Talk:Nazism in the Americas

[Untitled]
Is it worth putting canada and Panama too? 2804:14C:5BB5:8B2F:9D1B:9C73:3768:2839 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Gostou do artigo? Vale a pena ainda traduzir? att 2804:14C:5BB5:8B2F:81:688B:F46E:2A2C (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Odd title
Is there a particular reason this article would exclude Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean islands? If not then the title should be changed to 'Nazism in the Americas' or 'Nazism in the Western Hemisphere'. Trilobright (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * agree? 2804:14C:5BB5:B372:C5A9:4FC8:DC86:686F (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm going to go ahead and change the title, it's geographically ignorant and US centric ignoring the fact that Mexico and Canada are also North American and also ignores seven Central American Nations situated on the isthmus between North and South America.

Could you change the title to Nazism of Americas? Gives + access.2804:14C:5BB3:A319:8D08:3DEE:C1B7:B8BD (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the article to be about Nazism in the Western world. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:D16B:AEBE:2072:111D (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there are two problems with Nazism in the Western world as a title. The first being that Nazism is a Western ideology, two out of the three Axis powers were Western nations, Italy and Germany (some argue that Japan is also, but I think that's a nonsense). I think Nazism in the Americas works well if focusing on the Americas (North, Central and South)...or perhaps "Nazism in the USA" if you wanted to focus exclusively on the USA. The second is that many scholars consider Latin America to be its own thing, neither Eastern nor Western, so if we are focused on the Americas then the West certainly does not refer to the majority of nations in the Americas. Anecdotally, I think it is safe to say that most Latinos do not identify as Westerners. Looking at the article I think the title "Nazism in the Americas" works best. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Good Night
What do you think about changing the title to fascism in the Americas? 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:A961:5B3A:F9BA:488F (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about this.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see a need to change the title. What's your reasoning? Bacondrum (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * is more complete and similar to fascism in Europe, Fascism in North America, Fascism in South America. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:65AB:1355:B083:C9A8 (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you move the title according to the Spanish wikipedia?  att. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:1A7B:40CF:B43F:662E (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a good idea to use a translation of the title in the Spanish WP; as long as it includes large parts of North America and South America the title does not need to be changed. Whether or not there is Nazism in Canada, Central America or the Caribbean is not of great importance.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fascism in Canada and German_Guatemalan 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:1A7B:40CF:B43F:662E (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nazi's that went into hiding in Latin America is definitely a big section we've yet to address. I actually met a German in Nicaragua back in 2006 who's parents were NAZI sympathisers and had gone into hiding there after the war, I remember him saying there was a small community of them near Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Thanks for the German Guatemalan Nazi Sympathizer link. I'll look into expanding on that. Interesting subject. Bacondrum 22:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Fascism and Nazism are not the same and changing the title would also change the scope of this article, which is a bigger question than a name change. Sjö (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Every Nazi is fascist, so changing the scope of the article means expanding it. greetings. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:BD3F:A6E3:BBCC:9FA7 (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not expand the scope of the article without getting consensus on the talk page first. Sjö (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the move to Fascism in the Americas, since it was made without consensus. And as I understand the discussion above the consensus is against moving it to that title. Sjö (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits from Brazil
There have been for some time what I see as problematic edits from a user that geolocates to Brazil, using the IP range 2804:14c:5bb3:a319*. Since the IP changes often, and because this article is their main focus, I will adress their edits here. There are edits that add sources that do not support the stated text, as well as additions that is not about Nazism, and (which is a minor point) adding untranslated templates.

This recent edit, for example, does not support the statement "Nazi and fascist parties and other pro-Nazi organizations were formed in the Americas" because it says nothing about Nazism or, as far as I can see, nothing about the formation of any organizations. As it deals with the rise of the radical right in Trump's America it is also very much out of place in a sentence about the interwar period in North and South America.

This edit has no connection to Nazism in the America. It also makes a value judgment (not included in the source) that the experiments are worse than Nazism. To each his own, but personally I think that genocide of "inferior" races is much worse than what the source describes.

This edit about social inequality compares that of the US in the 1979s 1970s to "Fascist France". Not only does that have nothing to do with Nazism, the source is a diagram showing only curves for France.

According to this edit Democrat Tulsi Gabbard in 2018 was asked to reach a peace agreement in Syria and that she met Nazi members of the opposition. Neither of these statements are supported by the source.

Here the editor adds an article about Christopher Cantwell (born 1980) as a reference to what happened in the inter-war period and at the outbreak of World War II.

There seems to be a couple of common themes to these edits: First, that the editor seems to me to equate Nazism = Fascism = white supremacy. While these are similar and in part overlapping concepts, they are not synonyms for each other and if anyone wants to source something about Nazism they need a source that actually uses that term. Second, that sources are added without checking if they support the text. Third, that text and sources are added that mostly paint the US in a bad light. I would like to ask the Brazilian editor to take greater care when adding text and references, and other editors to be aware that there might be tweaks needed when the Brazilian editor has added something to this article. Sjö (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Syrian opposition has receive ex-members of Assad regime, normal. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:9C00:8F8B:E1DB:D2D (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what that is supposed to say. Sjö (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Riad al Assad was in his Assad family (LOL). 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:6DFD:FBD5:94C8:528E (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you do not take this seriously, but sourcing is a serious matter at Wikipedia. Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source that support the content. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and add references that support your changes when you edit articles.Sjö (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * laughing at your wisdom here.2804:14C:5BB3:A319:31A3:D73C:A47D:B42C (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Your recent additions are not supported by the sources. It is impossible for Fidel Castro's Cuba to fundraise an organization that has not existed since WWII, and the source about Bolsonaro does not call him a fascist and does not say that he is or has been called a Nazist. Sjö (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse-me I slepping-editing. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:C342:41C2:BE38:CFC1 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Do you mean you are editing in your sleep? If so, please be serious.) Anyway, in this edit you say that Fidel Castro "fundraising the ex-SS". I think that you might mean some other word, maybe "used" or "recruited". As it was written, it had no support in the source, which is why I removed it. It was also poor English, and I do not see how this is relevant to an article about Nazism, especially since the source calls them "ex nazistas".19:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was typing sleepy.2804:14C:5BB3:A319:4452:7DD2:5767:22EF (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ford was far right and you are far-meme. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:4452:7DD2:5767:22EF (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, stop your disruptive editing. For one thing this article is about Nazism, which is not the same as Fascism. Second, you must read the article and the edits you make to see that the text makes sense. The first sentence in the article, after your addition, jumps from a complete clause to an addition that is tacked on as it equates a sentence describing something that happened to a noun. Third, it is pretty obvious that you often only skim the sources before you add them, if you do read them at all, since they don't support your changes. My guess is that you simply google the phrase "american fascism" and add whatever comes up. Sjö (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Nazi fascism2804:14C:5BB3:A319:3EDC:E4B4:2D1C:373D (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are asking, so please tell me which of these alternatives you mean, or clarify if you mean something else: Why is Fascism not the same as Nazism? Why should I not edit disruptively? Why do you think I edit disruptively? Why must sources support the text? Why must my additions make sense?Sjö (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * where's the freudian consistency?2804:14C:5BB3:8BED:3456:E503:D01D:79FC (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

. Hi, I guess that you are the Brazilian editor mentioned above, right? Then I don't have to remind you about the importance of sourcing with references that support the changes. If you like, we can discuss your proposed changes on this talk page, to find a solution with coherent and well sourced content. Sjö (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Nazism"?
Why is it called "Nazism", instead of the correct term "National Socialism"?2603:8081:3A00:30DF:C892:CBAA:35B4:1391 (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "National Socialism" is never correct. "After the NSDAP's rise to power in the 1930s, the use of the term "Nazi" by itself or in terms such as "Nazi Germany", "Nazi regime", and so on was popularised by German exiles outside the country, but not in Germany. From them, the term spread into other languages and it was eventually brought back into Germany after World War II. The NSDAP briefly adopted the designation "Nazi" in an attempt to reappropriate the term" Dimadick (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)