Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Opposition parties have been indefinitely blocked.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Adding participants?

Is it proper for others to add editors after the mediation request is filed? See user:Strothra.--Cberlet (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're part of the discussion. Someone should notify Strothra. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the unilateral inclusion of Strothra. Unless Strothra comes here and adds their name to the list, I object to the inclusion of another party by someone other than the editor who files the Request for Mediation.--Cberlet (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you object to his inclusion? He was involved in the dispute in the beginning. And how do you expect him to know about this mediation? It's not like it has been added on the Talk:Neo-Nazism page. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the instructions correctly, if all the people named in the dispute don't sign to agree to the mediation, then the mediation is thrown out. The mediation should only include people who are directly involved and who actually want to participate. It shouldn't just list every editor who made one or two comments on a talk page. Spylab (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is correct, and the second part is generally considered correct. If you disagree with the mediation because of the party list and can't reach a resolution on this talk page, it is your perojative to remove your agreement to mediate. Short of that, the case will be accepted. However, as I noted, it is generally accepted that only involved parties and not interested people who have given one or two comments are listed as "parties". Daniel 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I am going to remove the new addition, and if someone wants to contact user:Strothra and that editor want to joint the mediation, that would be fine.--Cberlet (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long?

Wow, this mediation is sure taking its time. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who would want to mediate us? :-) (often takes a few weeks to assign) --Cberlet (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need acceptance by the involved parties

I want to take this case. I had not been active for the long time, but I think I shall be much active now. If you agree to take this case by me, then please accept, so the process may not take long. For the time being, I would like to visit the pages where the discussions held. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please brief your views as well, what you want to mediate, so it would be easier to identify for me, what an every individual party has opinions about the article contents. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by reading the entire discussion: Talk:Neo-Nazism#Neo-Nazism is an ideology, not just a movement if you want to catch up. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 07:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through some of the links, Danish, Antisemitism, and Book:Neo Nazis and German Unification provided, which clearly mention that the Neo-Nazi is an idealogy as well. I believe, these are reliable sources and can not be ignored. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not being ignored. They are simply not clear enough. Also, the ideology of neo-Nazism is Nazism (as these sources claim), we have several academic sources pointing this out. Neo-Nazism is just a term for an ideology: Nazism post-WW2. Neo-Nazism is not an ideology, it is a term. Make sure you read the discussion, and not just a few links. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 09:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the mediation. Please excuse me for putting a space between the comments, but I have great difficulty reading the page in edit mode otherwise, and tend to screw up my comment insertions. Would it help if we all wrote a short (less than 500 word) summary of our positions on the matters raised?--Cberlet (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above exchange clearly explains the dispute. Many reliable references refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology, but EliasAlucard dismisses those many reliable sources because they contradict his own personal opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be about presenting facts supported by reliable references, not about promoting the point of view of individual Wikipedia editors. Spylab (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about my own personal view. Those sources, are not clear enough on the subject. I'll give you one example of one of your own sources calling it an ideology and how it perfectly agrees with my own POV: Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology.[1] This source of yours, is very clear that neo-Nazism is just the name for a contemporary ideology: Nazism. On top of that, I have lots of sources explaining very clearly that neo-Nazism is just a term for modern Nazi ideology. I am not denying that "neo-Nazism" is an ideology, I am simply being very specific and very clear on what ideology it is, rather than just calling it an ideology without context. This Spylab, is what you have repeatedly failed to understand a hundred times over. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bickering and write a 500 word summary of your case below. Please make no comments under any of these statements until we hear from the mediator. Please give this mediation a chance.--Cberlet (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add one point, please write about the contents only. Do not write what an individual has been done previously. Please be mindful of civility and no personal attacks. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 10:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

I would like to hear from EliasAlucard, Intangible2.0 and Vision Thing as well, so that we can proceed further as soon as possible. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 08:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all the involved parties, please add summaries latest by December 25, 2007. Else, it will be mediated according to existing summaries. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 09:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some of us this is a period of religious observance. I would very much appreciate it if you would extend the deadline to January 5th to allow for this factor and for holiday travels that will occupy some of us during the next two weeks. December 25 is Christmas, which for me has religious significance. I will be with extended family out of state with limited computer access. For those on an academic calendar, this is alos a busy time.--Cberlet (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Berlet here. We will need some extra time. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add/update your summaries latest by January 5, 2008, as proposed/seconded by the parties. Shyam ^(T/C) 10:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for writing the summaries within the deadline. I am keeping this on hold till January 8, 2008. Thanks for your anticipating co-ordination. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cberlet

Following WWII, the early neonazi groups overwhelmingly sought to replicate Hitler's Nazi movement. Yockey and others, however, began a new syncretic synthesis of ethno-racialist nationalism. A tiny handful of libertarians and right-wing ideologues continued to attempt to establish that Nazism (and even fascism), was a leftist ideology, stressing the term "National Socialism." The idea that Nazism or fascism was a left-wing ideology or representative of socialism, however, was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars. In the late 1970s, variations began to emerge among neonazi groups. Some still followed Hitler, while others claimed the early national socialism of Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser, and denounced Hitler for the Night of the Long Knives. Christian forms of neonazism emerged (Christian Identity), as did Neo-völkisch movements built around pagan or occult themes. At least one group of neonazis based their ideology on the mythic religious Romanian Orthodox fascism of Codreanu. Some neonazi groups explicitly distanced themselves from national socialism. These movements no longer replicated the form or ideology of Hitler's Nazism, but in some cases were substantial variations. While the term "NAZI" is a contraction of the German language words for "National Socialism," (Nationalsozialismus), there were other forms of national socialism that predated the rise of the movement and ideology in Germany. Thus to argue that neonazi groups today merely seek to restore "national socialism" is an error, as is the contention that the current multiple ideologies among neonazi groups are simply a restatement of Hitler's Nazi ideology. All of this is easily documented using cites to recent scholarship in the field, which has undergone a tremendous shift in the past 20 years, especially in the work of Eatwell, Griffin, Laqueur, and Goodrick-Clarke.

I believe that there are several errors of analysis impeding resolution of this dispute. I contend that the followig statements represent the views of the majority of contempory scholars:

Neither fascism nor German Nazism are representative of socialism or the political left.
Fascism and German Nazism are either right-wing ideologies or ally closely with right-wing movements.
Neonazism today should not be described as simply seeking to replicate "national socialism."
Neonazism today should be described as having multiple movements.
Neonazism today should be described as having multiple ideologies.

--Cberlet (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EliasAlucard

This entire dispute started with User:Spylab changing the ideology of the Swedish neo-Nazi group National Socialist Front into neo-Nazism in the infobox,[2] which caught my attention and made me change it back to National Socialism.[3] After that, Spylab took the dispute further to the Neo-Nazism article by trying to get it his way. I recently joined the WikiProject Fascism project, and I've only recently begun working on these kind of articles seriously. So that it for a long time was a claim on the neo-Nazism article that stated neo-Nazism is an ideology (uncited, might I add) is really not a good argument against me in this case. There has been a very long and tired discussion on the talk page of the article. I suspect a political leftist agenda from User:Cberlet,[4] trying to bunch together various political organisations that practise any sort of antisemitism and white nationalism (of any sort) as neo-Nazis, when in reality, it's not that simple. Everything from the Ku Klux Klan to Fascist groups and some Catholic organisations has been included in Berlet's description of neo-Nazis. This is very inaccurate because all neo-Nazis reject Christianity for ideological reasons, like for instance, Nietzsche rejected it, or, because it's considered a Judaic religion incompatible with Germanic peoples because of Christianity's Semitic origins (I'm not making this up, they actually believe this). Neo-Nazism, as has been described many times, is simply a term, or a label, by the media and other non-Nazi organisations, used to describe political groups that practise Hitler's ideology. Of course, there are some minor deviations, such as some neo-Nazis (if they can be called that) who are into Strasserism, but that's not really a good argument for calling neo-Nazism an ideology. Neo-Nazism is of course, simply a continuation of Nazism, which makes it an ideology currently not in power in any country in the world. However, it is inaccurate to describe neo-Nazism as an ideology, because that is just a contextual term for Nazi ideology post-World War II. Despite me providing several sources for this, they have repeatedly been rejected by User:Spylab and User:Cberlet, on the basis of the sources not being reliable (even though they are, and in some cases, academic sources). What's also extremely dishonest, is that User:Spylab claims I haven't provided any sources at all. Now, neo-Nazism is many times called an ideology, but that is simply because the sources calling it an ideology haven't been descriptive enough to explain that Nazism is the ideology and neo-Nazism is the term for it. Neo-Nazism is nothing new, it has pretty much the exact same tenets as Nazism, everything is pretty much exactly the same, except that it's a Nazi ideology practised in a modern era. In his justification for calling neo-Nazism an/several ideologies, User:Cberlet has tried to use this source. This article is about various antisemitic/white nationalist ideologies, of which neo-Nazism is one, and it does not delve into any specific details about neo-Nazism in particular as an ideology, but rather, describes very vaguely, a wide spectrum of different ideologies, of which Berlet has very dishonestly, tried to use this source specifically for neo-Nazism. I disagree that it can be used for this specific purpose. Also, User:Cberlet isn't being very collaborative here. He literally lists a huge list of book titles (Talk:Neo-Nazism#Movement_.26_ideology), expecting us to know what he's talking about, what page he's referring to, and us having instant access to all these books for verification. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fast collaboration project, if we are going to read all those books just to verify a point, no one would be editing Wikipedia because it would take forever. Berlet cannot have it his way by just listing book titles like this, because citing sources by being very unspecific and just listing the book titles, is not how you're supposed to cite your sources; citing sources this way, can be abused on other articles by Wikipedians just adding the title of a book and writing whatever content they want in the article without the rest of us knowing where to check in order to verify the added content. Citing page numbers, and preferably also a short excerpt in the quote feature which is available in the {{cite book}} template is a good way of collaborating. Berlet however, has refused to give us any specific page numbers or passages from all these book titles that supposedly corroborate his point, expecting us to blindly believe him.

I am not accepting the above summary. I am only looking for the summary related to contents only. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 08:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was related to the content. It's a thorough explanation of the dispute and the content disputed. Just striking it out is not fair. How is this different from User:Spylab's symmary? He didn't even write anything about the content. — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 09:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)I[reply]

The thing is that, I do not want to involve another person's previous act which will be delaying the mediation process. Spylab's summary is of not use at the stage. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so should I write a new summary or what's the deal? — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my contention of what should be included in the neo-Nazism article:

Neo-Nazism should be defined as a contextual term for Nazi ideology post-WW2.
Neo-Nazism should be defined as any political movement seeking to revive National Socialism à la Hitler.
Neo-Nazism should not and cannot be applied on just about any political group that hates Jews and are proud to be white Europeans.
Neo-Nazism is considered right-wing unanimously by all Leftists, the media, and even many scholars. However, this is not a view neo-Nazis themselves share, and it must be reflected in the article.
Some Liberals and others, also consider neo-Nazism to be left-wing (mostly because of its Socialist aspects, and Socialists do not like to admit this for biased political reasons). Although generally speaking, neo-Nazis do not consider themselves to be either right or left and they despise both the left and the right equally. Optional inclusion in the article.
Neo-Nazi organisations do not call themselves neo-Nazis or Nazis, and always refer to themselves as either National Socialists or Nationalists. This must be reflected in the lead.
Neo-Nazis do not consider themselves to be fascists at all. Optional inclusion in the article.
Neo-Nazism (and Nazism) is in fact not at all related to Fascism from an ideological point of view (although, both ideologies, during their prime, did share many similar governmental features, and still continue to do so today). Whereas one is a nationalist ideology based on the Indo-European (Aryan) people, the other is simply based on state-nationalism (what has at times been called, state worship, or Statolatry). Nazism and Fascism are radically different from each other in that sense, although in practise, very similar. Optional inclusion in the article.
Fascism also rejects the notion of human races and biological differences between different human races, whereas Nazism is heavily orientated towards the theory of Evolution and other genetic aspects. Optional inclusion in the article.

— EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intangible2.0

I think that what the German Verfassungsschutzen write is pretty apt:

Intangible2.0 (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, if you could write english version of the summary as well. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 10:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Neonazism is used to describe extreme-right movements and activities, that confide in the ideology of National Socialism and seek the establishment of a totalitarian Führerstate similar to that of the Third Reich.
Neonazism is particularly abhorrent form of extreme rightism. It embraces all activities and efforts that openly accept the ideology of National Socialism. Neonazis would want to establish a state and national community based on the historic 24 points program of the NSDAP, and seek a totalitarian, nationalist and racist one-party Führerstate. An explicit ideology, that would allow for critical debate, is not available.
The term Neonazism, an abbreviation for Neo or New National Socialism, is used for extreme right activities that are based on historical National Socialism.

Intangible2.0 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdyakoff

I'd like to accept the summaries of Intangible2.0 and Vision Thing as the good ones - instead of writting my own. Also, the existing first sentencein the lead paragraph is ok with me.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the lattest EliasAlucard addition, the first two points are relevant to the definition of Neo-Nazism - all other points shall find their place later - not in the lead paragraph.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab

The neo-Nazism article should state the fact that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology, not just a political movement (as per at least 50 reliable references). The article should also reflect the fact that neo-Nazism is not an exact replica (nor an attempt at exact duplication) of the Nazism of Nazi Germany. Cited information should be included in the article and original research should be omitted. Spylab (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Thing

Cas Mudde in his The Ideology of the Extreme Right (2000) pretty correctly describes my position in this dispute (in which, btw, I'm not particularly active): "Generally speaking, the terms neo-Nazism and to a lesser extent neo-fascism are now used exclusively for parties and groups that explicitly state a desire to restore the Third Reich (in the case of neo-fascism the Italian Social Republic) or quote historical National Socialism (fascism) as their ideological influence." -- Vision Thing -- 13:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next Steps?

Can we move forward please?--Cberlet (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need a new dude handling the mediation... — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some patience is called for. We have already moved forward in terms of isolating the main issues.--Cberlet (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, I was not able to comment on it for long time. There are some suggestions from my side. The current lead in the article seems good to me. I quite agree with EliasAlucard that Neo-Nazism is not a different idealogy, it may have some deviations from the Nazism idealogy. It would be wrong to say this is a seperate idealogy. The deviations from Nazism idealogy can be listed in the article with a seperate section. I may not be able to respond to these queries till January 22. So, kindly be patient and be mindful of No personal attacks and Civility. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 12:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how a mediation is supposed to work. The idea that the mediator can render a decision wihout a discussion is absurd. We were asked to write a summary, not dfend a position absent a discussion. I protest.--Cberlet (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlet, it must be understood, I have never claimed that neo-Nazism isn't an ideology. I have always stated that neo-Nazism is just a term for Nazi ideology post Nazi Germany. The current lead of the article,[5] makes it very clear that neo-Nazism is trying to revive Nazi ideology (which means that neo-Nazism is an ideology). Look, this dispute isn't really a disagreement on the fact that neo-Nazism is an ideology; what this dispute boils down to is semantics. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. A number of published scholars in the field disagree with you. If we actually have a real mediation, we can each present our cites. Please stop telling me what I think. This is not about semantics. It is about research that is ten years out of date.--Cberlet (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original issue in this dispute was never about whether neo-Nazism is considered a separate ideology. The dispute has always been over the statement that neo-Nazism is an ideology and a political movement, not merely a political movement. The fact that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology has beem blanked out of the article even though it is supported by at least 50 reliable references. Spylab (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the original issue. We should not forget that. There are other issues as well. We still need a thorough discussion here, especially for the concerns of Spylab.--Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazism neither should considered a mere political movement nor mere ideology. It can be considered a derivative ideology from post world war-II political movement. But firstly, it is a political movement and second it has some deviations from the Nazism idealogy. I think, there should be no objections in this regard. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead

Here is a proposal -- sans footnotes for now:

The term Neo-Nazism refers to several post-World War II political ideologis and movements seeking to revive National Socialism, the German Nazi Party, or some variant that echos aspects of Nazi ideology and practice such as racial or ethnic nationalism, Völkish integralism, or Aryan supremacy.

Neo-Nazi is rarely used as a self-description, with activists and ideologues opting for labels such as "Nationalist," "National Socialist," or related terms. Some groups and individuals who support the ideology openly eschew Nazi-like terms to avoid social stigma or legal consequences. Some European countries have laws prohibiting the expression of pro-Nazi, racist or anti-Semitic views.

A few scholars use the term "neo-National Socialism," to describe Neo-Nazi movements and ideologies. In recent years some scholars have avoided the terms "Nazi" and "National Socialist" altogether, opting for terms that highlight key aspects of various movements and ideologies such as "Extreme Right," or "White Seperatism." Since the 1970s, a variety of new forms of Neo-Nazism have gained attention. "Some of these groups closely adhered to the ideas propounded in Hitler's Mein Kampf; others espoused related beliefs deriving from older Catholic, nationalist, or other local traditions."

I think this is a good start. Have at it with alternate wordings below.--Cberlet (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it - but it is not even a start - rather your monologue. I asked you several times to answer two simple questions:
a) What is your definition of ideology? Is it the one seen in the Wikipedia (ideology)
b) Elaborate fully - according to your definition of the ideology - why Neo-Nazism is an ideology (or a number of ideologies - who classified them and where these ideologies are fully described?) and what is a real and significant difference between Neo-Nazism and Nazism.
The discussion - and therefore mediation - will be possible to make rational only if we know what is the common denominator of the subject discussed. --Smerdyakoff (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smerdyakoff. I tell you what. I will try to answer your questions, and you try not to make any more snide remarks. Is that fair?--Cberlet (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdyakoff, kindly do not make personal comments. Comments only on contents are acceptable here. I believe, this is a nice start. But, first line in the lead should not have idealogy. We may have it like this, for example:

The term Neo-Nazism refers to several post-World War II political movements seeking to revive National Socialism, the German Nazi Party, or some variant idealogies those echo aspects of Nazi ideology and practice such as racial or ethnic nationalism, Völkish integralism, or Aryan supremacy. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shyam's latest compromise was a good one. The Aryan supremacy thing should definitely be included in the lead (how could I forget that one?) because that's a very vital aspect of Nazism, that Aryans (or Indo-Europeans) are allegedly 'supreme'. I also think that Smerdy posed some valid questions to Cberlet. And Berlet's addition of local Catholic traditions must definitely not be included in the article. This is a political Jewish POV; Jews have constantly been trying to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. There are no serious neo-Nazis who are genuinely Catholic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good comprimise at all, since the lead still omits the documented fact that many reliable sources consider neo-Nazism an ideology. Spylab (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Look man, if you want to mention in the lead that neo-Nazism is an ideology, you need to get a significant list of scholars and other academics who classify neo-Nazism as a distinct ideology from Nazism. Listing different neo-Nazis movements (some of which I seriously doubt are neo-Nazis) and based on that claiming that neo-Nazism is an/several ideologies, simply doesn't hold any water. Wikipedia is not about original research. Neo-Nazism isn't supposed to be classified as an ideology by Chip Berlet. Get me real scholars who differentiate between Nazism and neo-Nazism (i.e., beyond just being a term for Nazism post-WWII) or just accept that neo-Nazism is Nazism and the only people who make the distinction between neo-Nazism and Nazism are those who don't follow the ideology. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I may not be able to respond till February 25. Sorry for the inconvenience. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

I suggest that the following are reliable sources for the purpose of Wikipedia:

Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. “Neo-Nazism.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 74-82. 22 vols. Thomson Gale.

Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). Overview of U.S. white supremacist groups. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner).

_______. 2005. “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism.” In Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, Totalitarianism, and Political Religion. London: Routledge.

_______. 2005. “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman & Devorah Kalekin Fishman, (eds.), Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

_______. 2001. “Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988.” In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Vol.9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163. A rev. and expanded version of the 1999 ASA paper for a peer review journal.

_______. 1998. “Mad as Hell: Right–wing Populism, Fascism, and Apocalyptic Millennialism.” Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Sociology (XIVe Congrès Mondial de Sociologie), International Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1998.

_______. 1997. “Fascism’s Franchises: Stating the Differences from Movement to Totalitarian Government.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, Toronto, Canada, August.

On what basis are these cites being challenged?--Cberlet (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object the first source on the basis that it is simply self-promotion. User:Cberlet is trying to promote himself by getting his own sources into Wikipedia articles, thereby, increasing his own authority on the subject. Also, since when is Chip Berlet a scholar on Nazism vis-à-vis neo-Nazism? And the other sources, what do they say? Please do tell. How do they differentiate between Nazism and neo-Nazism? Why do you want these sources included and why do you only keep on listing book titles? Don't you understand, that doesn't tell us anything. Please explain to us how they've classified neo-Nazism, and what's written; preferably through short excerpts. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy writing a book review for a peer-review journal. :-) I will start adding pages cites on Friday.--Cberlet (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you don't forget including citations too. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

I accept the lead paragraph in the Wikipedia entry on ideology as written here.--Cberlet (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-Nazism Label pinned on post-war movements of the ultra-right that aim specifically to resurrect the ideology and style of the German Nazi Party."
- Peter Davies and Derek Lynch, The Routledge Companion to: Fascism and the Far Right, London & New York: Routledge, 2002, p. 320. --Cberlet (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I've been saying all the time. Neo-Nazism = Nazi ideology á la Hitler's National Socialism. I've never rejected the indisputable fact that neo-Nazism is an ideology, I've always put emphasis on neo-Nazism = term for Nazi ideology post-WWII. As your academic source (Routledge only publishes academic books last I checked) states very clearly, "Neo-Nazism" is a label enforced on most post-war movements who adhere to Nazi ideology. The current lead of the article states: The term Neo-Nazism (sometimes also known as neo-National Socialism)[1] refers to several post-World War II political movements, seeking to revive the ideology of National Socialism. Think about this definition for a second. What does it mean, to revive an ideology? It means that neo-Nazism is an ideology, the specific ideology is, Nazism, and neo is just an added term indicating that it is Nazism in a new era, therefore, neo-Nazism in itself is not an ideology, but the ideology is Nazism. Look, as I've said before, this content dispute is not about a disagreement on the facts. It boils down to semantics, pure and simple. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case. These authors--experts in the filed--chose their words carefully. They did not say"

"Neo-Nazism Label pinned on post-war movements of the ultra-right that aim specifically to resurrect the ideology and style of National Socialism."

And it does not matter how many times claim this language is accurate--and I do not dispute that some authors say "national socialism" -- these authors did not say ""national socialism," because there are many forms of national socialism, and the term Nazi is simply the German language version of a term that was used in several countries at the time. Furtehrmore, I posted this to illustrate that Neo-Nazism is an "ideology."--Cberlet (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source doesn't say that neo-Nazism is an ideology, it explains very clearly and very accurately, that neo-Nazism is a label used by outsiders (i.e., non-Nazis) to describe political movements with the goal of resurrecting Nazi ideology (which in other words, means that neo-Nazism is an ideology in a vague sense). Simply, this is about giving credit where it's due. The ideology is not neo-Nazism, the ideology is Nazism, and we all know it so it's time to stop pretending that neo-Nazism is anything other than a label used to describe modern Hitler-wannabes. Oh and, I seriously doubt Strasserites call themselves neo-Nazis because of their critical view of Hitler. And the term "National Socialism," has been used by many political parties in no way related to Nazism, so don't try to establish a non-existent connection here with other movements who don't advocate Eugenics, and an obsessive worship of race, simply because of the name. A good example is Syrian Socialist National Party, which is also a nationalist party, but entirely unrelated to neo-Nazism (and Nazism). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify things, your latest source vindicates me because it confirms what I've been saying all along that neo-Nazism is just a modern label for an ideology, and just as your source (very correctly) points out, that ideology is Nazism. Your source even states very explicitly that the ideology of neo-Nazism belongs to that of the German Nazi Party. I rest my case. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate, EliasAlucard, for you to claim that you alone know what reputable published scholars mean when they write a paragraph. Please stop rewriting the lead to misquote and misrepresent the words of Peter Davies and Derek Lynch. It is not proper to cite them stating that Neo-Nazism is National Socialism. They do not say that. I am moving up the subheading so this discussion can follow in order.--Cberlet (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cite them on the claim that Nazism is National Socialism. Other reliable, scholarly sources, have claimed this (and it's also cited in the article). In any case, I haven't misrepresented anything. Your own sources even vindicate me. It's just that you don't want to admit it because of your own POV. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Goodrick-Clark:

“This book originated as a sequal volume to The Occult Roots of Nazism in order to document the survival of occult Nazi themes in the postwar period. As work progressed, however, my perspective broadened considerably. Far from tracing faded fascist mystics and redundant ideas, I found that I was actually having to write a new history of contemporary neo-völkish groups and ideology in America and Europe.” p. 6. (emphasis added)

--Nicholas Goodrick-Clark. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press.

Previous cites

There were posted by Spylab on the talk page of Neo-Nazism.--Cberlet (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab

The following references call Neo-Nazism an ideology.

More references that describe neo-Nazism as an ideology:

Is term "Nazism" identical to term "National Socialism"?

No, it is not. There have been numerous attempts to rename Nazism to National Socialism. Each attempt has been rejected. here, and here. Only a few marginal scholars and writers support this notion. Nazism was the German interwar version of National Socialism. The terms are not equivalent. That is why National Socialism is a disambiguation page. There is a very lucid and informative discussion of these matters here.--Cberlet (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some text from the Wiki entry National socialist party:

"National Socialist" Parties that existed before the rise of Nazism

Parti Socialiste National, in France, founded by Pierre Biétry in 1903. It became the "Fédération Nationale des Jaunes de France" (or the "Yellow socialists") in 1904.
Czech National Social Party, founded in 1898
National-Social Association, founded in 1896
National Socialist Party (UK),1916 to 1919
National Socialist Party (Philippines) (Aguinaldo), founded 1930
Austrian National Socialism

All capitalize National Socialist or National Social their names--Cberlet (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what exactly is reason for the text above? And how "Each attempt has been rejected" fits in the whole discussion??? Are you suggesting that some other discussion not involving us is obligatory to all of us here?--Smerdyakoff (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different ideologies among contemporary neonazi groups

Nicholas Goodrick-Clark:

“This book originated as a sequal volume to The Occult Roots of Nazism in order to document the survival of occult Nazi themes in the postwar period. As work progressed, however, my perspective broadened considerably. Far from tracing faded fascist mystics and redundant ideas, I found that I was actually having to write a new history of contemporary neo-völkish groups and ideology in America and Europe.” p. 6. (emphasis added)

--Nicholas Goodrick-Clark. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press.

Kathleen Blee:

"A number of studies of racist and anti-Semitic groups in the U.S. and in Europe suggest that contemporary white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are less monolithic and ideologically unified than had been previously understood. In fact, such groups have a wide range of ideologies and membership strategies. They range from white-power skinheads who are loosely structured, extremely transient and attract young, fairly apolitical adherents to Klans and neo-Nazi groups which are tightly organized, geographically stable and recruit entire families. Ideologies of nationalism and xenophobia, characteristic of earlier organized racism, now are on the decline as U.S. hate groups foster links to counterparts in Europe and South Africa and as allegiance to race increasingly supersedes loyalty to nation. Moreover, issues of white identity and white culture quickly are replacing those of national identity and economic competition as major themes of hate group literature and rhetoric."Kathleen Blee.

Kathleen Bee talks about racist and anti-Semitic groups which are not ultimately neo-Nazis. So, they (the groups) might not embrace Nazism as an ideology. Therefore, this quote does not support your idea that Neo-Nazism is different ideology if compared to the Nazism.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you interpret the phrase "neo-Nazi groups are less monolithic and ideologically unified than had been previously understood," in that case. Do you simply dismiss this clear statement by Blee?--Cberlet (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More disingenuous nonsense and manipulation from Cberlet. Why don't you just quote the entire statement made by Blee? She wrote: A number of studies of racist and anti-Semitic groups in the U.S. and in Europe suggest that contemporary white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are less monolithic and ideologically unified than had been previously understood. — Don't take it out of context and begin quoting it from Neo-Nazi groups. She speaks about many different antisemitic groups, not explicitly neo-Nazis. Of course, neo-Nazis are not ideologically unified with every single white nationalist group out there. That's super obvious. If you keep these manipulations up, Berlet, I will find it more and more difficult to take you seriously. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does this statement by Blee, support that neo-Nazism is different than Nazism? It doesn't. She's just saying that there's a discrepancy in ideologies between different antisemitic groups. Of course neo-Nazism is an ideology. That has never been disputed. What the entire content dispute is about, is if the neo-Nazism ideology is a unique ideology, different from the original Nazism. And I simply believe there's no tangible difference. You have so far not been capable of disproving my position, only been trying to manipulate statements made by Kathleen Blee. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gardell, Mattia. 2003. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, PP. 78-79.

In this book Gardell refers to a “smorgasbord” from which different sectors of the “white-racist counterculture” draw and mix ideas. These include previously more distinct groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, neonazis, and racist skinheads. The ideolgical and stylistic forms include national socialism, the culture of White Power music, the ideal of the heroic warrior, conspiracism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, and White Separatism. Gardell also discusses how White racism is integrated into religion through Christian Identity and pagan Odinism.

Pro-Hitler

List

American Nazi Party
National Alliance

Discussion

'Pro-Hitler" is an ideology??? I've asked you above - who classified these 'ideologies' and where are they fully described? Without knowing the answers - I really cannot discuss this sub-topic. I've noticed that the most visible and politically most powerful Neo-Nazis - Germany's National Democratic Party is not listed by you anywhere under this paragraph.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialist

List

National Socialist White Peoples Party
World Union of National Socialists
National Socialist Movement

Discussion

Pro-Strasserite

List

White Aryan Resistance

Discussion

Syncretic Religious

List
Discussion

Syncretic Christian

List

Croatian neonazis (Orthodox Catholic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As I said above - without clear answers to my questions (who classified these 'ideologies' and where are they fully described)- I'd not be able to discuss anything. I know a lot about Croatian neonazis - but I did not know that they are categorized as the Orthodox Catholic. Which way they are Syncretic Christian??? And what it shall be??? As to the Orthodoxy - in Croatia exists only Orthodox Christian (Serbian) Church.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Identity

List

Aryan Nations

Discussion

Neo-Pagan

List

14 Words Press

Discussion

WOTAN

List
Discussion

Creativity

List

Creativity (formerly Would Church of the Creator)

Discussion

Differences between Neo-Nazism and Nazism

"NEO-NAZISM, a general term for the related fascist, nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic beliefs and political tendencies of the numerous groups that emerged after World War II seeking to restore the Nazi order or to establish a new order based on doctrines similar to those underlying Nazi Germany. Some of these groups closely adhered to the ideas propounded in Hitler's Mein Kampf; others espoused related beliefs deriving from older Catholic, nationalist, or other local traditions."

--Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. "Neo-Nazism." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 74-82. 22 vols. Thomson Gale.--Cberlet (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Organized White Supremacist groups in the United States evolved from their historic base of various predecessor Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi organizations (Schmaltz 1999; Trelease 1995; Chalmers 1965). Over time, they spread into a wide range of competing forms and ideologies."

--Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). "Overview of U.S. white supremacist groups." Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner).--Cberlet (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that's what you say. Wikipedia reqires impartial sources, does it? Also, (Schmaltz 1999; Trelease 1995; Chalmers 1965) are refereing to the White Supremacist groups which are not classified as neo-Nazis by these authors.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nazism a form of fascism?

Roger Griffin:

"Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements." Encarta

Eatwell, Roger, Fascism, A History, Viking/Penguin, 1996, pp.xvii-xxiv, 21, 26-31, 114-140, 352.</ref>

Is Nazism primarily left wing or right wing?

Smerdyakoff banned indefinitely from Wikipedia

Note that an an admin has confirmed that User:Smerdyakoff and User:Standshown are the same person.[6] One other account that is a suspected sock puppet of this individual was ruled stale (only because that account's edits were so old) and another suspected sock puppet account was ruled inconclusive. Standshown has been blocked from Wikipedia for edit warring and for using anonymous IPs. Spylab (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smerdyakoff has now been indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia.[7] Spylab (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a letdown. But, his arguments in this mediation is what matters, not his sockpuppetry. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdyakoff had no arguments; he just agreed with what you and a couple of other people wrote. The only reason he joined this dispute is because he has a longtime grudge against me for exposing his countless sock puppet reincarnations, and for helping get him banned many, many times for things like personal attacks, POV-pushing, vandalism and mindless reverts. Spylab (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EliasAlucard banned indefinitely from Wikipedia

Note that User:EliasAlucard has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia, for — in the words of the administrator who banned him — "racist rants, incivility, POV pushing, edit warring, disruption." Spylab (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity

Are involved parties interested in mediating this case. If yes, the I am not able to see them as active. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked by the conduct of this mediation, Shyam. One party has been tossed out for being a sockpuppet, and you seem to be allowing EliasAlucard unrestrained permission to engage in abusive personal attacks. You remain offline for days and weeks, and then ask where we are. I think you should withdraw as mediator, Shyam. I am very unhappy with the way this matter has been handled by you. --Cberlet (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I was not much active at this mediation. This created problems for this mediation. As, I have seen two of the involved person have been banned. This should ease to get mediated properly. If you want, I can withdraw as a mediator, and find it better way. I will still not be much available till March 23. I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 09:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are involved parties happy in closing this mediation. If you do not support closing this mediation, then kindly let me know, latest by March 23. Else, it will be closed. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 11:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the mediation was never started, so no, this matter should not be closed. A new mediator should be appointed to actually mediate the dispute. My, and Cberlet's valid arguments and references are still being totally swept away because they don't comply with EliasAlucard's personal opinions. The dispute has always been about EliasAlucard's blanking of the well-cited fact that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology in addition to being a political movement. Nobody else seems to be interested in the issue. One of the participants who has banned for being a sock puppet (and for other offences) was no more than a cheerleader for EliasAlucard, and only joined in because he has had an ongoing grudge against me.Spylab (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is what Spylab wants, I will go along. Let's ask that another mediator be assigned.--Cberlet (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that User:EliasAlucard has also been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Maybe mediation is now unnecessary, since he was really the only one who was gung-ho about censoring the fact that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology. Too bad the neo-Nazism article is currently protected because of an unrelated edit war, so the relevant information can't be re-entered at this time. Spylab (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any gains having mediation. There are no opposition parties, as they are indefinitely blocked. You may edit the page with proper citations. I am going to unprotect the page. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.