of the world try to distance themselves from the Nazis. Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists for example usually don't publicly self-identify as Nazis or wear their uniforms. TFD (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That’s why I’ve always regarded academic sources as superseding journalistic sources in any situation on WP. The latter don’t care about peer-reviewing facts (their salary directly depends on the amount of copies sold). ABC doesn’t even provide a source for that claim. Newspapers are clearly not at the top of the pyramid of reliability, and thus should be used with caution on WP. That said, it should be noted that this is a personal point view that doesn't necessarily fit with the current policy regarding RS (I will lobby to improve it). Alcaios (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that news media is a good source for what happened today, rather than this sort of claim. I also dislike in text attribution, since it slows down the narrative. Considering the claim was made in 2007, we don't know if it is still valid. And what counts as a neo-Nazi? So it is probably best to remove it. TFD (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that newspapers classified as RS on WP are generally reliable for facts (and often the only reliable sources for recent facts), but that the interpretation/analysis of those same facts should be let to scholars/experts. Regarding this statement in particular: even if ABC is a reliable source, they don't give any reference for that figure, so I would argue for a removal. Alcaios (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few sources for the "50,000 to 70,000" number. Some of them say "skinheads", some say "neo-Nazis", some seem to conflate the two groups: https://books.google.de/books?id=Apq_AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA63 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-wqC14c3g&t=18m04s (Christof Putzel, original source of ABC quote) https://wallacehouse.umich.edu/library/from-russia-with-hate/ https://books.google.de/books?id=nktS8CObPYQC&pg=PA473 (also quotes Putzel, but misspells his name and says "skinheads" instead of "neo-Nazis") https://www.rferl.org/a/1069283.html ("The country now has an estimated 60,000 skinheads -- compared to a total of just 70,000 elsewhere in the world.") https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/violence-and-hatred-in-russias-new-skinhead-playground-5344909.html Chrisahn (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

+ https://books.google.fr/books?id=WZ1GAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA202 ("70,000 skinhead and radical nationalist organizations") + https://books.google.fr/books?id=iCfGBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT28 + https://books.google.fr/books?id=Xw1UBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA71 + https://books.google.fr/books?id=sD1lq4Mim0sC&pg=PA1859 + https://books.google.fr/books?id=aospAQAAIAAJ (all writing "70,000 skinheads") Alcaios (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Among those refs, "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009" provides a February (2009?) MBHR (Moscow Bureau of Human Rights ) estimation as their source. Alcaios (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The last ref, published in 2007, states "Alia Gerber, head of the Holocaust Foundation in Russia, warns, "Today there are 70,000 skinheads in Russia..." Alcaios (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked Russian sources. Moscow Bureau of Human Rights homepage (2010?): "Number of skinheads in Russia at present reaches 50,000 (...) Majority of skinheads are teenagers 13-19 years old. They are united in small (3-10) people gangs, which are obviously non-political organizations" http://pravorf.org/index.php/318-publ003

Izvestia newspaper (2007): "Today experts estimate that there are 70,000 skinheads in Russia" "Legal fight against skinheads is complicated by the fact that most of them are underage and exempt from criminal liability" https://iz.ru/news/398926. 46.242.11.239 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the various sources we have gathered, it seems that Putzel and ABC are the only ones talking about "Neo-Nazis". My interpretation is that the original wording of the report was most likely "70,000 Skinheads", then interpreted by Putzel as "70,000 Neo-Nazis" and cited as such by ABC. It would help if we could identify the original source and date of publication of this report (is it 'Moscow Bureau of Human Rights, February 2007'?). Alcaios (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The earliest document containing these numbers I can find is the MBHR analytical report "Racism, xenophobia, ethnic discrimination, antisemitism in Russia (January-June 2005)" http://pravorf.org/doc/publ_049.doc "By estimations of independent experts, number of skinheads in Russia at present is 50,000, which is comparable to their number in the rest of the world - 70,000". This is probably the original source where 50,000 and 70,000 numbers come from. 46.242.11.239 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's another quote from http://pravorf.org/doc/publ_049.doc , translated by Google: At the federal level, there are at least seven parties and movements that use xenophobia and / or racism as the basis for their ideology. This is Russian National Unity (RNU), which has now split into several branches, the “brown” “Pora” created by RNU, the Russian Ministry of Justice has lost registration of the National Sovereign Party of Russia, the Movement against Illegal Immigration, the National People’s Party, the Freedom Party, the Russian National Union. In addition, local nationalist movements, such as the Astrakhan "Vityaz", the Kuban "Fatherland" or the Yekaterinburg "City without Drugs" foundation, operate in several regions. According to experts, the total number of activists of these parties does not exceed 10-15 thousand people. Accurate calculation is difficult because the same people are often members of several parties and movements. Over 50,000 people participate in the skinhead movement, whose members are structured into thousands of medium and small groups. Xenophobia is actively used in its ideology and actions by the Cossacks. I think it's clear that this does not say there are (or were at the time) 50,000 neo-Nazis in Russia. Chrisahn (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, Chrisahn, Beyond My Ken the majority of sources mention "70,000 skinheads", not "70,000 Neo-Nazis", as does the earliest MBHR analytical report from 2005 found by 46.242.11.239, the same MBHR that is mentioned as the original source in several references (including the subsequent report from 2007). Putzel, and ABC via him, is most likely misquoting the report. Alcaios (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up these additional sources. I agree that it looks like the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights is the original source of these numbers, but they talk about skinheads, not neo-Nazis, and Putzel probably misinterpreted them, and several others quoted him. I now think it might be better to remove the ABC quote. It would be great if we had more numbers in the article, but the numbers must be correct. Chrisahn (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It could be interesting to mention this figure on the page Skinheads though, with the MBHR report and a couple of selected secondary sources. Alcaios (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Alcaios added the tag, but you reverted it with the comment "I'm not seeing any consensus in the talk page discussion for this". As far as I can tell, you are the only one still opposed to the tag, while Alcaios, The Four Deuces, myself and one or two IP editors support adding the tag or removing the sentence. Initially I also was against the tag, but after I looked at the sources more closely, I changed my mind, since it's very likely that the original estimate was about skinheads, not necessarily about neo-Nazis. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? Chrisahn (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not the way I read the discussion, but I could be wrong. I see general agreement that the number of neo-Nazis in Russian could be around 50 - 70,000, but for the statement to be false, there would have to be substantially more than 50 - 70,000 in the world in general. I see nothing whatsoever on that side of the "half of" equation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

50 - 70,000 Skinheads, not Neo-Nazis. See the links posted above by the contributors. Alcaios (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick overview of the discussion so far:

• 2A02:2168:A4BE:FA00:A009:BF16:8363:40A8 wrote: Suggest removing it or putting {{Dubious}}
• Beyond My Ken wrote: Doesn't seem particularly "dubious" to me
• 46.242.11.239 wrote: there is probably no reason to keep this statement
• TFD wrote: it is probably best to remove it
• Chrisahn (myself) wrote: it might be better to remove the ABC quote
• Alcaios wrote: I would argue for a removal (and added the {{Dubious}} tag)

Regarding the claim and its sources: I see some agreement that there are reliable sources for the claim that the number of skinheads in Russia could be around 50 - 70,000, but I also see agreement that the claim about the number of neo-Nazis is probably a misinterpretation of these sources. So we don't have a reliable source for a statement about the number of neo-Nazis in Russia, which implies we also don't have reliable source for the statement about "half of the world's total". Chrisahn (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Given all that, I would be in favor of removing the statement entirely, considering that the source was pretty vague about where that estimate came from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I removed it. Thanks for the productive discussion, everyone! Chrisahn (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Information on India is a stub

There is plenty of more information that can be expanded on Hindutva Nationalists. The section is a stub. There are existing BJP and terror accused politicians like Pragya Thank who hold office and have been on record honoring and celebrating the death of Gandhi on record in interviews or the hate-filled and violence inciting speeches of Kapil Mishra. And plenty of incidents of Hindutva (not to be confused with Hinduism) which have carried out Mob Lynchings against Muslims, Dalits and other minorities, sometimes even under the purview of Police or the Delhi Pogrom. There is a lot that can be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shumayal (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Appears there are very few issues with neo-nazis

This is the section of wikipedia which can be interpreted as saying there are few issues with neo-nazis. Suggest not calling this section "issues".

Issues Ex-Nazis in mainstream politics

The 1980s dispute between Austrian president Kurt Waldheim and the World Jewish Congress caused an international incident. The most significant case on an international level was the election of Kurt Waldheim to the Presidency of Austria in 1986. It came to light that Waldheim had been a member of the National Socialist German Students' League, the SA and served as an intelligence officer during the Second World War. Following this he served as an Austrian diplomat and was the Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1972 until 1981. After revelations of Waldheim's past were made by an Austrian journalist, Waldheim clashed with the World Jewish Congress on the international stage. Waldheim's record was defended by Bruno Kreisky, an Austrian Jew who served as Chancellor of Austria. The legacy of the affair lingers on, as Victor Ostrovsky has claimed the Mossad doctored the file of Waldheim to implicate him in war crimes.

Contemporary right-wing populism Some critics have sought to draw a connection between Nazism and modern right-wing populism in Europe, but the two are not widely regarded as interchangeable by most academics. In Austria, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) served as a shelter for ex-Nazis almost from its inception.[75] In 1980, scandals undermined Austria's two main parties and the economy stagnated. Jörg Haider became leader of the FPÖ and offered partial justification for Nazism, calling its employment policy effective. In the 1994 Austrian election, the FPÖ won 22 percent of the vote, as well as 33 percent of the vote in Carinthia and 22 percent in Vienna; showing that it had become a force capable of reversing the old pattern of Austrian politics.[76]

Historian Walter Laqueur writes that even though Haider welcomed former Nazis at his meetings and went out of his way to address Schutzstaffel (SS) veterans, the FPÖ is not a fascist party in the traditional sense, since it has not made anti-communism an important issue, and it does not advocate the overthrow of the democratic order or the use of violence. In his view, the FPÖ is "not quite fascist", although it is part of a tradition, similar to that of 19th-century Viennese mayor Karl Lueger, which involves nationalism, xenophobic populism, and authoritarianism.[77] Haider, who in 2005 left the Freedom Party and formed the Alliance for Austria's Future, was killed in a traffic accident in October 2008.[78]

Barbara Rosenkranz, the Freedom Party's candidate in Austria's 2010 presidential election, was controversial for having made allegedly pro-Nazi statements.[79] Rosenkranz is married to Horst Rosenkranz, a key member of a banned neo-Nazi party, who is known for publishing far-right books. Rosenkranz says she cannot detect anything "dishonourable" in her husband's activities.[80] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18d:4700:d7b0:f897:ca31:e397:20ae (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you just talking about the subject, or are you suggesting specific changes to the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended Edit-confirmed Edit Request

Indent United States one more sub-bullet out in the Around the World section, because right now it looks like it's treating Uruguay as a part of the US--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:71C0:EACD:1843:F925 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Šešelj and Chetniks

While Šešelj is definitely on the right of the political spectrum in Serbia, it is not true, by any mean that he is a Neo-Nazi. He declares himself as a fighter of what he calls new fascist order and often uses the words Hitler, fascism and Nazism in derogative meanings for political opponents.

Chetniks from WWII started as a movement against Germans. They liberated the town of Loznica, which is sometimes accredited as the first town liberated from Germans. There was in certain areas collaboration with Italian forces of certain Chetnik groups, but it is rather to fight Croatian forces or Partizans. Partizans themselves had negotiations with Germans, yet no one claims they are Neo-Nazi. The leader of Chetniks, Draža Mihajlović, has been decorated posthumously by the President of France, Charles de Gaulle, and the President of the USA, Harry Truman, certain orders of the respective states. Certain groups of Chetniks did commit war crimes, but there were crimes by any side (American or Soviet too). Neo-Nazi groups in Serbia exist (not on a large scale as it is tried to be presented in the article), but they celebrate Milan Nedić, sometimes Dimitrije Ljotić.

Please remove or change the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.145.188 (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done - In the context as presented, this material is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Why Russia 85% in Asia? Not Turkey 5-10% in Europe? Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Why is Russia a nation 85% in Asia bordering China & North Korea listed in the Europe listing BUT not Turkey 5-10% in Europe, NATO, Council of Europe & Joining the EU which are been removed from it's original Europe listing? Wikipedia should NOT have Double Standards and the Republic of Turkey should be moved back to Europe if Russia is allowed to stay?

The Republic of Turkey is a White European Nation with a Secular Constitution.

The Turkish Republic is a Member Of the UN United Nations, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization since ‘1952 (The 1st European Nation the Original Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) (But Russia 85% in Asia and Asian Armenia have never been invited to join, even Germany joined years later and then Spain only join in 1982, 30 years later!) Continuing, Turkey is a member of the Council Of Europe since '1949 (Again the 1st European Nation the Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) (But Russia was only let in, in 1996 and Armenia in 2001) Turkey has a European Latin Alphabet too and recognized as European by the UK British Government’s Official website www.gov.uk ...Also an EEC European Economic Community Associate Member since '1963 and EU European Union Joining Member in Accession, G20 Industrial Nations, WTO World Trade Organization, OECD, the Western Europe Branch of the WEOG Western European & Other Groups, also in the OSCE Organization for Security & Cooperation In Europe, EU Customs Union, EFTA European Free Trade Association, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Business Council with it’s Russian & Ukrainian neighbors, UEFA Union Of European Football Associations, Eurovision Song Contest & European Travel Insurance Listings, GPS Giant TomTom European Listing plus too many more to list here?

The Secular, Balkan & Black Sea European Republic Of Turkey is home to St. Paul the Turkish Born Inventor of Christianity.

Christian Teachings state that the Citizens of Turkey are descendants of Japheth: The Father of the European Race via Gomer. The Germans are also descendants of Gomer. German Historian Stefan Ihrig’s Book: “Aryan Ataturk In The Nazi Imagination” even documents that the Nazi Party’s Office Of Racial Policy classed Turks, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, Moldovans as Aryans and part of the White European Race in 1936 because all 5 have the same bloodline & linguistic origins.

Wikipedia itself states the birthplace of the Turks is the Belukha Mountains in Siberia, Russia.

Turkey's West is in the Balkans 5-10% and Rest in Byzantine Anatolia Home Of The East Roman Empire that only reaches the European Caucuses of the Former USSR.

As for the people, the White European Citizens of Turkey are made up of many various White Europeans. The descendants of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire including the Original Siberian Turks whose DNA has practically vanished plus Bosniaks, Albanians, Greeks, Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, Kazakhs, Circassians, Assyrians, Russians, Slavs & Turkified Anatolians. Rockwell the founder of the American Nazi Party also stated in his book & manifesto that Turks are part of the White European Race Ref: Hate Crimes Volume 3, Google has many references to the NSDAP’s & ANP’s facts. The United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Authority lists Southern Europeans: Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Sicilians, Sardinians, Greeks, Turks, Greek Cypriots & Turkish Cypriots all under their Identification Code: IC2. The Freemasons Grand Lodges of the World list it’s Istanbul, Turkey Lodge under it’s European Category with Russia and all other European nations. The DNA Ancestry Research Lab: “23 & Me” have both Turkey & it’s White European Citizens in their European DNA pool. According to American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008), today's Turkish people are more closely related with Balkan populations than to the Central Eurasian populations East of Russia’s Ural Mountains,[136][137] and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the White European Turks and their Siberian ancestors, despite the historical relationship of their languages (Both the Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Siberian populations).[138] Multiple studies suggested an elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement model to explain the adoption of Turkish language by the White Anatolian indigenous inhabitants.[130]k[›][134]

A study involving mitochondrial analysis of a Byzantine-era population, whose samples were gathered from excavations in the archaeological site of Sagalassos, found that the samples had close genetic affinity with modern Turkish and Balkan populations.[139]

Another studies found the Peoples of the Caucasus (Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, Chechens, Circassians) are closest to the Turkish population among sampled European (Italian, French) populations.[141][142][143][144][145][146]

The Secular Democracy founded in 1923 is a European & Western Nation with a European Penal code founded by the “Father of the Turks” their Blond Haired & Blue Eyed WW1 Hero Ataturk

> 1. The United Nations Official Website Page Titled "The Economic Commission > For Europe" lists Turkey, Cyprus & Russia in Europe http://www.un.org/Depts > /Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf > > 2. The Official Website for NATO states in Article 10 states that > membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the > principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North > Atlantic area” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm > > 3. The Official Website for The Council Of Europe includes Turkey in Europe > http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states > > 4. The Official Website for the EU European Union states that Membership > criteria – Who can join? The Treaty on the European Union states that any > European country may apply for membership & Turkey is already in accession > negotiations http://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/p > olicy/conditions-membership_en Davewikifan2020 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - Russia has traditionally been culturally/politically European, while Turkey has been culturally/politically Asian/Islamic/Middle Eastern during the modern period. See Turkic peoples and Ottoman Empire. Anyway, your argument is far outside the scope of this talk page. Wikipedia does not classify countries into continents, we simply follow what reliable academic sources say; all you are providing is a list of circumstantial evidence which supports your biased view of Turkey. I will add that your arguments are far from convincing - NATO membership, for example, hardly makes a country a member of Europe. Nor do twitter accounts, citations to the 1st century AD, or racial anecdotes about Ataturk. There are ultimately no changes that we can make based upon this request. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Changing introduction

In the introduction of the article, it says "promote hatred and attack minorities". What is meant by the word "minorities" is not made clear enoough, and should be changed to "racial minorities", "ethnic minorities", or whatever it actually means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:A045:AE00:382F:FCB8:10C8:CF8 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the meaning was clear, but I've made it explicit anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Role of neo nazis in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

It seems important to mention that neo nazi groups planned and took part in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, although I'm not sure where.

• https://www.vice.com/en/article/93wnja/neo-nazis-boast-about-participation-in-capitol-hill-invasion

There are many more suitable references in the main article

--Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• We have a lot of refs supporting the Proud Boys as being neo-fascist (but not neo-Nazi), and they were certainly there. This CNN article shows stickers for the Nationalist Social Club (NSC), a neo-Nazi group, at the riot, but the order flags and banners listed in that article are not neo-Nazi per se, they're white supremacist, neo-Confederate, and so on -- although the "Camp Auschwitz" t-shirt would certainly seem to be Nazi-inspired. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Countryhumans" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Countryhumans. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Countryhumans until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Purplneon486 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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 ([3], [4], [5]) 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" [6]. 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. [7]

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". [8], while DeepL gives "fighting organisation" [9]. 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)

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)

If "ethnoreligious" is too academic, we could just use "religious". Hate is being doled out here like Oprah giving out cars, it's all technically correct... 2600:1012:B024:8975:502F:8B09:C90A:F0C9 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove ethnic at all, but instead one could also include religious in the lead, so attack racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. There is zero reason why ethnic should be removed from the lead (it is distinct from racial). Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nazism vs Fascism

Serbia section - we cannot put this text

Earlier, on 18 June 1990, Vojislav Šešelj organized the Serbian Chetnik Movement (SČP) though it wasn't permitted official registration due to its obvious Chetnik identification. On 23 February 1991, it merged with the National Radical Party (NRS), establishing the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) with Šešelj as president and Tomislav Nikolić as vice president.[47] It was a Chetnik party,[48] oriented towards neo-fascism with a striving for the territorial expansion of Serbia.[47][49]

for fascism cannot be equated to nazism. Also, the phrase "oriented toward" is meaningless here for the references [47][49] given did not elaborate it.--24.135.1.22 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@24.135.1.22: Nazism is a type of fascism, and even if it wasn't, if neo-nazis swarm to a chetnik neo-fascist group, it's getting associated, isn't it?RKT7789 (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No, definitely not. POV, not counted here. Please, provide valid references supporting your claim ("if neo-nazis swarm (sic) to a chetnik neo-fascist group")--24.135.1.22 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@24.135.1.22: Certainly, "Right-Wing Extremism in Serbia" describes how Seselj's neo-fascist chetnik group cooperated with neo-nazi skinheads right from the beginning (page 1 & 2). So why wouldn't they be equated? Golden Dawn neo-nazis from the Greek Volunteer Guard also gladly helped out their fellow Serbian neo-fascists. Chetnik fascists famously collaborated with Nazi Germany, so why should neo-chetniks be any different? Serbian neo-nazi groups like Serbian Action heil their predecessors General Nedic and Serbian Waffen SS (who by the way operated under both SS and chetniks). Serbian neo-fascist/nazis also cooperate with Russian neo-nazis from Rusich and Russian National Unity in Donbass. I don't know why you're being so incredulous.RKT7789 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

All of your bla-bla above is picked up from journalistic opinions posted somewhere, freed off elementary formal logic. Such "thinkers" are free to mix quite different things, point at completely marginal groups and ideologies from the far-right. I'm here a Serbian citizen and for decades, I do not see here in Serbia any "neo-chetniks" equated to neo-nazis in any way. --24.135.1.22 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You asked for sources. You were given sources. It is no good attacking the sources when they do not support your unsubstantiated opinion. Emeraude (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

The proposed edits should include 4 things:

1. "Embroidery March" where hundreds of Ukrainians attended marches glorifying Nazi SS soldiers this year in the country's most populous city. https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-in-ukraine-attend-marches-celebrating-nazi-ss-soldiers/

2. Ukrainian protesters with heavy nazi swastika and "white power" tattoos went overseas to Hong Kong protests. https://www.vice.com/en/article/zmjjey/what-the-hell-are-ukrainian-fascists-doing-in-the-hong-kong-protests

3. Azov and other volunteer battalions in Ukraine have far right White supremacism (hateful leanings). Denying holocaust, support white power and carry Nazi tattoos. Yet they claim to not be neo-nazis but their actions says they are politically lying unconvincingly.

Azov and other volunteer battalions might be Ukraine's most potent and reliable force on the battlefield against the separatists, they also pose the most serious threat to the Ukrainian government, and perhaps even the state, when the conflict in the east is over. The Azov causes particular concern due to the far right, even neo-Nazi, leanings of many of its members.

Dmitry claimed not to be a Nazi, but waxed lyrical about Adolf Hitler as a military leader, and believes the Holocaust never happened.

The battalion's symbol is reminiscent of the Nazi Wolfsangel, though the battalion claims it is in fact meant to be the letters N and I crossed over each other, standing for "national idea". Many of its members have links with neo-Nazi groups, and even those who laughed off the idea that they are neo-Nazis did not give the most convincing denials.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis

4. Lastly, Ukraine was one of only three countries to vote against the 2017 United Nations resolution that condemns the glorification of Nazism. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-un-nazi-glorification-resolution-vote-against-free-speech-far-right-white-supremacist-neo-alt-a8066761.html

Such info I feel needs to be mentioned and added in, as they are currently zero content for Ukraine. I would add it in myself but cannot due to the editing restrictions.

WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the exact edit you'd like to have made. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2021 (2)

Want to add in more details for Ukraine section.

My exact worded edit to be added is also in my sandbox. Feel free to add it in if you think it is relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WesternChristianitytestballi/sandbox

It is to be added in right after this specific already existing paragraph in the article in the UKRAINE SECTION:

Azov Battalion of the Ukrainian National Guard[78] is fighting pro-Russian separatists in the War in Donbass.[82][83] Some members of the battalion are openly white supremacists.[81]

And my full proposed exact edit to go under it, is as below -

....

Despite being banned from Facebook for a year, the ukrainian far-right group is using the social media platform to recruit new members, incite violence and to promote its far right ideology. Matthew Schaaf, from the human rights group 'Freedom House' asserted the organisation's "ability to mobilize people through social media poses a threat to society". “In the last couple of years, participants of Azov-affiliated groups have used violence against vulnerable groups in Ukrainian society and threatened public officials, with social media serving as an important tool to organize these actions and share their results,” Schaaf told BuzzFeed News.

In 2010, the founder of Azov movement, Andriy Biletsky, stated that he believed Ukraine must “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans].” The Russian President Vladimir Putin has been using the group's hateful background to justify his attacks on Ukraine. In 2017, Ukraine was one of only three countries along with the United States and Palau to vote against the United Nations resolution that condemns the glorification of Nazism. America's given reasoning for their opposition to the resolution, was freedom of speech concerns and that Russia was sponsoring the resolution as a political attack against Ukraine. WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Section on Ukraine already makes the points in first para - that it's a far-right org headed by a neo-nazi. Azov Battalion is more suited for specifics about recruiting and the quotes. UN resolution seems relevant, but as the source says, it's something that happens every year. Ukraine's voting over the years may perhaps be included, but a single year's vote isn't worth mention. --Hemanthah (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Islampobhia didn’t exist

Islamphobia didn’t exist because islam is not ethno-religion like judaism there’s many white muslims as will nazi germany was not against islam so this must delete Xsaxds12 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can i delete the word “islamphobia” because islam is not race Xsaxds12 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No. TFD (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, no. ToeSchmoker (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Split template removed by User:CapnJackSp while the discussion is on

@User:CapnJackSp Stop removing the Split template while the discussion is on. It does not matter where the discussion is taking place. You have already voted delete and you are now disrupting this discussion. Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Why you are posting the same 'split' request twice on this page when your yet-to-be-deleted article is only about India? It is on the Neo-Nazism#India and that needs to be enough. I understand you are attempting to gather more attention to your creation/request but it is looking disruptive.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I started this thread about the split template. There is no justification for removing the split template from the top of the page. The page is 200 KB long exceeding the WP:SIZERULE. Due to the long length of the article, it is acceptable to include a split template in the section as well. You have already voted to delete the article and you are now disrupting the split template and removing it. This is inappropriate behavior and I am requesting you to restore it for one final time. Venkat TL (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, The AfD will be closed tomorrow, the template can be removed after that, Why cannot you allow it to remain for a day? Are you restoring the split template or not? Venkat TL (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC

The article is not 200k bytes long and even if it was, still it will never get merged to your article which is only about India. Why you are arguing about this should be beyond everybody. The actual template on the India section, which is the relevant one, is still in place. Why do you want two separate templates on the same issue?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, So you are NOT restoring the split template on the top of the page, despite the discussion set to be closed in a day. Right? Venkat TL (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, I have already replied above why the template on top of the page is needed. Copying it again for your reference. "There is no justification for removing the split template from the top of the page. The page is 200 KB long exceeding the WP:SIZERULE. Due to the long length of the article, it is acceptable to include a split template in the section as well." Venkat TL (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Two split templates are needed? Where did that come from? 1)I doubt 'split' templates are used for notifying AFDs, didnt see that on WP:split. Do point out the relevant sections to me. 2)I doubt two separate templates are needed for a split discussion. Again, please notify me of the relevant sections if I have missed any.

Anyway, since you already escalated this to ANI, I think it would get resolved there by editors far more experienced than we are.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTBURO. Admins on WP:ANI can see through the behavior of users who are trying to disrupt Wikipedia with such specious argument. The discussion on the fate of the article is going on, at AfD, The split template should be replaced. What is the argument for removing it? The ANI is to discuss your disruption. The content (the template) needs to be discussed here. Venkat TL (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the link. But I still dont know your issue with my edit, since you keep skirting the issue at hand. The split template is already there. I have only removed one of the two split templates used. As for your ANI argument, Im sure that the editors would revert my edit if it was indeed disruptive. Im still unable to understand why you made negligible attempt at dispute resolution before filing, and are choosing to do it afterwards.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp What is your reason for removing the split template? Venkat TL (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the relevant template is still there. Would like to request you to stop making ambiguous statements implying that the template is not there, you have done this here and at ANI. What is your reason for having two separate templates for the same thing?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp The template has to remain on the top of the article. As the WP:SIZERULE is a concern for the entire article. That an additional one is included in the section is not enough reason to remove the template from the top of the article. Again because the concern is on the size of the Entire Neo-Nazi article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

After reading your responses so far, it seems you seem to think only one template should be on the page. If So the main one on top should remain. While the discussion for the section continues. Please explain your objection to the section split template. Venkat TL (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No issues with the status quo.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

AFD closed as delete. Since user's request was to allow notice to remain until the AFD closes, now that it has, removed the second nootice as well.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)