Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive 2

Neo-nazis in Germany
You know, in most articles which include sub-topics discussed more broadly in it's own article, the smaller description is the beginning or shortening of the own article. This one (sub-topic "Germany", the own article being "far right in Germany"), however, doesn't and it bugs me. Even the tone is different: in the sub topic, it's written that there are lots of laws prohibiting usage and display of Nazi symbols and vocabulary and that Neo-nazism remained small until unification and economic crisis, and they gradually gain some (!!!) more followers; the article not only claims that (basically) the far right had established itself again quite quickly (and that claim is only based on the fact that ONE Nazi party merely EXISTS), and later tells some facts which are mostly true, but also fails to mention what is written in the sub-topic. And yes, that makes a difference- because "Far right in Germany" has a tone that sounds like the AVERAGE German, or even German society as a whole, is influenced by the Neo-nazis and that even non-supporters of actual Neo-nazism were racist and nazi-like. This is untrue, and it deserves to be mentioned that it is: German society as a whole has been influenced much more by the 68ies-revolution and the left-wing. Compared to the rest of Europe and America, Germany is a very liberal country. There is actually less racism, homosexuals have rights, and children (like that IS the case which sexually early and homosexual children in the USA- I don't say everyone does or supports it but it's legal) are never sent to conversion therapy and things like that. The far right does exist, just like they exist in most countries, but they are disaproved of and persecuted, they are a minority most don't care for unless somebody they knew got hurt. And now don't tell me "If you don't like the article, change it". The article doesn't need an added sentence or something, it needs to be rewritten completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.55.88 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Militant Neo Nazi in Frankonia.
A militant neo nazi in frankonia. ITS ALL IT IS. Sorry if you dont want neo nazi's in frankonia but their just is. So stop slandering my work or I will request that wikipedia deletd the image as I dont know how it even became on here! Usurpsynapse 18:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)]
 * Why would we care exactly where the person is? Why would we refer to the area by the name used on the Middle Ages? Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankonia is always Frankonia to me as a rose is a rose ANYWHERE you go in the world. Middle Ages? Hmm... Come here... Alot of signs that say "Franken"! Why do we have our own dialect? You sir are as bad as Stalin. Usurpsynapse 22:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So a nazi took a photo of himself and uploaded it to wikipedia? ROFL. --P4k 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence of that? If so we should remove it. If not we should remove that silly caption. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well User:Usurpsynapse claims that the person in the photo is his friend here but I guess we don't have to believe him. The image page was created by Usurpsynapse but doesn't contain any more information about where the picture came from.--P4k 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw if you want an image of a Nazi (well, a National Bolshevik Party member) which claims to be a self-portrait there's one here. Part of my reason for suspecting that this is a self-portrait or a picture of one of the photographer's friends is just that that seems to often be the case with Wikipedia pictures of non-famous people in private environments (eg this one and this one).    If the subject or one of his friends didn't take the picture, who did? --P4k 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I took and posted a picture of a building, maybe claiming it to be a historical landmark, would other editors seek to rename it, "A building some Wikipedia editor took a picture of"? Yes, that would be an accurate caption, but it doesn't help the reader understand the reason for the photograph. I suppose if we doubt that the guy really is a neo-Nazi in Germany we could say something like "Purported neo-Nazi posing with rifle". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering we don't know anything about its provenance, I'm not certain there is a reason for the photograph. I mean it's really arresting but it doesn't actually tell the reader anything. FWIW the doesn't say anything about the guy's nationality (or anything else). The caption I wrote was obviously obnoxious but it's a moot point now. --P4k 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The text now reads:
 * A militant neo-Nazi holding a rifle.
 * Which is harmless. Isn't "militant" redundant with "neo-Nazi"? Are there non-militant neo-Nazis? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

look, i was doing a report and i took numerous foto's this day. unfortunatly i abandoned the report to write on a deomonstration. it was about 2 years ago for a uni paper. i just find it funny how people cant say what it is.... the person in the foto is not me, his name is flo and lives in nürnberg area. the rifle from what i remember is a 30-06 calibre and had a scope, it was bolt action as he was the main scharfschutze. Usurpsynapse 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

i straightened it out with the uploader. from now on all my images will be watermarked. thanks. Usurpsynapse 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Project
Hi! The LGBTProject banner was removed with the edit summary "this has nothing to do with Nazism". The contrary viewpoint is that the article is in the Category:Homophobia, and several of the sections refer to attacks on homosexuals. I'm re-adding the banner, but welcome comments on the subject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

fascism reborn in Russia
I just saw wideo, where russian nazi killed two kid, one from Russia's Dagestan and other from Tadjikistan. That was so awfull:((((((((((((((((((((((((((( They cuted head of and played with it:(((( They are totaly mad. It looks like Russia is becoming ruSSia. Some russians say, that Russian Federation is Veimar Republic. In this article must be mentioned, that the strongest in numbers and the most active nazi are in ruSSia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Rammstein
Is Rammstein really a neo-nazi band? I don't think so.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.77.71 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. See Links 2 3 4 history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.61.233 (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bleiburg paragraph in the Croatia chapter
I will remove the paragraph dealing with the Bleiburg massacre from the chapter on Neo-Nazism in Croatia. This is the paragraph including references:

Croatian Serbs felt insulted by that proposal. ''
 * '' To many of their modern supporters, the Ustaše are considered victims of the historically disputed Bleiburg massacre, and the late president Franjo Tuđman even proposed to rebury Ustaše members together with victims of the Jasenovac concentration camp, as a sign of national reconciliation.

When one reads this paragraph, two things are obvious:
 * (1) the handling of the Bleiburg massacre is certainly a sensitive issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Neo-Nazism;
 * (2) the comments included in the references promote the denial of the Bleiburg massacre, and are therefore very offensive for the relatives of the victims. I wonder how they got accepted in the first place.

Therefore, I'll delete the entire paragraph. If anyone wishes to return it, they should explain what relevance it has for Neo-Nazism. --Zmaj 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - it does a lot with neo-nazism. Bleiburg is a place of public demonstration of the Ustashe sentiment. Even Austria has prompted to take measures against some Bleiburg 'pilgrims' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.83.230 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Bleiburg is a mass grave of the victims of a massacre. If you don't feel any respect for the people buried there or their living relatives, I have nothing but contempt for you. Since you provided no concrete reason for keeping the paragraph, I'll delete it again. --Zmaj 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Bleiburg is not a mass grave nor ever was. There is only six or seven Ustashe graves on the local cemetery. Also, there is not any documentation coming from the British Army archives, nor from the world media about the (non-existent) massacre. Not a single villager of the Bleiburg village saw anything like massacre. There are only tel-tales of some Ustashe's fans or relatives - which is already correctly spotted by historians.

Dead links
Is it me, or this link is dead? It's used as a reference, thus more important. Please check if I'm wrong. i Nk u b u ss e ? 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid nazis
It should be noted that alot of neo nazis are dumb and don't know how to draw swastikas correctly and vandalise areas with buddha swastikas which isn't very insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.156 (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most neo nazis have the ability to speak. Sacharin (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, most neo nazis do have the ability to speak. They also have the ability: to not think logically, think in a far-fetched manner, and draw Buddhist swastikas. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

antisemitism
this shouldnt be a subtopic on antisemitism.neo nazis arent exclusively about hating jews so it should be removed asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantyboy14 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The presence of the template means that the article is about a topic related to antisemitism, not that the article is exclusively about antisemitism. Its presence here is appropriate, and I've restored it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-nazi in Croatia
I am proud to be grandson of partisan war hero in Croatia. My grandpa was one of founders of resistance in our region, and he paid ultimate price for it. I was raised as true comunist's grandson. I was red from head to toe. But also, I noticed that I was not able to declare myself as Croatian, because, you know, all Croatians are Nazis. I was ashamed to say my true identity. But why? Afterall, Croatians were founders of partisan movement in Yugoslavia, and main part of it. I did not want to be ashamed for Croatian minority which supported nazi movement.

Than one day, I was attacked at my home, a war started, a war I was not ready for. Our attackers were guys who were telling me for years that it is bad to be Croatian, you have to be Yugoslav. And they were telling me that all Croatians are Ustashe. And that day when they attacked us I took that letter U and started to fight against them.

And, I spent few years in war against them. I am still thinking as I was thinking twenty years ago. I am still red, and I am still antifascist. And I am still proud to be Croatian. And for me U was letter which killed my grandpa, but now is letter of determined resistance against invaders. And, for me and lots of my friends letter U have two separate meanings:


 * - old and bad one
 * - new meaning of reborn of Croatian national identity

Unfortunatelly, for Serbs both meaning are bad, because, even if They were armed and we were not, we won.And today, they are again trying to say that I am nazi if I am Croatian. And I am not. --Billy the lid 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neo-fascism in Italy -nothing! Are you kidding??
I am beeing shocked there was nothing here written about far-right politicians in Italy. About the country that invented fascism was not written neither one singles word. And there was entire paragraph, quiet huge about Croatia.

I think that for the accuracy of this article is necessary to insert data about these things:      

All of these products are illegal in Croatia!!

In Mussolini's birthplace, is beeing sold to turists in large quantities, Duce's wine, statues ,and pictures. As well as things with the image of his very well known ally with moustaches ; and not mentioning just a bunch of "hakenkreutz"s. And all these thing still today are beeing unpunished. We all know for that place in the center of EU, Zuroff knows as well,but he won't dare hit Italians .And why would he? it's very well known that evene European commision, in case of neighbours from two side Adriatic coast , is able to see with only one eye.

--Anto 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism is an ideology, not just a movement
The following references call Neo-Nazism an ideology.
 * 1) "Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology..."
 * 2) "Neo-Nazism: An ideology which draws upon the legacy of the Nazi Third Reich..."
 * 3) "Where parents and teachers have fallen short of educating German children about the horrors of their past, as well as the dangers that come with allowing neo-Nazism to continue, the promoters of neo-Nazi ideology and organizations have been able to make inroads."
 * 4) "...the ideology of neo-Nazism is secondary to the cult of the music itself." I removed one reference that did not call neo-Nazism an ideology, but those four references clearly refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology.Spylab 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

More references that describe neo-Nazism as an ideology:
 * 1) "None of the suspects admitted of embracing the neo-Nazi ideology"
 * 2) "...their movement offered a new approach to the neo-Nazi ideology"
 * 3) "They are dedicated to the neo-Nazi ideology..."
 * 4) "The ADL report suggests that the neo-Nazi ideology combined with the gang lifestyle provides..."
 * 5) The neo-Nazi ideology is made very attractive to the young...
 * 6) At the beginning, racism and neo-Nazi ideology were (generally speaking) unknown within skinhead subculture.
 * 7) What is a fact is that in the Czech society there is quite a significant minority of youngsters who like the neo-Nazi ideology...
 * 8) "They are dedicated to the neo-Nazi ideology and attracted to violence."
 * 9) At the same time, the denial of the Holocaust is a central component of the neo-Nazi ideology.
 * 10) It is appropriately symbolic, given the neo-Nazi ideology of many of those involved..."
 * 11) ...the law enforcement authorities recognized the neo-Nazi ideology behind these crimes...
 * 12) "...to pay homage to the memory of millions of Holocaust victims and join forces in combating the neo Nazi ideology"
 * 13) documented at least 8 acts of vandalism motivated by the neo-Nazi ideology...
 * 14) ..."denial stirrings are closely connected with the neo-Nazi ideology and the rise of the radical right in politics
 * 15) A common characteristic of "Blood and Honour" and Hammerskins is the neo-Nazi ideology..."

Surely all of these references cannot be incorrect in their descriptions of neo-Nazism as an ideology. Where are the references demonstrating that neo-Nazism is not an ideology?Spylab 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they call it an ideology. You'll have to get some actual article that calls it a unique ideology, and defines the difference between the original Nazism and if it is enough differences so as to warrant a new ideology. Everyone knows that Neo-Nazis follow an ideology. That ideology is Nazism. &mdash;  12:18 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * All 19 references clearly call neo-Nazism an ideology, period. Therefore they back up what I wrote in the opening sentence of this article. You are violating the guidelines of Wikipedia by dismissing 19 references out of hand and pushing your personal opinions into the article with not a single reference.Spylab 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The big problem here is, your references don't prove what you say. You don't seem to understand that however, but that is not my problem. Your own sources actually corroborate what I've been saying all along. It's actually quite amazing that you don't seem to understand this. The very first source you cite says it's a modern offshoot of Nazism. It can't get any more obvious: Neo-Nazism has Nazism as its ideology. Unbelievable. &mdash;  18:09 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * You can put whatever spin on it you want, but every single one of those 19 references call neo-Nazism an ideology. You are violating the very essence of what Wikipedia is about; presenting facts backed up by reliable references.Spylab 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So tell me then, Mr. expert, what ideology is Neo-Nazism? How does it differ from the original Nazism? Can you get me scholarly sources explaining the ideology of Neo-Nazism with serious analysis and reflections of the main differences between Nazism and Neo-Nazism? YES, NEO-NAZISM IS AN IDEOLOGY, IT IS BASICALLY A CARBON COPY OF THE ORIGINAL NAZISM. Get academic sources presenting any notable differences and because of that define Neo-Nazism as a different ideology, or knock this off. &mdash;  23:38 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)


 * So you finally admit what I, and those references have been stating all along:YES, NEO-NAZISM IS AN IDEOLOGY. Case closed.Spylab 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. He still doesn't get it. &mdash;  01:43 09 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * Same to you. Wikipedia policy is on my side. 19 references vs. zero to the contrary.Spylab 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is not a law. It's a policy, meant to help Wikipedians make editing flow better. I think you should pay attention to what these two editors have told you. You know it makes sense. &mdash;  18:41 09 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spylab here. What is the problem with calling it an ideology opposed to a movement? A movement means something that "moves" away from or in a new direction. An ideology is a set of doctrine and/or beliefs. Nazism, at the time was a movement, because it "moved" from one ideology/doctrine to another. Neo-Nazism is not really a movement, per se in that sense, because it isn't "moving" away from or to anything different, but actually revising the same doctrines and ideologies of Nazism. I don't get the conflict here. ~Jeeny (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think that Elias has a point which is primarily that Neo-Nazism is a movement that embraces Nazi ideology. Thus, Nazism is the ideology and Neo-Nazism contributes nothing new.  What Spylab needs to prove then, is that the Neo-Nazism and Nazism are different, and how they are different in terms of ideology - not simply giving references that call it an ideology.  This would also make for an important section in the article as well.  Really, one shouldn't be calling it an ideology in the lead if the article doesn't expand upon that point. --Strothra 05:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Nazism was the movement, while Neo-Nazism is an ideology of that movement. ~Jeeny (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It all began with Spylab changing ideology to Neo-Nazism in the National Socialist Front article. I tried to explain to him, that the ideology of National Socialist Front is Nazism, pure and simple. He didn't get it, despite explanations. Neo-Nazism is not in any way an ideology in itself. It is a world wide political movement consisting of different parties - some new and some a few decades old - all of these parties with one common ideology: National Socialism. To call Neo-Nazism an ideology, is not only inaccurate, but you only prove your own ignorance and how little you know about politics. Spylab's references, aren't really academic in nature and they don't go into details about this so called 'Neo-Nazism ideology' that they keep on making allusions to. Needless to say, Spylab is taking it all out of context. In any case, his references are irrelevant. Virtually all Neo-Nazi groups have, themselves, defined their ideology as National Socialism. They don't define it as Neo-Nazism or anything else. And that is what counts: their own perspective on their own ideology, not what the mainstream media reports on their ideology (the mainstream media isn't exactly an academic source when it comes to this kind of topic). Primary sources are important here. What must be understood here is that Neo-Nazis are actually trying to emulate the ideology of Nazi Germany as close as possible. They are not trying to create a new ideology. And they don't view themselves as Neo-Nazis. They see themselves as National Socialists. If you don't understand what I'm saying right now, perhaps you shouldn't edit these kind of articles. &mdash;  07:53 10 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be ignorant than stupid. You say it's a movement, and in the same sentence you say it's an ideology. What the heck are you talking about, and what exactly is the point you are trying to make? It would help if you'd stop talking in circles. You even said it was an ideology here!  If it doesn't make sense, it's a bunch of gobbly-gook.~Jeeny (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an "ideology" inasmuch as it's trying to revive a dormant ideology. That's all. If that can be called an ideology, is a good question. In any case, Neo-Nazis follow an ideology: Nazism. Yes, the same Nazism as the one practised in Nazi Germany. They read the same Mein Kampf, they have the same belief that a Führer should be their leader, they believe in abolishing Democracy, anti-Capitalism, anti-Communism, Social Darwinism, Scientific racism, anti-Semitism, etcetera. It's a political movement bundled together with an ideology: Nazism. I am being very clear right now. This is not difficult to understand. &mdash;  09:53 10 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * You even said it was an ideology here! &mdash; Unbelievable. Do you not understand that I was refering to "its" as in "National Socialist Front", a Neo-Nazi party in Sweden? I mean, do you Wikipedians understand anything at all? &mdash;  09:58 10 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, yes I understand. But, do not think you do. Sheesh damn, unbelievable is right. You just don't get it. There is no "Führer", he's dead. So it's a frikken ideology on a movement. Open your damn mind. ~Jeeny (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Führer" means leader. They believe in having and following one leader. Yes, Hitler is dead. He was going to be replaced by another "Führer" sooner or later anyway. So it's a frikken ideology on a movement &mdash; No, it's a movement with an ideology. And it's not exactly a homogeneous movement either, we're talking about many different Neo-Nazi groups, some are rivals, some hate each other, some cooperate, some have different opinions about what should be implemented (e.g. religious freedom; some Neo-Nazis are more tolerant of Christianity while other Neo-Nazis consider it a Jewish religion that must be outlawed), and so on. To call Neo-Nazism an ideology, is pushing it. Neo-Nazism is just a bunch of political parties not in power, struggling to gain members and activists. Neo-Nazi groups are not well-defined enough and consistent with each other to call Neo-Nazism an ideology. But they all follow National Socialism as their main ideology, with different emphasis on what aspects of Nazi Germany's politics should be implemented. &mdash;  10:21 10 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what Führer means. My gawd, you just said there are many different fractions, and I KNOW that very well. There is no Führer then, therefore it is NOT a movement, but many ideologies of a movement. Check your dictionary for the words "ideology" and "movement". ~Jeeny (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's take a fair number here: 100. Let's say there are in total, 100 different Neo-Nazi groups throughout the world. There's probably even more than that, but for the sake of argument, we'll say 100 is enough here. They all more or less have some minor disagreements on how to run things. They're all different factions. So, that would mean they have different "ideologies", right? How can you call Neo-Nazism an ideology (as in singular) if they're all different in some way or the other and independent from each other? They all have some form of Nazism as their ideology, and it's one movement that exists throughout the world. How long are we going to discuss this? Am I not making myself clear? By the way, are you 14 years old or something? What's up with that lame "gawd" typo? ;) &mdash;  10:33 10 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, both of you, keep WP:CIVIL in mind. Thanks. --Strothra 13:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my assessment of the situation
 * 1) When I pointed out at the National Socialist Front article that the neo-Nazism article states that neo-Nazism is an ideology (not just a political movement), EliasAlucard deleted the word ideology from the lead sentence of the neo-Nazism article (which had been in the sentence for a long time). He had nothing to justify his blanking of this word except his own personal opinion (and that still remains the case). I searched out and posted 19 references proving that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology, and those valid and reliable references were dismissed out of hand.
 * 2) Someone said that the refererences weren't academic. If I recall correctly some of them, are, in fact, academic, and others are articles by journalists or reports by groups of experts. The references do meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability, especially since there are 19 that verify that neo-Nazism is an ideology, instead of just one or two. I could understand the opposition if the references were just a couple of blogs or amateur websites, but that is not the case.
 * 3) Someone claimed that the references were "out of context." That is not true. All of the references explicitly refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology. There is nothing out of context; I highlighted one sentence or sentence fragment from each article to make things easier for readers to find the relevant information, and to not clutter up the page with long sections of text. Anyone can click on those links to verify that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology.
 * 4) Questioning me about the specific platform of neo-Nazism is an attempt to divert the issue. The issue here is that neo-Nazism is an ideology, not what that ideology is. The 19 references I provided verify that neo-Nazism is an ideology. The details of that ideology are another matter.
 * 5) Finally, administrators have continued to ignore the personal attacks, all-cap writing (yelling) and insulting language that EliasAlucard has used against me in edit notes and in talk pages. This is unacceptable, and disrupts the civil atmosphere that Wikipedia attempts to foster. My edits and comments have been based on facts and content, not personal digs at other editors.Spylab 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what you have failed to understand for a while now: Neo-Nazism is an ideology <--- You got that much right. But what is the ideology of Neo-Nazism? Answer: Nazism, as indicated by the name. Therefore, National Socialist Front should have Nazism as its ideology in the infobox, not Neo-Nazism. The only thing Neo-Nazism about National Socialist Front is their goal to revive Nazism. Not one of your sources, expand on what ideology Neo-Nazism is. This is a must, if you're going to include it in the article and label Neo-Nazism as an ideology in its own right. Only two of your sources, are academic and call Neo-Nazism an ideology:
 * "...their movement offered a new approach to the neo-Nazi ideology"
 * It is appropriately symbolic, given the neo-Nazi ideology of many of those involved..."


 * Neither of them explain what ideology Neo-Nazism is. And you're simply taking these quotes out of context. You can't make Neo-Nazism a full-fledged ideology in its own right, by these quotes. Just like Smerdyakoff told you here, you should make distinction between colloquial use of the ideology word and the scholar i.e. academic one; your references are not enough academic &mdash; This is true. Most of your sources aren't good enough for the purpose you are trying to use them in the article. When I pointed out at the National Socialist Front article that the neo-Nazism article states that neo-Nazism is an ideology (not just a political movement), EliasAlucard deleted the word ideology from the lead sentence of the neo-Nazism article (which had been in the sentence for a long time). He had nothing to justify his blanking of this word except his own personal opinion (and that still remains the case). &mdash; This is true. For your information, you can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source to cite in other Wikipedia articles. So, you should thank me for doing that. Second of all, my opinion, and my arguments, are well founded, and you haven't met the demands I have for you to label Neo-Nazism as a distinct ideology from the original Nazism. I stand by my claim that Neo-Nazism is a political movement, following the ideology of Nazism and trying to revive Nazism into the political sphere (where it is currently outlawed in many places). You can be sloppy and say, Neo-Nazism is an ideology, but if you're going to expand on it into intricate details, you have to understand that Neo-Nazism is merely a movement trying to revive an ideology, and that ideology is Nazism. By the way Spylab, you should be given a warning for harassing me with your vandalism accusations. This is not in any way vandalism. &mdash;  12:26 12 Nov, 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you are diverting the issue away from the heart of the matter and not addressing the points directly. Also, those sources do meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. See Chip Berlet's section below explaining that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology, even by another well-respected encyclopedia. Berlet has spent many years studying Neo-Nazism in depth, and he has the evidence to back him up. You have nothing but your uncited personal opinion, which is not backed up by anything whatsoever.Spylab 17:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you at all, understand "logic"? How about you actually try to understand what I'm saying? You cannot consider 150 different Neo-Nazi groups, who have very little in common except for white nationalism, an ideology. &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected
I have protected this page for 1 week, or until disputes over sourcing have been resolved, to stop tendentious edit warring. Please use the talk page to discuss your proposed changes. --Haemo 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideologies and movements
Sociologists discuss ideologies, frames, cultures, and narratives, etc. used by social movements. All social movements are built around an ideology, and ideological variations among different sectors and wings of a social movement are common.

Neonazism is a series of social and political movements built around various interpretations of a core ideology. To suggest otherwise is original research and tendentious editing. This discussion has been a tremendous waste of time, as anyone with a library card could explain.

"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).

See also discussion of neonazi ideology and movement oprganizing in Chip Berlet. (2004) Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement.

Why does Wikipedia allow marginal, aggressive, and bullying edits that defy mainstream scholarship, and then lock the page as if both sides of this dispute have facts on their side? The outcome rewards relentless fanatics.--Cberlet 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I could only aplaud and second to Cberlet and explain myself this way: Just reading the references oferred by Spylab, I see that


 * Spylab does not make diference between the colloqiual use of the ideology notion and the scholar one. All his (or her) references are using this notion colloquially i.e. ideology as an overall behavior (not just as a specific and distinct tenet) of a vast number of very heterogenneous groups around the Globe.


 * Neo-Nazism is a continuation of traditional Nazism - so nothing new. The adjective 'New' is here to just point out the time distance between the 1930-40 Nazis and their todays followers. That is exactly what Spylab reference is saying


 * http://www.holocaust-education.dk/eftertid/nynazisme.asp

Neo-Nazism necessarily has to be viewed in its historical context, as a continuation of traditional Nazism. Consequently, one of the neo-Nazis’ most important objectives is the re-establishment of Nazism as an acceptable political ideology. This, for instance, is done by promoting the lie that the Holocaust never took place (Holocaust denial). The neo-Nazis have also taken over many of the symbols that were used by the Nazis: the swastika, the Nazi greeting (the out-stretched right arm), pictures of Hitler, etc.
 * Moreover, when saying that the references are not enough academic - it primarily means that they are - newspaper articles or do not observe the 'bones and mussles' of the Neo-Nazism as an original, distinct from the Nazism ideology.--Smerdyakoff 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is surreal. I am defending Spylab. Neonazism can be seen as both an ideology and a movement.--Cberlet 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Defending??? Didn't you say Neonazism is a series of social and political movements built around various interpretations of a core ideology. To suggest otherwise is original research and tendentious editing. ??? I regret that I've commented your writtings above - at all.--Smerdyakoff 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Neo-Nazism is not just a "continuation of traditional Nazism." The administrator action on this page is outlandish. Idiosyncratic marginal original research has trumped serious scholarship. This matter needs to be re-opened.


 * This is the opening of the entry on "Neo-Nazism" in the new edition of the Encyclopedia Judaica.


 * "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 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The current lead is not accurate and is based on outdated and superficial research:


 * "Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) is a post-World War II political movement seeking to revive the ideology of National Socialism."


 * Not all contemporary neonazi movements are "seeking to revive the ideology of National Socialism."--Cberlet 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neonazism is a series of social and political movements built around various interpretations of a core ideology. &mdash; Yes, that is what I've been saying all the time. Thanks for pointing it out so eloquently. And while we're at it, the "core ideology" of Neo-Nazism is Nazism. ''To suggest otherwise is original research and tendentious editing. This discussion has been a tremendous waste of time, as anyone with a library card could explain.'' &mdash; I completely agree. &mdash;  12:30 12 Nov, 2007 (UTC)


 * The published text speaks for itself: "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." Some neonazi groups reject "national socialism," for example. Some condemn Hitler for betraying the Strasser brothers. Some are based on Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. Some praise Hitler but their core ideology is based on a syncretic religious formulation.  This matter is far more complicated than is being suggested. See:


 * 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).


 * Chip Berlet. 2005. "Protocols to the Left, Protocols to the Right: Conspiracism in American Political Discourse at the Turn of the Second Millennium." Paper presented at the conference: Reconsidering "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion": 100 Years After the Forgery, The Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University, October 30-31, 2005.


 * _______. (2004) Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement.


 * _______. 2004. “Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style: Facing Complex Questions and Challenges.” Journal of Hate Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, Institute for Action against Hate, Gonzaga University Law School.


 * _______. 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.


 * _______. 2004. “Mapping the Political Right: Gender and Race Oppression in Right-Wing Movements.” In Abby Ferber, ed, Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. New York: Routledge.


 * _______. 2003. “Terminology: Use with Caution.” Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.

--Cberlet 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have just explained how incoherent Neo-Nazis groups are with each other. How can you call it an ideology, based on what you've just presented? An ideology is a cohesive, well-defined, political doctrine. These Neo-Nazi groups, as much as they differ from each other, cannot be considered an ideology. If you still consider Neo-Nazism an ideology, your opinions should be disregarded. &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a presented a distorted definition of the word ideology, and have offered nothing to back up your personal opinions about this topic. In contrast, I, and Berlet (who is a renowned expert on neo-Nazism) have backed up the facts with many references. Therefore, your uncited opinions should be disregarded.Spylab 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you think my definition is distorted. That Wikipedia article states clearly: An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision. Obviously, that is not the case with these Neo-Nazi groups since they all have different visions and differ from each other in many ways. Therefore, Neo-Nazism cannot be called an ideology, no matter how much you want it to be an ideology. &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You clearly do not understand what an ideology is. The definition does not require that every single group that supports an ideology has the same exact views, platform and strategies. Also, neo-Nazi groups and individuals do have a "comprehensive vision", otherwise they would have nothing in common and wouldn't have a name. That brings up another flaw in the current lead sentence. A person does not have to be part of an organized movement to be a neo-Nazi; that individual just has to have neo-Nazi views (i.e. ideology).Spylab 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's anyone here who doesn't understand what an ideology is, then it's you. The ideology of Neo-Nazi groups, is plain Nazism, with some minor tweaks. It's unbelievable that I've been saying this without you understanding it. Neo-Nazism in itself is not an ideology, it's a political movement that is struggling to revive an ideology that was created in the early 20th century. Why do you not understand what I'm saying? &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect, and you have nothing to back up your position other than your own personal opinion. There are many reliable references (including another encyclopedia) proving that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology. You have provided zero references to show otherwise. Wikipedia is about presenting accurate facts backed up by reliable references Your opinions are original research and an example of POV-pushing, which go against the very core of what Wikiedia is all about.Spylab 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not at all incorrect. I just haven't cared about presenting any sources because I know what I'm talking about (unlike yourself who knows nothing about this and should never ever again edit Nazi-related articles on Wikipedia because you don't know anything about the subject). Here are some sources:
 * In contrast to today, in which rigid authoritarianism and neo-Nazism are characteristic of marginal groups, open or latent leanings toward Nazi ideology in the 1940s and 1950s...
 * Neo-na·zis A member of a fringe group inspired by Adolf Hitler's Nazis.
 * III. Neonazism 1. Objective Ideology the National socialism The Neonazism fastens to the ideology of the National socialism, therefore to a totalitarian, nationalistic and racist leader state with an unity party, whose core element is the following racist and antisemitic reason idea from that - " 25Punkte - program " - the NSDAP The Neonazism is not ideologically homogeneous however.
 * Right-wing extremism can be equated neither with National Socialism nor with neo-Fascism or neo-Nazism. Neo-Nazism, a legal term, is understood as the attempt to propagate, in direct defiance of the law (Verbotsgesetz), Nazi ideology or measures such as the denial, playing- down, approval or justification of Nazi mass murder, especially the Holocaust.
 * Nazism is an abbreviation of National Socialism and it is often used instead of the whole word (see: National Socialism). It has become just as common to write and say Nazism when referring to National Socialism. Only opponents of the ideology, not the National Socialists themselves, use the term. The term neo-Nazism has subsequently lived on not just as a term for parliamentary extreme parties. It is even a term for the fledgling, National Socialist-influenced movement, which appeared in the British skinhead environment during the 1970s. It is doubtful as to whether it is meaningful to use the concept of neo-Nazism, since it has thereby come to be used mainly for all forms of variants of the old National Socialism.
 * The term Neo-Nazism refers to any social, political and/or (quasi) religious movement seeking to revive Nazism or Fascism. Neo-Nazi groups are racist hate groups that pattern themselves after Hitler’s philosophies. Examples include: Aryan Nations, National Alliance
 * How long do you intend to keep this pointless debate alive? &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * None of those quotes disprove that many reliable sources consider neo-Nazism an ideology. Your quotes just show that neo-Nazism is also considered a movement. As all of our combined references prove, Neo-Nazism is both an ideology and a movement. You have nothing to back up your factually-incorrect opinion that neo-Nazism is not an ideology. Your uncited personal opinion does not trump the many reliable references that show that neo-Nazism is an ideology.Spylab 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that Spylab and I have provided serious scholar citations, while EliasAlucard cites trival and outdated sources, applies WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and engages in personal attacks on Spylab. Where is the admin intervention now?--Cberlet 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But your sources are wrong. This is what you refuse to accept, because of your personal POV. And what do you mean by "outdated sources"? All of those sources are fairly new. It's not like they're from 1950s or so. How about you acknowledge that you are wrong, for once? The sources presented by Spylab, we can find thousands of such sources all saying Neo-Nazism is an ideology. It doesn't make it any more true. Ask any actual expert in this kind of field who knows the topic and he'll explain to you what Neo-Nazism is. And how do you make it into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? How do you make such conclusions? Those sources are not in any way trivial, they're definitely reliable and some of them are even academic. And don't call after admins now, we're having a discussion here. &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Neo-nazism, drawing heavily both on the ideology and aesthetics of the NSDAP, emerged in many parts of Europe and elsewhere in the economic crises of the 1970s, and has continued to influence a number of small political groups. &mdash; Superman (talk · contribs) 00:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the discussion
I'd like to make suggestion to the administrator: unprotect the page, and block these two 'experts' Cberlet and Spylab.

Spylab spent most of his time accusing others for vandalism, POV-pushing, ignorance etc. At the same time not being able to notice that the references he selected, probably using a search engine, do not support what he stubbornly claims: Neo_Nazism is an ideology.

As to Cberlet - he did not get it that the self-parise is not a praise at all: "Idiosyncratic marginal original research has trumped serious scholarship."!?!? Writing some minor articles then referencing them as the last word about this topic - really sounds sad. Moreover, in this discussion - firstly it was not clear what he, Cberlet, was fighting for. When it was clear, (Neo-Nazism as an ideology), he offered quotes bluntly denying what he tried to prove. All this shall be sold to us (by Cberlet) as a "serious scholarship"??? --Smerdyakoff 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You said it man. &mdash; Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 09:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary scholarly sources
Let's make lists of the major scholarly work on the subject over the past 40 years and divide it into those who state that Nazism/Neonazism is only an ideology, and those that look at Nazism/Neonazism as both an ideology and a movement. And lets subdivide the lists into interwar Nazism and Fascism and those primarily looking at forms of neonazism. Then let's summarize what they say about ideology and movement mobilization as core features of neonazism. --Cberlet 15:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, you can list all the literature in the world, when it all comes down to it, Neo-Nazi groups do not call their ideology "Neo-Nazism", they call it National Socialism. That is what counts, all right? You can't define what their ideology is for them. &mdash; Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 16:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your claim is false. A number of Neonazi groups do not seek to establish a form of national socialism. Several want to establish syncretic religions. Some want neopagan anarchy. In any case, your claims violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please provide cites to scholars that claim that all neonazi groups want to restablish the national socialist ideology of the German Nazi Party with minor variations, and are not considered contemporary social and/or political movements with substantial variqtions on the original Nazi ideology. If you cannot do this, then your claims are marginal and violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is that simple. No number of personal attacks and sneering comments will change that fact.  There is space provided below for your cites. Enjoy. Have a nice day. --Cberlet 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are Neo-Nazis in favour of the old Pagan religions (which they consider to be their "Aryan nature"). This is very much in line with Hitler's own ideology. After all, Hitler said: The old beliefs will be brought back to honor again. The whole secret knowledge of nature, of the divine, the demonic. We will wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race. Apart from that, he very much favoured the culture of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples. However, if there are "Neo-Nazis" who want anarchy, they are simply not Neo-Nazis. And my claim is not at all false. You should stop trying to make yourself an expert, you're nothing of a kind. &mdash; Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the way things work, EliasAlucard (aka Ryu vs Ken and Superman - what's with all the name changes?), especially not on Wikipedia. Lots of people and groups self-identify as one word, but are labelled by reputable sources as a different term. Wikipedia is based on the content of reputable sources, not necessarily on how people and groups describe themselves. We have provided a multitude of reliable references showing that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology. You have provided nothing except your own biased personal opinion to show that it is not an ideology. Therefore, according to Wikipedia guidelines, this article should include that well-supported information. Also, not all groups considered to neo-Nazi self-describe themselves as "National Socialist" anyway. Many use buzzwords like "nationalist", "white nationalist", "national revolutionary" or a variety of other terms. Perhaps you should read some of Chip Berlets extensive body of work into neo-Nazism to learn more about the topic. (Note: that link is to a Wikipedia article about Berlet, not his account page) Spylab 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The name changes is just for fun. I'm playing around a bit with the signature feature. Lots of people and groups self-identify as one word, but are labelled by reputable sources as a different term. &mdash; I hope you do understand that these 'reputable sources' can be wrong, do you? You have provided nothing except your own biased personal opinion to show that it is not an ideology. &mdash; What do you mean, biased personal opinion? I am completely neutral and I happen to understand that Neo-Nazism takes after Nazism. How is that biased? And I have provided several reliable and some even academic sources backing up my claim, do not deny that. Also, not all groups considered to neo-Nazi self-describe themselves as "National Socialist" anyway. Many use buzzwords like "nationalist", "white nationalist", "national revolutionary" or a variety of other terms. &mdash; White nationalists are not necessarily Neo-Nazis. It's true that Neo-Nazi as a word is being abused and labelled on many people who express the slightest racist sentiment, but that doesn't make it so. Just like Fascism is an abused word (e.g. Islamofascist, though Islam does share some similar elements as dictatorship with Fascism, it is radically different), so is Neo-Nazism an abused word. White nationalists usually tend to support Ethnopluralism whereas Neo-Nazis reject it. Perhaps you should read some of Chip Berlets extensive body of work into neo-Nazism to learn more about the topic. &mdash; Thanks, but I'll have to decline; I'm not interested in anything he writes. &mdash; Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Siging your posts with different names is a form of sock puppetry, because it is not clear to all readers that all the different people are actually one person. Reliable sources are the whole basis of Wikipedia, not personal opinions and self-identification. You have not provided reliable sources to back up your factually inaccurate opinions, thus violating the most basic principle of Wikipedia. Thanks, but I am familiar with the topic of white nationalism, and I understand that not all white nationalists are neo-Nazis. However, the fact is that some neo-Nazis do call themselves white nationalists or other buzzwords. It is rare that any person or group self-identitifies as neo-Nazi, but it does not change the fact that they are considered neo-Nazis by many reliable sources.Spylab 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Playing around with my sig is in no way sock puppetry. You should stop accusing me of such things just to get a cheap point. Everyone can see that I signed it by just clicking on the link. Anyway, I have provided several reliable sources and some even scholarly sources. The fact that you are completely ignoring them, is a sign of NPOV issues. But don't you come here and say I haven't provided any sources. And we can't base Wikipedia content on what people "consider". Yes, they are considered Neo-Nazis. The ideology they follow is not Neo-Nazism however, it is Nazism. What is so difficult to understand about this? However, the fact is that some neo-Nazis do call themselves white nationalists or other buzzwords. &mdash; All Neo-Nazis are white nationalists. White nationalism however does not necessarily have to have Nazism as its core ideology. There are for instance, the National Democrats in Sweden. They are certainly white nationalist but not Neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazi groups have ideological differences; they do not all agree on everything. You can't define Neo-Nazism as an ideology since it's a movement inspired by an ideology, not a coherent ideology in itself. Just because there are some websites who call Neo-Nazism an ideology, doesn't make it an unquestionable fact. If you understand politics and ideologies, you also understand that Neo-Nazism is a continuation of an ideology, not a new ideology. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I, too, am bothered by the continuous shifting of identities and am asking you to please stop it, EliasAlucard. In addition, unless you can provide below some cites to back up your claims, you are simply wasting our time here. The point of the discussion page is to edit text. To do so you must first cite reputable sources. We await your participation in this process. Cberlet (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In contrast to today, in which rigid authoritarianism and neo-Nazism are characteristic of marginal groups, open or latent leanings toward Nazi ideology in the 1940s and 1950s... This one passes WP:RS, ISBN 1560002700
 * This is a footnote about demographics of youth concerning authoritarianism in post-war Germany. It does not support your contention. Cberlet (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but it supports my contention and you know it. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Neo-nazism, drawing heavily both on the ideology and aesthetics of the NSDAP, emerged in many parts of Europe and elsewhere in the economic crises of the 1970s, and has continued to influence a number of small political groups. This one also passes WP:RS, ISBN 0415185971
 * This is a tiny reference in a history of Europe up to the late 1970s. It does not deal with the growth of diverse forms of neonazi ideologies and movements beginning in the late 1980s. It does not support your contention. Cberlet (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but it supports my contention and you know it. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Neo-na·zis A member of a fringe group inspired by Adolf Hitler's Nazis.
 * This is a tiny reference in a dictionary. It does not deal with the growth of diverse forms of neonazi ideologies and movements beginning in the late 1980s. It does not support your contention.
 * Nice try, but it supports my contention and you know it. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * III. Neonazism 1. Objective Ideology the National socialism The Neonazism fastens to the ideology of the National socialism, therefore to a totalitarian, nationalistic and racist leader state with an unity party, whose core element is the following racist and antisemitic reason idea from that - " 25Punkte - program " - the NSDAP The Neonazism is not ideologically homogeneous however. Protection of the Constitution report 1996, most definitely a WP:RS.
 * This is a very bad software trnaslation from the German of a report from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz. It is only about the revivial of national socialism in Germany. It does not deal with the growth of diverse forms of neonazi ideologies and movements outside of Germany beginning in the late 1980s. It does not support your contention.
 * Nice try, but it supports my contention and you know it. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right-wing extremism can be equated neither with National Socialism nor with neo-Fascism or neo-Nazism. Neo-Nazism, a legal term, is understood as the attempt to propagate, in direct defiance of the law (Verbotsgesetz), Nazi ideology or measures such as the denial, playing- down, approval or justification of Nazi mass murder, especially the Holocaust.
 * Nazism is an abbreviation of National Socialism and it is often used instead of the whole word (see: National Socialism). It has become just as common to write and say Nazism when referring to National Socialism. Only opponents of the ideology, not the National Socialists themselves, use the term. The term neo-Nazism has subsequently lived on not just as a term for parliamentary extreme parties. It is even a term for the fledgling, National Socialist-influenced movement, which appeared in the British skinhead environment during the 1970s. It is doubtful as to whether it is meaningful to use the concept of neo-Nazism, since it has thereby come to be used mainly for all forms of variants of the old National Socialism.
 * The term Neo-Nazism refers to any social, political and/or (quasi) religious movement seeking to revive Nazism or Fascism. Neo-Nazi groups are racist hate groups that pattern themselves after Hitler’s philosophies. Examples include: Aryan Nations, National Alliance This is actually one of Spylab's own sources. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

More:
 * Neo-Nazi noun 1. A member or supporter of any of a number of modern movements supporting the principles of National Socialism. Derivative: Neo-Nazism noun &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly do not see how these sources support your position...in fact several contradict your position. Cberlet (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, remind to ignore your opinion the next time you don't state why these sources don't support my position and how they contradict my position. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To the person who keeps changing his username: calling yourself several different names in your signatures on talk pages is a form of (perhaps unintentional) sock puppetry because most readers will not realize that all the different people are actually one person. Most readers do not click on other people's usernames unless they think there is a reason to do so. Also, some of the names you are calling yourself may be genuine usernames of other Wikipedia editors, leading to even more confusion. Thanks again for another attempted lesson about white nationalism, but if you read my earlier comment, you would understand that you were just repeating the same idea that I clearly expressed in my previous comment. Wikipedia content is supposed to be based on what is verified by reliable sources. What is so difficult to understand about this? You have provided, zero references that disprove the fact that neo-Nazism is an ideology. If you understood Wikipedia policies, you would realize that the many reliable sources showing that neo-Nazism is an ideology carry much more weight than your own unreferenced personal opinion. If you want to push uncited points of view, I suggest you do it somewhere else other than Wikipedia.-- Spylab (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The reference posted by amazing Mr. Name-changeo that he describes as one of my references, is one that I dropped from my list a long time ago. I still have 19 reliable references that explicitly call neo-Nazism an ideology.-- Spylab (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * None of your sources prove that Neo-Nazism is a different ideology. The only thing you've done, is to provide sources calling Neo-Nazism an ideology. That doesn't prove anything. Yes, most people consider it an ideology, because Neo-Nazism has an ideology, and its ideology is Nazism, not Neo-Nazism. How many times do I have to repeat this, until you get it? And the sources I've provided, clearly explain this. This is really getting tired. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all 19 reliable references call neo-Nazism an ideology (as do many other reliable references provided by Berlet). Yes, most people consider neo-Nazism an ideology. Therefore, according to Wikipedia policy, that reality must be reflected in this article. How many times do I have to repeat this, until you get it?-- Spylab (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can have 2,000,000 sources calling Neo-Nazism an ideology. It won't make any difference if those sources do not explain what kind of ideology it is. Look for sources explaining what ideology Neo-Nazism is; without fail, all of them will call it a political movement seeking to revive the ideology of National Socialism. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Again you are showing that you reject what Wikipedia is all about (See Verifiability). Since you seem to oppose the main Wikipedia policy, perhaps you should promote your agenda somewhere else. The issue here is that many reliable references consider Neo-Nazism an ideology, therefore Wikipedia must state that Neo-Nazism is considered an ideology by many reliable sources. Stop trying to change the subject by demanding that the references state what that ideology is.Spylab (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't cite sources that vaguely call it an ideology without explaining what the ideology is. If you're going to cite a source calling Neo-Nazism an ideology, that source better explain what kind of ideology it is, or else it won't be accepted. And I'm not changing the subject, nor am I going against Wikipedia policy. Of course, that you accuse me of such things is just disingenuous, but that is what the entire subject has been from the very beginning. Several users complained that your sources weren't fit for the citation since they didn't go into details what ideology it is. That is why the article got locked. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the article was locked by an edit war. The discussion that followed reveals that EliasAlucard is unable or unwilling to provide scholalry cites to support an original research POV, and instead conduct vague Internet searches and plucks scraps of phrases out of cyberspace and taken out of context and then claims that they support this marginal POV. They do not.  It is time to move on.  The discussion has become circular. --Cberlet (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spylab. Here is a cite That explains the diverse forms of neonazi ideology:


 * "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)
 * Nice try Berlet, but citing yourself, isn't a WP:RS. Also, Neo-Nazism, ideologically speaking, has nothing to do with Catholicism. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am citing the Encyclopedia Judaica--hardly a personal website. Furthermore, there are several neonazi ideolgical currents based on Roman Catholicism or a variant of Romanian Orthodox theology.  There were several forms of interwar Nazism that were based in Roman Catholicism, of which the Ustaše movement is perhaps the best know. There are today neonazi Catholic Ustašein Croatia and the U.S.--Cberlet (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ustaše was Fascist, not National Socialist and certainly not Neo-Nazism. Fascism is generally pro-Christianity, while Nazism opposes Christianity and embraces the "Aryan" race, which is considered incompatible with Christianity. While it is true that the Catholic Church supported Hitler, it was simply due to his anti-Communism plans. They were only allied in that sense, and to claim that Nazism is somehow compatible with Christianity, is nonsense and only reveals how minimal your understanding of this so called ideology you claim to be an expert on actually is. Christianity is considered a Jewish religion by Neo-Nazis, and they want to outlaw Christianity because of that. And don't bring up Positive Christianity; that one doesn't count. I think it's quite clear that you base your so called expertise on journalist articles rather than actually trying to understand this ideology. Your claims of Neo-Nazis supporting Catholicism is absolutely non-factual. And if they do, they don't understand their own ideology and how it is based on Germanic Neopaganism rather than a monotheistic Semitic religion like Christianity. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some were Catholic Nazis. "composed almost entirely of non-German Muslim and Catholic recruits drawn from Bosnia." Catholic and Muslim Nazis killing Orthodox Serbs and Jews.
 * This is getting silly.--Cberlet (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was silly from the moment the article got locked. Yes, Waffen SS recruited afterwards non-Germans (this was not allowed in the beginning of the second world war), some of which were Muslims and even Catholics, that is because they wanted to join in the war against Communism (Soviet). And your point is? What does that have to do with Neo-Nazism? How does a few recruited soldiers in a World War due to their religion, make Nazism ideologically compatible with Catholicism? Look, face it, Neo-Nazism is a movement with an ideology. That ideology is Nazism. This is very obvious. When people call Neo-Nazism an ideology, they are not referring to a different ideology, they are referring to the ideology Hitler and his cohorts created, but in its current form, which consists of several minor political movements dispersed throughout Europe and the United States. You can dance around the question and claim that Neo-Nazism is a different ideology than Nazism, but you'll have to present sources claiming that, but don't bother, since you won't find any. Now, are you going to stop wasting our time with this, or are you going to continue claiming Neo-Nazism is a new ideology? Obviously, it can't be an ideology since there's in no way a consensus on what should be included in it and excluded. The basic principles of Neo-Nazism is to try and emulate the ideology of NSDAP in a modern context. Seriously man, give it a rest, you know I'm right about this and it's pointless to keep on discussing this. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Movement & ideology
The material cited below below all discuss Nazism and/or Neonazism as a movement as well as an ideology. (under construction)

Interwar - movement & ideology

 * Eatwell, Roger. 1996. “On Defining the ‘Fascist Minimum,’ the Centrality of Ideology,” Journal of Political Ideologies 1(3):303-19.
 * Eatwell, Roger. 1997. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.
 * Ellwood, Robert. 2000. “Nazism as a Millennialist Movement.” In Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases, ed. Catherine Wessinger, 241-260. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
 * Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
 * Kele, Max H. (1972). Nazis and Workers: National Socialist Appeals to German Labor, 1919–1933. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
 * Kühl, Stefan. 1994. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
 * Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
 * Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914–45. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
 * Poliakov, Leon. 1974. Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe. New York, NY: Basic Books.
 * Postone, Moishe. 1986. “Anti-Semitism and National Socialism.” In Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes, 302-314. New York: Homes & Meier.
 * Redles, David . 2005. Hitler’s Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation, New York Univ. Press.
 * Renton, Dave. 1999. “Fascism Is More Than An Ideology,” Searchlight, (August); online at  (14 June 2004).
 * Rhodes, James M. 1980. The Hitler Movement: A Modern Millenarian Revolution. Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.
 * Vondung, Klaus. 2000. The Apocalypse in Germany, Columbia, MO: University. of Missouri Press.

Post WW-II movement & ideology

 * Barkun, Michael. [1994] 1997. Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Movement, Identity. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
 * Berbrier, Mitch. 1998a. “‘Half the Battle’: Cultural Resonance, Framing Process, and Ethnic Affecta-tions in Contemporary White Separatist Rhetoric.” Social Problems 45: 431-47.
 * Berlet, Chip. 2001. “Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988.” Pp. 117–163 in Do-bratz, Walder, and Buzzell, eds., 2001.
 * Berlet, Chip. 2004a. “Mapping the Political Right: Gender and Race Oppression in Right-Wing Movements.” Pp. 19-48 In Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Or-ganized Racism, edited by Abby L. Ferber. New York, NY: Routledge.
 * Berlet, Chip. 2004b. “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:469-506.
 * Blazak, Randy. 2001. “White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads.” American Behavioral Scientist 44:982-1000.
 * Coogan, Kevin. 1999. Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist Interna-tional. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Autonomedia.
 * Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 1995. “Conflict in the White Supremacist/Racialist Movement in the United States.” International Journal of Group Tensions 25:57-75.
 * Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 2000. “White Power, White Pride!” The White Separatist Movement in the United States. Balti-more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
 * Durham, Martin. 2002. “From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right” Patterns of Prejudice 36:50-61.
 * Durham, Martin. 2004. “The Upward Path: Palingenesis, Political Religion and the National Alliance.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:454-468.
 * Ezekiel, Raphael S. 1995. The Racist Mind: Portraits of American Neo-Nazis and Klansmen. New York, NY: Viking.
 * Futrell, Robert and Pete Simi. 2004. “Free Spaces, Collective Identity, and the Persistence of U.S. White Power Activism.” Social Problems 51:16-42.
 * Gardell, Mattia. 2003. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
 * Gerstenfeld, Phyllis, Diana R. Grant and Chau-Pu Chiang. 2003. “Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extremist Internet Sites.” Analyses of Social Is-sues and Public Policy 3:29-44.
 * Goodrick-Clark, Nicholas. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Na-zism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press.
 * Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
 * Griffin, Roger. 2003. “From Slime Mould to Rhizome: an In-troduction to the Groupuscular Right.” Patterns of Prejudice 37:27-50.
 * Griffin, Roger. 2004. “Introduction: God’s Counterfeiters? Investigating the Triad of Fascism, Totalitarian-ism and Political Religion.” Totalitarian Move-ments and Political Religions 5:291-325.
 * Hamm, Mark S. 1993. American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime. West Port, CT: Praeger Publishers.
 * Kaplan, Jeffrey and Leonard Weinberg. 1998. The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
 * Kaplan, Jeffrey and Tore Bjørgo, eds. 1998. Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
 * Laqueur, Walter. 1996. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 * Mintz, Frank P. 1985. The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, and Culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
 * Ridgeway, James. 1995. Blood in the Face : The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
 * Schmaltz, William H. (1999). Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party. Washing-ton, DC: Brassey’s.
 * Ware, Von and Les Back. 2002. “Wagner and Power Chords: Skinheadism, White Power Music, and the Internet.” Pp. 94-132 in Out of Whiteness: Color, Politics, and Culture. Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.
 * Whitsel, Brad. 1998. “The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce’s Theology of Revolution.” Nova Religio 1:183-197.

Only an ideology
The material cited below below explicitly state that Nazism and/or Neonazism is only an ideology. (under construction)

New Lead
Since there was no serious attempt to provide scholarly cites to recent books on neonazism that state that neonazism is not an ideology in itself (or a series of related ideologies), the lead now reflects a more complicated summary based on numerous cites.--Cberlet (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss changes to the new lead here. Please do so before rewriting and adding cites that do not support changes. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your rewrite was somewhat better than Spylab's version. But the sources I've cited are reliable sources, and they explain what Neo-Nazism is. Just because some perceive Neo-Nazism as an ideology, it doesn't mean that is a distinct ideology from Nazism. In any case, we are not going anywhere since both you and Spylab simply refuse to understand. I think we should WP:RFC and see what others have to say. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your cites, EliasAlucard, are superficial, outdated, and skimmed off an Internet search. Spylab and I do not fail to understand--we simply disagree with you. The most recent scholarship has a different approach than that which you are citing. We are citing more reliable and more scholarly materials. We have asked you repeatedly to do the same, yet you refuse. All you do is repeat your claims over and over, and yet fail to provide proper cites. Furthermore, on several pages you keep shifting your editing names in a way that creates the impression that you are more than one editor. This violates basic Wikipedia policy. I look forward to comments from other editors, and request that you use only one name in the discussion that follows. --Cberlet (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can disagree all you like. Your opinions are irrelevant as far as the facts on this topic matters, and the facts are, Neo-Nazism is not an ideology in itself. It contains an ideology, and that ideology is Nazism. Sources have been provided for this. You may not like it, but you'll have to accept it, unless you can offer better sources saying otherwise. All I've seen you do so far is to list titles of books and nothing else. And Spylab's links with short snippets calling Neo-Nazism an ideology are taken out of context, and it is highly WP:OR to do so. I've told you before, you can't just list the title of a scholarly book and claim it supports your POV. You will actually have to provide excerpts and quotes from certain passages etc. You can't just list titles of books; it is not enough. Despite me telling you this several times throughout the debate, you've continued to ignore this objection I've made. It is a valid concern, you can't just list titles of books and get your preferred revision of the article. By the way, the article got locked again, hope you're happy now and ready to continue this pointless debate for another two weeks. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My references are not out of context, and they do meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, especially since there are so many of them verifying the fact that neo-Nazism is an ideology. None of your references discredit the fact that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology.Spylab (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your references are news sites and other media outlets, calling Neo-Nazism an ideology. Although they are not unreliable in that sense that they go against WP:RS, they do not pass as scholarly sources. It's interesting to note however the blatant hypocrisy from Cberlet, all the while talking about scholarly sources, yet he accepts Spylab's unacademic sources as long as they support his own POV. And yes, your sources are most definitely taken out of context. Not one of your sources describe what this so called ideology is. They only mention "Neo-Nazism ideology" in an unspecific context, and on top of that, do not define what that ideology is. Therefore, we cannot use them as a definition of Neo-Nazism in the lead. My sources, define what the ideology of Neo-Nazism is, and they define it as Nazism. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea, EliasAlucard, is that we reach a compromise. Spylab and I keep trying different ways to write the lead. You just keep reverting and saying that nothing we cite matters.


 * Here is a cite that explains the diverse forms of neonazi ideology:


 * "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)


 * Now it is your turn to provide a text with a cite. Then we can discuss which one makes for a better basis on which to write an encyclopedia entry, rather than a dictionary definition.--Cberlet (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please keep your own POV sources out of this article? You can't edit an article and add your own revised sources into it. That would violate WP:NPOV. You are simply trying to impose your own POV into the article by doing that. My sources, I've listed them several times:



These sources are more than enough adequate for their purpose, and if you have scholarly sources strongly contradicting these sources, you are welcome to provide them. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * None of those quotes actually discredit the fact that many reliable sources consider Neo-Nazism an ideology. Therefore, you have no justification for blanking verified factual content from this article. Also, one of your references says neo-Nazism "[draws] heavily both on the ideology and aesthetics of the NSDAP", which contradicts your inaccurate claim that neo-Nazism is the exact same ideology as Nazi Germany.Spylab (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those quotes actually discredit the fact that many reliable sources consider Neo-Nazism an ideology. &mdash; That is because Neo-Nazism has an ideology, the ideology is Nazism, not Neo-Nazism. In your world Spylab, this may be an impossibility, but you will simply have to consider that some people are sloppy in their descriptions sometimes, especially if it's News and Media related. Also, one of your references says neo-Nazism "[draws] heavily both on the ideology and aesthetics of the NSDAP", which contradicts your inaccurate claim that neo-Nazism is the exact same ideology as Nazi Germany. &mdash; Is that a joke? That source does not contradict my claim that the ideology in Neo-Nazism is Nazism. It in fact corroborates my claim that the ideology found in Neo-Nazism is plain and simple Nazism. If you want to be taken seriously from now on as a Wikipedia editor, you better not try to distort what the sources say. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The cites by EliasAlucard are outdated and contradicted by more recent scholarship. Here is what Nicholas Goodrick-Clark writes:


 * “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.


 * This new scholarship is at the heart of this debate.--Cberlet (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The cites by EliasAlucard are outdated and contradicted by more recent scholarship. &mdash; This is what Chip Berlet claims. First of all, Mr. Berlet, who are you to decide what sources are outdated and contradicted by "recent scholarship"? Neo-Nazism is not a political movement that changes its ideology every five days, no less is it an ideology under constant revision. The sources presented by me are fine, and they explain very clearly that Neo-Nazism is an ideology taking after the ideology of Nazi Germany. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The latest 'correction' of the introductory sentence reads:

Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that promote in a variety of ways an updated or revised version of Nazism.[1]

Fine. The missing point is:
 * Who is updating Nazism? What is the exact meaning of the updating Nazism? Where it is visible and verifiable?


 * The same way arises question about the revised Nazism i.e. who revised it and when?. What was original Nazi teaching and who revised it and how?
 * Also, why we have here the plural - ideologies? Who classified and counted them?

I would like to get clear answer to these questions before seeing what might be or what is already supported by the list of references offered.

As it was stated at the very starting point of this discussion - Spylab and Cberlet are asked to answer the question: ''What makes Neo-Nazism a separate, distinct from Nazism ideology? We are still waiting a clear answer to this question.''

I am afraid that these two thinks that the same ideas (of the Nazism) re-worded, re-phrased and put into a context of current political events and aims - could be treated as a separate, new ideology (= Neo-Nazism). This is my comment on the Cberlet's "Here is a cite that explains the diverse forms of neonazi ideology:" given above

Reading just a few references offered by Spylab I see


 * Consequently, it has no coherent political ideology, but is, however, most often characterised by two defining elements: extreme nationalism and xenophobia.


 * An ideology which draws upon the legacy of the Nazi Third Reich, the main pillars of which are comprised of an admiration for Adolf Hitler, aggressive nationalism (“nothing but the nation”), and hatred of Jews, foreigners, ethnic minorities, homosexuals and everyone who is different in some way.
 * So, all above is clearly Nazism


 * An extremely important part of continuing an ideology is to ensure the maintenance of it by future generations. The concept was not lost among neo-Nazis, and certainly not lost among the Nazis. "The training of the German youth," explains Lewis, "was a key element in the methodology employed by Hitler" (Lewis, 53). It was a "total immersion of the young Germans into Nazi ideology," Lewis continues, that "set the stage for a program of leadership that was designed to continue the evolution of the Nazi power" (Lewis, 53). It is true that the "defeat of the National Socialists brought about the dissolution of the Nazi era youth organizations," yet, "although these groups…were organizationally dissolved, the concepts and ideology were more difficult to eliminate" (Lewis, 53). The Nazi philosophy and methods were the only ones these young people knew.
 * Once again Neo-Nazism = Nazism


 * Their frustrations associated with unimployment and decreased opportunities provided the situation where capitalism became tainted and the need  to find a balance between nationalism and socialism that would justify their movement offered a new approach to the neo-Nazi ideology
 * Once again Neo-Nazism = Nazism

I would suggest that Cberlet makes an effort to clearly answer the questions given above without making the list of references larger and without disqualifying the ones defeating his claim by saying "The cites by EliasAlucard are outdated and contradicted by more recent scholarship". Please, do not take a high post when responding to someone! Pay attention to the facts and to the basic logic of you answer.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you read the book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clark published in 2002. Have you read this book Smerdyakoff? Yes or no?--Cberlet (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you take an introductory course of logic ( like this one - Introduction to Logic) and work with your mentor on recognizing common forms of fallacious or incorrect reasoning. That shall help you to understand the references you are calling upon and save some time to all of us --Smerdyakoff (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny, isn't it? First they rewrote the lead to Neo-Nazism being an ideology (as in singular), and then they couldn't make up their minds, and rewrote it to Neo-Nazism being several ideologies. This is entirely WP:OR; they are dancing around new and contrived definitions without any sources supporting it. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, a number of the cites above clearly state that there were modifications to traditional Nazi ideology by neonazis. That's what the new lead states. That's what Nicholas Goodrick-Clark wrote in 2002. I do not have to answer your questions, you need to read the Goodrick-Clark book to find the answers. That's why scholars write books. That's why scholars revisit earlier concepts and suggest new realities based on changing circumstances. Folks here can insist that the older, outdated research should trump the newer research. They can read text that clearly states that neonazis have modified traditional Nazi ideology. They can have tantruns, they can demand answers, But what they have not done so far, is provide cites to recent scholarship that supports their claims. This is an emotional response to a new set of ideas. Too bad. Sorry. The times have changed.  New scholarship reveals that neonazis no longer a just rubber stamps of Hitler.  That's why we write an encycopedia. To help people understand. It is about real research. Get over it. The scholarship has shifted. Move on. The current new lead is already a compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you read the book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clark published in 2002. Have you read this book EliasAlucard? Yes or no?--Cberlet (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've checked it out a little:
 * &ldquo;The scene is set with a historical review of neo-Nazism in the United States and Britain. Here Nazism revived as an extremist response to communism, liberalism and more especially the desegregation of African Americans and colored immigrants.&rdquo; &mdash; pp. 2 ISBN 0814731554
 * &ldquo;From the 1950s to the 1970s, neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups essentially imitated the past with uniformed cadres, swastika flags and marches. The fringe political parties remained the preserve of fanatics, and recruitment was strictly limited to those who admired fascism or were convinced anti-Semites. Even if German nationalism was transformed into a global ideology of white racism, the historical and political experience of Nazi Germany remained the dominant model for emulation.&rdquo; &mdash; pp. 3 ISBN 0814731554
 * Excellent points, corroborating what I've been saying ever since this article got locked. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, you can call me Elias ;) &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise suggestion: "Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that seek to revive Nazism and that promote in a variety of ways an updated or revised version of it. The term is rarely used by Neo-Nazis themselves, who reguard themselves as National Socialists. "  Yahel  Guhan  02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Phrases such as "draws heavily upon" or "is heavily influenced by" clearly do not mean the same thing as "exactly duplicating" or "continuing the same thing". If neo-Nazism was the exact same as Nazism, then the term neo-Nazism would not exist, and neither would this article.Spylab (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For Christ's sake man, no one has said that the ideology in Neo-Nazism is indistinguishable from the Nazism founded by Hitler. Yes, there are some minor differences. For instance, Holocaust denial has been added to it. Some Neo-Nazis are also inspired by Savitri Devi. But it's still the same ideology as Nazism, because these minor changes, are insignificant. And "draws heavily upon" or "is heavily influenced by" means exactly that: Neo-Nazism does not come with a new ideology, it packs the same ideology as Hitler's ideology, with some minor changes. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Neo-Nazis do not call themselves Neo-Nazis. They regard themselves as National Socialists. So it doesn't matter what scholarship sources you have, in the end, we have to accept that they are following the ideology of National Socialism à la 1933-1945 in a modern context, with all that it entails. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No evideence have been provided to back up the claim that neo-Nazis call themselves National Socialists. In fact, many groups and individuals who are considered neo-Nazis by reliable sources do not use either of the two terms to describe themselves.Spylab (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * point taken. I was trying to come up with something that contained the best of both versions. So how about this: "Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that seek to revive Nazism and that promote in a variety of ways an updated or revised version of it. "  Yahel  Guhan  02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All right Spylab, that's it, I am not going to take you seriously from now on about this subject. All of your opinions will be ignored by me. Clearly, you have no knowledge at all about Neo-Nazism, Nazism, or anything remotely related to it. Or, you are just trolling or something. Because after all, you do know damn well that National Socialist Front, a Neo-Nazi group, calls itself National Socialist. Yet you are ignoring and denying it and claiming there's "no evidence". Bullshit there's no evidence. Just look at the titles of the parties used by Neo-Nazi groups; no Neo-Nazi group has either Nazi or Neo-Nazi in its title. In fact, many groups and individuals who are considered neo-Nazis by reliable sources do not use either of the two terms to describe themselves. &mdash; Yes, but then again, you can't even criticize Islam today without being called a Neo-Nazi. Just because there are people who are considered Neo-Nazis, it doesn't mean they are Neo-Nazis. Just because some racist in a European country says "I hate niggers" it doesn't mean that he subscribes to an Indo-Aryan philosophy, belief in a racial connection between European peoples and Indo-Aryans invading Iran and India, etc. You have to realise that "Neo-Nazi" is a misused epithet in many cases used for ad hominem purposes directed at racists. Just like for instance Fascism is a misused epithet ("Islamofascism", and similar remarks). In any case, I will not take you seriously on this article, because you don't know this subject and you fail to understand something as basic as you cannot call several movements with various interpretations of an ideology "an ideology". And here's a source anyway confirming what I've just said. Not that it matters anyway since you in your POV do not read these WP:RS sources. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You mention one neo-Nazi group as calling itself National Socialist. That is not even close to proving that all, or most, neo-Nazis call themselves National Socialist. I read the source you linked to, and I'm not sure which point you are using it to prove. Keep in mind, that even if that source claims one thing, other reliable sources may have a different view on the topic, and Wikipedia articles should take into account various reliable sources instead of hinging on one reference.Spylab (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously, have you even read the article? Where can you find a Neo-Nazi party calling itself Neo-Nazi here: Neo-Nazi. There's only one obscure party calling itself American Nazi Party, which later changed its name to National Socialist White People's Party. But yeah, there's no evidence, right? Look, the very fact that Neo-Nazi parties call their own ideology National Socialism, pretty much spells it out for you: the ideology of Neo-Nazism is Nazism. Period. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate to base an analysis on another Wikipedia entry. Please cite a reputable published source.--Cberlet (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

request
editprotected Please add pp-dispute to the top of the page, informing readers that the page is protected.  Yahel  Guhan  02:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, good initiative Yahel. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For sure! (Done) --Haemo (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to revising lead
How about a little tweak of the last suggestion:


 * Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that seek to revive Nazism or, in a variety of ways, promote an updated or revised version of it.

This seems like a reasonable compromise. --Cberlet (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I still haven't seen any scholarly sources of yours, defining Neo-Nazism as a separate, distinct ideology. The only thing I've seen is a list of books: Talk:Neo-Nazism, which in itself doesn't tell me anything. How about this for a compromise:


 * Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements with various interpretations of the Nazi ideology, seeking to revive the ideology of National Socialism in a modern context.


 * That sounds like a very accurate description to me. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all groups studied by contemporary scholars as "neonazi" consider themselves a form of "national socialism." Spylab and try try to find compromise text, and you just going back to the same factuyally false construction, because for some reason you consider "Nazism" and "national socialism" to be the same thing. German Nazism was only one form of "national socialism," and even it had two main branches. Some neonazi "Strasserite" faction groups consider themselves "national socialists" but denounce Hitler. This needs to be incorporated into the lead.--Cberlet (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not engage in logical fallacies. If Nazism is a form of National Socialism, and if some groups do not consider themselves a form of National Socialism, then they are do not consider themselves a form of Nazism (as your "contemporary scholars" define it). -- Vision Thing -- 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't just ignore the new scholarship that finds the situation today is more complicated. The term "neonazism" now refers to a range of ideologies, not all congruent, and not all mimics of German "Nazism." --Cberlet (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, stop correcting and tutoring others - start answering questions: 1) Who ranged the "ideologies", where, and where? 2) Why they are still "neonazim" - if not mimicking the (German) Nazism, i.e. what makes them radically different than the Nazism??? 3) Give us a single example of the "ideology" through fully description its core teaching and show us the differences between the Nazism and that "ideology".--Smerdyakoff (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Try citing a reputable published source rather than engaging in personal attacks.I do not need to answer original research questions. I need to cite reputable published sources--which I have done.--Cberlet (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The questions are original research??? Should be questions asked only if found somewhere else??? Looks like you know what shall be a right question and the right answer to the same question!--Smerdyakoff (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * EliasAlucard, please stop using different names in this discussion, Just use EliasAlucard.


 * You will find a list of White supremacist groups here.


 * Many are considered neonazi. For example: Aryan Nations, National Vanguard, National Alliance, White Aryan Resistance, White Nationalist Party, National Socialist Movement, Creativity Movement, Hammerskin Nation, and National Socialist Black Metal. They all have different ideologies.  That's why the journal article I co-wrote stated:


 * "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).


 * "Competing forms and ideologies." That's quite clear, right?


 * Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that seek to revive Nazism or, in a variety of ways, have developed new and "competing forms and ideologies."


 * Another attempt at a compromise. --Cberlet (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, anyone who has a basic understanding of the Nazism ideology, knows that Nazism, is an ideology that focuses on the European peoples (i.e., Germanic peoples in particular) being of the same race as the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the Nazi ideology is of the opinion that Germans are of the same Indo-Aryan race. Then there is the militant aspect, combined with Social Darwinism, racial supremacism, etcetera. Neo-Nazism doesn't differ on this, from Hitler's Nazism. Therefore, you cannot call Neo-Nazism a new ideology. Its ideology is simply Nazism. And the Strasserite faction, let's not exaggerate that one, all right? To call Strasserism an ideology is an overstatement. Otto never got far enough, he was just a Nazi-intellectual part of Hitler's party, who had some disagreements. He never developed the Nazi ideology that much to begin with. And I know that there are Strasserites even today. They are irrelevant, since they're more like, Socialists rather than National Socialists. And yes, like it or not, but Hitler's rendition of National Socialism is the standardized model for National Socialism. Yes, there are other political parties who call themselves National Socialism, but they are entirely unrelated to Hitler's National Socialism, and to call Nazism "a form of National Socialism" on the basis of some obscure National Socialist parties whose political influence has been minimal, is overdoing it. Yes, there are some deviations from Nazism and they are considered Neo-Nazis but they are not Neo-Nazis. You have to understand, Nazism, as we know it, is not something you can apply on virtually any party that imbues some Socialist elements and some nationalist elements. There are certain criteria that must be followed through in order to call it Nazism. The Ku Klux Klan, for instance, cannot be called Neo-Nazism. Although it is close to Nazism, it has elements (such as Christianity) that would never be accepted by an orthodox Neo-Nazi. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some groups that practice Christian Identity are called neonazi--such as Aryan Nations. They are Christian neoazis. Wake up and read the scholarship. Cite a published source to back up your claims.  We all know the old analytical model of neonazism.  What about the new analytical model? I am citing new published sources that support my position.  What about you folks?  You just keep repeating the same outdated mantra and making personal attacks.--Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the 'Cristian Identity' and the 'Aryan Nations' notions are here just the way to target different groups of people - by the same teaching - which actuallly makes no difference between your "Christian" Nazis and the Nazis. To see why it is so - read Gott Segne Den Fuehrer Die Kirchen im Dritten Reich, Eine Dokumentation von Bekentnissen und Selbstzeugen by Nikolaus von Preradovich und Josef Stingl published by Druffel Verlag, Leoni am Stamberger See 1986. So, answer my questions above based on your claims about the 'differences' and then I refute them, one by one, by citing this book of documents.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. But as I've told you, they do not understand their own ideology. Hitler would never have allowed Christianity in Germany if it weren't for Germany being occupied with a world war. He had other priorities. But Nazism in itself, is radically anti-Christian. Sources:




 * If there happens to be Neo-Nazi groups that favour Christianity, it doesn't mean it is following a different ideology, but rather so, that they've ignored a basic tenet of Nazism. In Nazism, the Aryan cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ. Nazism is built upon Indo-European/Aryan religions and traditions. Christianity is incompatible with that. And let's not forget what Hitler himself said: “The old beliefs will be brought back to honor again. The whole secret knowledge of nature, of the divine, the demonic. We will wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race.” If they allow Christianity, they are not Neo-Nazis, but have rather copied some loose ideological points from the Nazi ideology. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 09:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Original Research by EliasAlucard is fascinating, but has no merit in this discussion. According to EliasAlucard, "If there happens to be Neo-Nazi groups that favour Christianity, it doesn't mean it is following a different ideology, but rather so, that they've ignored a basic tenet of Nazism." So now EliasAlucard is not only discarding conflicting text from recently published scholars, but also lecturing neonazis on the proper ideology they should be following. The fact is that at least one recently published scholar sees German Nazism as a "Holy Reich" based on Christianity.  I happen to disagree, but Steigmann–Gall cannot simply be dismissed:


 * Steigmann–Gall, Richard. 2003. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


 * Furthermore, a number of recently published scholars note that starting in the 1970s, neonazi groups, especially in the United States, began to develop hybrid and syncretic forms.


 * Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement. See especially Griffin, Durham, and Berlet.


 * Our job here is to summarize the various majority views in reputable published sources, not to cherry-pick only those cites that support one narrow (and outdated) interpretation.--Cberlet (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Majority view in reputable published sources:


 * Lee McGowan "The Radical Right in Germany: 1870 to the Present" (2002): "The term neo-National Socialism (or more commonly neo-Nazism) proves much more helpful and is applied o those individuals and groups which openly espouse the restoration of the Third Reich. Neo-Nazis deliberately seek a totalitarian state on the basis of the elite – or leader principle after the pattern of NSDAP."


 * Cas Mudde "The Ideology of the Extreme Right" (2000): "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 -- 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that McGowan and Mudde represent one view of the term. But there are a number of other authors who use the term differently. Both represent a substantial POV.  There are multiple uses of the term neonazism by scholars, and the lead should not be written to exclude that fact.--Cberlet (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in no way original research by me. Nazism is not friendly towards Christianity. Not in its pure ideology anyway. If there are Neo-Nazi groups accepting Christianity, then they are not entirely following through with their ideology. In any case, that is not what we're discussing here. We're discussing Neo-Nazism as an ideology, let's stick to that. Look, can we be reasonable here? I mean, let's not make this more complicated than it is. McGowan and Mudde represent a very accurate description of what Neo-Nazism is, and they're not alone in that description. Neo-Nazis themselves happen to agree with their description. Many Neo-Nazi groups want to revive the Third Reich, or a similar Nordic Reich, etcetera. Neo-Nazism is not an ideology, the ideology is Nazism and Neo-Nazism is just a term used to describe political groups who adhere to the Nazi ideology. Why is this so difficult to understand? &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and of course Richard Steigmann–Gall can be dismissed. His opinions are inaccurate, and it has been proven by Hitler himself. Watch for instance Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy and you'll get a pretty good idea of what Hitler thought of Christianity. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As you have just demonstrated, many neo-Nazis do not exactly duplicate the original Nazi policies and ideology. Also, while some Nazis were hostile to Christianity, the historical record shows that this was not a universal stance in Nazi Germany, nor among members of the Nazi Party. The original Nazi ideology is full of contradictions and changes, and is no more "comprehensive" and homogeoneous than the neo-Nazi ideology that you claim doesn't exist.Spylab (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while some Nazis were hostile to Christianity, the historical record shows that this was not a universal stance in Nazi Germany, nor among members of the Nazi Party. &mdash; Yes, but Nazism is not "Democracy", an average citizen of Nazi Germany who favoured Christianity is of no concern to the Nazi ideology. Nazism is based on a hierarchy. What counts is not some members in the Nazi party, but what the leader of the party says. And let's face it, Nazism is not in favour of Christianity. It is based on Indo-Aryan traditions and Indo-European religions, it does not favour a religion that originates from the Jewish people. This is very obvious and easy to understand. The original Nazi ideology is full of contradictions and changes, and is no more "comprehensive" and homogeoneous than the neo-Nazi ideology that you claim doesn't exist. &mdash; The Nazi ideology in Nazi Germany is the only state in the world where Nazism has existed and been in practise. Like it or not, but it has more merits than some obscure Neo-Nazi groups who have never had any political power and are trying to emulate its predecessor. Your claims that Neo-Nazism is a distinct ideology should not be taken seriously because it is heavily original research without one single source in favour of your alleged claim. You can find one billion sources calling Neo-Nazism an ideology, you won't find one single source calling it a different ideology. Question is: when will you understand this? How long are you going to argue against the obvious? I can continue this discussion for an entire year if you want - repeating my arguments, without us getting anywhere. I suggest you give up and drop this and accept that you are entirely wrong, or we will just continue this pointless debate for the next 364 days to come. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia you can't just say thinks like "let's face it" or that something is "obvious" or "entirely wrong" and not back it up without anything other than your own personal opinion. That is POV-pushing and original research. In particular, there is much undeniable historical evidence that the original German Nazis and their East European allies worked with Christian authorities, despite the fact that some Nazis supported Pagan and occult beliefs. I suggest you stop bullying and trying to silence editors who present well-referenced facts that don't comply with your revisionist agenda.Spylab (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, Spylab, I will not take you seriously, and this is the exact reason why: you say that I'm not backing up my POV with anything beside my personal opinion. This is a lie. I have provided several sources, some even scholarly sources, and you still continue to lie about it and deny it. As long as you continue to lie and deny the sources I've brought, you will be ignored by me. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, just because there was some cooperation with Nazis and Christian authorities, it doesn't mean that Nazism as an ideology allows Christianity for the Germanic peoples. It is, as I've told you before, only accepting Indo-European religions, such as Hinduism, and Ásatrú. You have failed to represent sources that classify Neo-Nazism as a different and distinct ideology from Nazism. It is time that you acknowledge that you are wrong. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to warn you, Spylab, that you already did a lot of damage to this article. The evidence is visible on the talk page above ( frivolous handling the law's authenticity and law's interpretation phrases and deleting half of quoted text then "fixing grammar" of the quoted text - all in the Croatia section). The questions raised here cannot be marked as POV-pushing or original research. You are deliberately abusing these Wikipedia rules or you do not understand them. All I see is - that I am going to revert your alterations of the introductory text as soon as it becomes possible. Also avoid inserting sentence, which you picked up somewhere and which are irrelevant to the text alterations you've made, like: there is much undeniable historical evidence that the original German Nazis and their East European allies worked with Christian authorities, despite the fact that some Nazis supported Pagan and occult beliefs--Smerdyakoff (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did the same kind of damage to the Nazism article, deleted content, changed entire sections, etc. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To Smerdyakoff:The disruptive POV-pushing editor who barely understood English, who was edit warring with me (and others) in the Croatia section has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for his edits in this article and others, as well as sock puppetry, personal attacks, and probably other offences. If I were you, I would not point to that section and falsely accuse me of "damaging" this article. If you, are, in fact a new incarnation of that permanently-banned editor, then you are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia at all.Spylab (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My answers to these insults and false accusations of me and others (who barely understood English, permanently banned, etc) are given here and on the Spylab  talk page --Smerdyakoff (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are not NovaNova, you certainly write in the same style as him.Spylab (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

<-Let's terminate this childish nonsense and get back to the text. We should ask for an administrative review of the claims and move on pending that review.--Cberlet (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Original Research, published sources, undue weight, and NPOV
I think there is some confusion over Wikipedia guidelinas about original Research, published sources, undue weight, and NPOV. Let's consider this statement by EliasAlucard


 * "Oh and of course Richard Steigmann–Gall can be dismissed. His opinions are inaccurate."

Here is the heart of the problem in this discussion. Richard Steigmann–Gall is a scholar with a published book. I happen to disagree with Steigmann–Gall's contentions, but that is not the point. It is not up to editors on Wikipeida to decide which scholars are "dismissed" because they have "inaccurate" views. What is happening here is that cites to reputable published sources are being dismissed because some editors disagree with them. That is 100% contrary to Wikipedia policies. We cannot move forward until this violation of Wikipedia policies is addressed. Therefore I am posting a Request for Comment.--Cberlet (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He was proven wrong by Irving Hexman. Being a scholar doesn't mean you can only speak the infallible truth and never be wrong on anything. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hexman is not infallible either, and the link says nothing about him "proving" anything:


 * "This article questions Richard Steigmann-Gall's claim that leading National Socialists were essentially ‘Christian’ and that neo-pagan ideas played an insignificant role in the ideology of nazism. This is done by examining the argument of Dr Goebbels' novel Michael. Ein deutsches Schicksal in Tagebuchblättern (1929) to reveal its anti-Christian structure. Speeches and other statements by and about Goebbels are then looked at to show that his work is consistent with German neo-pagan thought. The role of Alfred Rosenberg is then re-examined, demonstrating that, contrary to the claims of Steigmann-Gall and many other writers, his work was highly regarded by Hitler and other nazi leaders and played a prominent role in promoting the National Socialist Weltanschauung. Finally, the argument is reviewed in terms of historical method, the problem of using literature to illustrate an author's ideas, and the researcher's encounter with a totally alien outlook."


 * I don't see the word prove or proven anywhere, and I don't see any evidence that his argument should be considered more correct than the arguments of other experts.Spylab (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spylab, but please, lets desist with all the extra asterisks and stick to formats with multiple colons. I am having a hard time reading this.  Look, I have published an article in a scholarly journal disagreeing with Steigmann-Gall, but it is not up to Wikipeida editors to claim that some other scholar has "proven wrong" the work of Steigmann-Gall. We are supposed to illustrate different positions when there are disagreements--not determine which scholar is "right" or "wrong."  Can we just take a break for a few days and collect some outside comments, please?--Cberlet (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Spylab, if you haven't read his article, you shouldn't comment on it. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What sources are appropriate for this article?

 * Many scholars define Neo-Nazism simply as an attempt to revive German Nazism. A significant number of scholars with recent writings, however, suggest Neo-Nazism has evolved into a more complicated set of ideologies and movements. I am arguing that this needs to be reflected in the lead and body of the article. Others oppose this. In addition, there is a contention that some published scholars should be "dismissed" because they have "inaccurate" views. Please help us sort this out.--Cberlet (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many scholars define Neo-Nazism simply as an attempt to revive German Nazism. &mdash; Yes, and so do most Neo-Nazis as well. A significant number of scholars with recent writings, however, suggest Neo-Nazism has evolved into a more complicated set of ideologies and movements. &mdash; You have not presented one single source that supports this claim. I am arguing that this needs to be reflected in the lead and body of the article. Others oppose this. &mdash; I agree that this needs to be reflected in the lead. The problem is, that is not what you are trying to reflect in the lead. You have not brought such sources, claiming that Neo-Nazism is something else. In fact, the sources Spylab has added to the article, only supports that Neo-Nazism is a revival of Nazism. Sorry, but you are not presenting your case very well here. In addition, there is a contention that some published schoalrs should be "dismissed" because they have "inaccurate" views. &mdash; Yes, some scholars may be mistaken. Of course, their opinions are always welcome on Wikipedia, but if more modern research has proven them wrong, that must be reflected, or else, their opinions shouldn't be included as facts in the articles. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard, please, this was supposed to be the space for outside editor comments. Let's wait a few days before continuing the dispute here in this section, please?--Cberlet (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, you are misrepresenting the case here, in a very disingenuous way. You are presenting it like you have done nothing wrong. You have constantly for an entire week now failed to provide a source that supports your POV, that Neo-Nazism is something else than Nazism. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot like a bunch of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and a little bit of WP:POINT. sigh. - Jeeny (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be funny? &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. - Jeeny (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, let us go back to the latest in the lead section of this article: Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that promote in a variety of ways an updated or revised version of Nazism.[1] I could ask only this question: What sources you two offered to justify this change? All references counted under [1] are not supporting existence of "ideologies" nor there is any clue what is the exact meaning of the "updated or revised version of Nazism". Are we talking about a software application and its updates and revisions or about Neo-Nazism? The very bad thing that neither Cberlet nor Spylab are willing to answer these simple questions - rather have chosen the way of sidetracking discussion, counting and calling upon references not suporting the lead text modification, accusing others for sockpupeteering, for personal attacks, etc. I do not see any reason for continuing this 'discussion' the way Cberlet imposes. Are we discussing about the article or just about a single sentence in the lead paragraph? So, what is the purpose of asking the question What sources are appropriate for this article? ? At the end, I agree with the content of EliasAlucard response above.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC

Debate on the lead

 * Sources which are not acceptable are bunch of web sources found in the first footnote . Can someone provide quotes from reliable, published sources? -- Vision Thing -- 13:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, but apparently those weren't acceptable by Spylab and Cberlet since they are so bent on following Wikipedia policy that it clouds their judgement when it comes to quality sources. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We are following Wikipedia policy, EliasAlucard, while you keep insisting that since you know the correct line on neonazism, you can unilateraally dismiss cites to reputable scholarly published sources. That attitude violates basic Wikipedia policy. If you want to set up your own website to publish your views on neonazism, I would be happy to help you find web host.--Cberlet 17:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are not following Wikipedia policy at all. You are simply adding titles of scholarly books about Nazism/Neo-Nazism, and based on these impressive titles, you believe you can just rewrite the article into whatever you like. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Your last revision here, was one of the most ridiculous revisions I've ever seen. You really expect us to fall for that? Look, if you are going to cite, then you better make sure you cite specific passages, promoting the content you've added closely. You cannot just cite the title of a book and expect to be given the freedom to write whatever you want. This last revision is a nice and fair compromise. Take it or leave it. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

<--Here is what Nicholas Goodrick-Clark writes:


 * “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.

This is the opening of the entry on "Neo-Nazism" in the new edition of the Encyclopedia Judaica.


 * "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 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Berlet and Vysotsky:


 * "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).

There are a number of cites higher up on the page from Spylab documenting that Neonazism involved both movements and ideologies.--Cberlet 14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually a debate does not exist. What we see here is refusal to discuss the matter seriously: users Spylab and Cberlet are stubbornly repeating their claims, calling upon a list of sources not supporting the claims, and refusing to answer questions of the opposite parties in this discussion.--Smerdyakoff 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New discussion about revised lead
Here are the cites that support what Spylab and I are suggesting for the revised lead:

Barkun, Michael. [1994] 1997. Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Movement, Identity. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Berlet, Chip, 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).

Berlet, Chip. 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.

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

Blazak, Randy. 2001. “White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads.” American Behavioral Scientist 44:982-1000.

Blee, Kathleen. 1999. “Racist Activism and Apocalyptic/Millennial Thinking.” Journal of Millennial Studies 2:1. Retrieved July 4, 2004 (http://www.mille.org/publications/summer99/blee.PDF).

Blee, Kathleen. 2002. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burghart, Devin and Justin Massa. 2001. “Damned, Defiant and Dangerous: Continuing White Supremacist Violence in the U.S.” Searchlight July, online archive.

Burghart, Devin, ed. 1999. Soundtracks to the White Revolution: White Supremacist Assaults on Youth Music Subcultures. Chicago, IL: Center for New Community [in cooperation with Northwest Coalition for Human Dignity].

Dobratz, Betty A. 2001. “The Role of Religion in the Collective Identity of the White Racialist Movement.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:287-302.

Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 1995. “Conflict in the White Supremacist/Racialist Movement in the United States.” International Journal of Group Tensions 25:57-75.

Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 1996. “Ideology and the Framing Process in the White Separatist/Supremacist Movement in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Ideology 19:3-29.

Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 2000. “White Power, White Pride!” The White Separatist Movement in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dobratz, Betty A., Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds. 2001. Research in Political Sociology 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, edited by. Amsterdam: Jai/Elsevier.

Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Durham, Martin. 2002. “From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right” Patterns of Prejudice 36:50-61.

Durham, Martin. 2004. “The Upward Path: Palingenesis, Political Religion and the National Alliance.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:454-468.

Eatwell, Roger. 2003. “Reflections on Fascism and Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 4: 145-66.

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

Goodrick-Clark, Nicholas. [1985] 2004. The Occult Roots of Nazism. London: I. B. Tauris.

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

Green, D. P., D.Z. Strolovich, and J.S. Wong. 1998. “Defended Neighborhoods, Integration, and Racially Motivated Crimes.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 372-403.

Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Griffin, Roger. ed. 1998. International fascism: Theories, causes, and the new consensus. London: Arnold.

Griffin, Roger. 2003. “From Slime Mould to Rhizome: an Introduction to the Groupuscular Right.” Patterns of Prejudice 37:27-50.

Griffin, Roger. 2004. “Introduction: God’s Counterfeiters? Investigating the Triad of Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:291-325.

Kaplan, Jeffrey and Tore Bjørgo, eds. 1998. Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Kaplan, Jeffrey and Leonard Weinberg. 1998. The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Kaplan, Jeffrey. 1997a. Radical Religion in America: Millenarian Movements from the Far Right to the Children of Noah. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.

Ridgeway, James. 1995. Blood in the Face : The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.

Shanks-Meile, Stephanie. 2001. “The Changing Faces of the White Power Movement and the Anti-Racist Resistance.” Pp. 191-195 in Dobratz, Walder, and Buzzell, eds., 2001.

Vysotsky, Stanislav. 2004. “Understanding the Racist Right in the Twenty First Century: A Typology of Modern White Supremacist Organizations.” Paper, American Sociological Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Whitsel, Brad. 1998. “The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce’s Theology of Revolution.” Nova Religio 1:183-197.

The revert back to the original lead that led to the edit was was not constructive. My attempt at a copmpromise was delted without any reason or serious discussion. This is not productive. Spylab and I have provided serious contemporary schiolarly cites. Please respond to these cites.--Cberlet 23:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read half of Kathleen Blee's article. I got quite bored after reading 'hate groups' a few hundred times in the first page. I take it you're referring to this:


 * 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.


 * Apart from the fact that she doesn't in any way explain how that mystic and unknown ideology called Neo-Nazism somehow magically differs from Nazism, her rookie opinion should be disregarded because she is grouping together neo-Nazis with Ku Klux Klan groups and skinheads. Anyone who has any understanding at all of Neo-Nazism/Nazism, knows that these groups, ideologically speaking, don't have much in common except for white supremacy. Needless to say, her opinion regarding this article, does not in any way count, as far as the claim that Neo-Nazism is a different ideology than Nazism goes. This article is about Neo-Nazism, not hate groups, skinheads, Ku Klux Klan and hate groups (whatever that's supposed to mean or refer to). Although it's true that they often do cooperate since they do have similar goals, please do not confuse their ideologies and by grouping together white supremacist groups, trying to somehow make it appear as Neo-Nazism is a completely different ideology than Nazism. What else do you got? I don't have access to all those books you just listed. Please provide scholarly books that specifically deal with this topic, i.e., Neo-Nazism and its ideological differences and how it is related to the original Nazism. Not these crappy essays. As for my revert, I explained it here. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When you publish a reputable scholarly article, EliasAlucard, be sure to inform us. Otherwise, we need to rely on reputable published sources. Please leave this text where it is.--Cberlet 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * we need to rely on reputable published sources. &mdash; Not if they cannot differentiate between Neo-Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, skinheads, and 'hate groups' and based on that, claim that Neo-Nazi groups are ideologically not homogeneous. Again, this article is about Neo-Nazism, not Ku Klux Klan or Skinheads or Hate groups. Please leave this text where it is. &mdash; Please don't mess around with the ToC (Table of Content). &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Many writers also use the term neo-Nazism to describe the ideology associated with those post-World War II movements." is well-referenced and a factually accurate. Many writers do use the term that way, as the many reliable sources show. Blanking out that well-referenced and factually accurate sentence goes against Wikipedia guidelines.Spylab (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reputable published sources
Please leave this heading where it is.

We need a new discussion on Wikipedia guidelines concerning Reputable Published Sources WP:RS. We need to straighten out this issue before we return to a discussion about a specific topuic such as ideologies and movements or the lead.

From above regarding Kathleen Blee: "her rookie opinion should be disregarded"

Kathleen Blee is not a "rookie," she is one of the most respected sociologists in the United States, and considered a leading scholarly expert on the extreme right in the U.S. Please point out the section in WP:RS where it states that a Wikipedia editor can unilaterally determine which reputable published sources are "wrong" and therefore can be "disregarded." Thanks.--Cberlet 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point I think the matter should go to some kind of arbitration by neutral administrators who understand Wikipedia rules and are willing to enforce them. I know there are a few different types of pages to post a request, but I am not sure about which one is the most appropriate.Spylab 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a request on the admin noticeboard for an admin to come here and explain WP:RS to all of us. Since we already did a WP:RFC the next step would be mediation. I hope to avoid that if possible, however.--Cberlet 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a noticeboard dedicated specifically to disputes regarding the reliability of a given source. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't know about it.--Cberlet 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I literally just posted a message there. Feel free to add more.Spylab 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, can we be reasonable about this? Kathleen Blee, as much as her article is a WP:RS, cannot be used for the purpose you claim. She is talking about racist and anti-semitic groups in general. Those are very broad categories and may also include Nation of Islam (an Afro-American racist AND antisemitic organisation, with an entirely different ideology than Neo-Nazism), and other groups and organisation totally unrelated to Nazism. You cannot come here, and claim that Neo-Nazism is a different ideology than Nazism, based on Kathleen Blee's article. Not only is this one of the most extreme Original Research cases I've encountered so far on Wikipedia, but you are also, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresenting your sources. Either you are disingenuous about it, or you have some serious reading issues, because you are clearly reading what you want to read rather than understanding what she is saying. If you want to cite her as a source for this specific article, that is fine, but NOT for the purpose you claim she's supporting (which she is not). You cannot come here and say that Neo-Nazism is the same as Ku Klux Klan, and if that is actually what Blee is saying, I will disregard her opinion completely as amateurish. Chip Berlet, I am seriously beginning to doubt your expertise on this subject. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's define Neo-Nazism, so that we can get this over with
First of all, I would like, for Cberlet to tell me, in his most honest opinion, what is wrong with the current lead (which I consider a fair, balanced and honest compromise) with regards to all the articles and scholarly books he has read up on Nazism throughout his days. Give me your best shot, Berlet, of any factual inaccuracies in this lead, with regards to your accumulated knowledge of Nazism/Neo-Nazism:

'Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements, seeking to revive the ideology of National Socialism.[1][2][3][4][5] Other groups have gone off in different directions and developed variants of the original Nazi ideology, that may not be entirely consistent with Hitler's Nazism. The term Neo-Nazism is rarely used by the Neo-Nazis themselves,[5] often opting for the more classical National Socialist, and sometimes also Nationalist. It should be noted, however, that there are white nationalist groups that do not follow the ideology of Nazism at all, yet style themselves as Nationalists.'

Martin Frost defines Neo-Nazism as a term used to describe political movements seeking to revive National Socialism. I perfectly agree with that. It's just a term, for an ideology. I think this should be reflected in the lead, that Neo-Nazism is simply a term and nothing else, to describe, Nazism after World War II. The ideology of Neo-Nazism has always been Nazism, as indicated by the very name of the coined term. You cannot call Neo-Nazism an ideology, because it's just a political term used by the academia and the media, to describe the Nazi ideology post-WW2. If you have sources calling Neo-Nazism an ideology, they are being very sloppy with their definition ignoring the fact that it's a term, not an ideology, and simply calling Neo-Nazism an ideology, yet what they in actuality mean, is Nazi ideology. This happens, it's a simple mistake made by people who know very little about this kind of stuff. The Neo-Nazis themselves, very very rarely, call their ideology "Neo-Nazism". Whatever scholars say and write calling it Neo-Nazism, this indisputable fact that Neo-Nazis don't call their ideology, Neo-Nazism, cannot just be ignored for the sake of scholars. Yes, Neo-Nazism is an ideology, and the ideology is Nazism. Yes, Neo-Nazism has gone in different directions from Nazism à la 1933-1945, but it's still very much the same ideology, with minor alterations. Now, any objections? &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there are objections. All you are doing is restoring the material in the lead that Spylab and I want to modify based on cites to recent research. Unless you are willing to compromise and work collaboratively, this is heading to mediation. I will file for mediation in two days unless there is serious constructive discussion rather than mere repetition of the same claims over and over.--Cberlet 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am willing to compromise, if you can present your case in a serious way, without misrepresenting your sources (like for example, the Kathleen Blee example above) and if your sources actually support what you are saying (which so far, is not the case as far as I'm concerned). Threatening me with mediation and other reprisals for not agreeing with your original research POV, is a very poor way of getting it your way. Now, are you willing to discuss what scholarly material actually differentiates between Nazism as the original ideology, and Neo-Nazism as a supposedly distinct ideology to Nazism? By the way, you didn't answer my question about the current lead. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to Spylab and Cberlet: please do not list an extreme abundance of titles in one reference as you did here. That is not a fair way of adding references with up to 51 different book titles for a single sentence. No one is going to read all these books just to verify a point, and adding references this way can lead to abuse and misuse of information on other articles. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to EliasAlucard, do not delete well-referenced material just because it contradicts your own personal opinion. On Wikipedia you can't supress the facts just because they disagree with your agenda. The sentence I wrote is proven fact, that many writers use the term neo-Nazism to describe an ideology. Omitting that well-documented fact is censorship, pure and simple. Spylab 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with many of the sources you presented is that they do not talk about neo-Nazism. They do not provide the reader any information on why neo-Nazism is supposed to be an ideology, and/or how it is different from Nazism. Intangible2.0 (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To call this censorship is not only an extreme form of dishonesty, but it is also an intentional lie. Clearly, you must now that censorship is an act of removing controversial political opinions. This is nothing of a kind. It's nothing controversial we're disagreeing on here. We are disagreeing on a political definition of a term. That's all. Hence, it cannot be censorship because there's no controversy involved. And I am not suppressing 'facts' but I am simply maintaining the quality of the article. Your sources just call neo-Nazism an ideology. Fine, but that's not enough. You can call it an ideology all you like, it won't automagically become a new ideology because of that. Either find academic scholarly sources (not book titles, but specific passages) that classify the term Neo-Nazism as a distinct and unrelated ideology to Nazism, or stop pestering us with this. And I have no agenda; I'm just trying to maintain factual accuracy, whereas you are just trying to cite verbatim the content you read in your sources without taking into account that your sources do not explain what you are interpreting it into. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 07:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the opening of the entry on "Neo-Nazism" in the new edition of the Encyclopedia Judaica.


 * "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) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop spamming this excerpt? What is this, the twentieth time you post your own POV? This excerpt which you seem to be very fond of, does not explain how Neo-Nazism is a new ideology, and it is simply not specific enough, but is rather describing very vaguely and loosely in general terms, white supremacist movements. If you want to classify neo-Nazism as an ideology, I suggest you start a new subsection like for instance Neo-Nazism/ideology and work with references (not book titles, but actual references). I also suggest soapbox, but stop editwarring. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 07:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not spamming, if one contests the content, there are many sources to back it up. Just because they do match your views does not mean you have the right to removed sourced, and very well sourced material. First you say there are no sources to make the claims made, now you say there are too many? You do not own this article or the right to define "neo-Nazism" on your own. If you feel there are too many, don't remove ALL of them, cull them. Don't removed sourced material. Thanks.- Jeeny (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the 'sources' found here are not suited to describe Neo-Nazism as an ideology. Either cite the sources, properly, or don't cite them at all. Just listing book titles isn't how you cite sources, and it should not be allowed to just cite titles of books without being specific. If you can just cite the titles of books, then you can pretty much add whatever you want, since most Wikipedians don't read 40 books just to verify a cited source. User:Cberlet needs to knock it off with citing sources this way by just listing titles. We are not mind readers and we have no idea what he's referring to except titles of several books. Citing sources this way, should be discouraged. And look, the term neo-Nazism refers, beyond a doubt, to the Nazi ideology. There is no need to repeat this by childishly trying to have it your way by referring to websites calling it neo-Nazi ideology. The only reason they add neo in front of Nazi is because of context, i.e., post-WW2. They are referring to the same ideology in different periods of times. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't work on the article. For the last time, if you want to work on Neo-Nazism as an ideology, try Neo-Nazism/ideology and once you've reached something worth adding into the actual article, then add it. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem that the EJ article allows for any distinction to be made between neo-Nazism and neo-fascism. Intangible2.0 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that the EJ article allows for any distinction to be made between neo-Nazism and neo-fascism. &mdash; That is a good reason to discard it if you ask me. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's published in one of the world's leading encyclopedias. It is cited properly for an encyclopedia. Go to a library and read it.


 * Here is another cite being dismissed:


 * 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.


 * Here is another cite being dismissed:


 * “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.” (emphasis added)


 * --Nicholas Goodrick-Clark. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press, p. 6.


 * Original research and agressive POV does not trump cites to reputable published scholarly sources. No one is denying that many older studies suggested that Neo-Nazism was just rewarmed Hutlerian Nazism or National Socialism. But new scholars have emerged who claim that since the 1980s, the situation has changed and become much more complictaed.  WHite Aryan Resistance says Hitler betrayed national socialism.  The National Alliance claims it is not  national socialist, but gleans some ideas from national socialism. Some Christian Identity groups are called neonazi by some scholars. I'm sorry if you folks disagree, but your opiniuons still do not trump cites to reputable published scholarly sources.--Cberlet (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, Mr. Berlet, that those sources, simply do not support that Neo-Nazism (which is Nazism post-WW2) is a different ideology than Nazism. Those sources, do not support that Neo-Nazism is several ideologies. Those sources, do not support that Neo-Nazism is something different than Nazism. All they show is that there are groups considered neo-Nazis, having serious political disagreements and not being able to get their shit together. Give me sources, that deal with and focus specifically and exclusively on Neo-Nazism as an ideology. Until then, Neo-Nazism is simply a term for the Nazi ideology post-WW2. And the Kathleen Blee article, does not count for this purpose, since she is simply discussing several different ideologies, of which (neo-)Nazism is one. By the way Berlet, if you do not specify page numbers, I will remove your excessive list of book titles. I see no reason why you should add book titles without being specific. That is not the way you cite sources. It seems more like some sort of weird promotion to books rather than actually citing the books. Of course, given that you have repeatedly ignored my concern about this for weeks, I suspect you have a hidden agenda. I am also concerned about you citing yourself in the article. In my opinion, you are not a WP:RS on 'right wing' articles because you have been identified as a left wing extremist by FrontPage. Your political POV cannot just be ignored, and I seriously question your reliability as a WP:RS. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The EJ article on neo-fascism says that neo-Nazi groups seek the "restoration of an antisemitic, racialist, Nazi-type dictatorship." That is something else than what the EJ neo-Nazism talks about. The EJ neo-Nazism article also makes the mistake of blaming neo-Nazis for attacking a synagogue in Paris, while the perpetrators are more likely to have been Palestinian terrorists, as in other attacks at that time. Intangible2.0 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the section of the entry in context, you will see that the attacks are not blamed on neonazis, it states that "A telephone caller claimed responsibility on behalf of the European Nationalist Fascists, a neo-Nazi group." And then the text notes that "The bombing had political ramifications since it was alleged that 10–20 percent of the 150 members of the European Nationalist Fascists (FNE) were members of the police, and the government was criticized for its failure to stop the perpetrators. Massive demonstrations took place after the bombing." So the anti-Nazi demonstrations led to a major political fracas in France. The claim that the bombing was carried out by Palestinians did not emerge until later, and the overlap between neonazis and some antisemitic anti-Israel activists is well-documented. There is no conflict with the other entry which states that the newer groups seek "restoration of an antisemitic, racialist, Nazi-type dictatorship," since "Nazi-type dictatorship" does not imply only restoring the ideology of Hitler's national socialism...which is what I have been arguing all along. In any case, a disagreement over wording in the entry is your Original research, and serves no purpose here except as a red herring.--Cberlet (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's take some German sources then:
 * Mit dem Begriff „Neonazismus“ werden innerhalb des Rechtsextremismus Personenzusammenschlüsse und Aktivitäten charakterisiert, die ein Bekenntnis zur Ideologie des Nationalsozialismus enthalten und auf die Errichtung eines totalitären Führerstaats nach dem Vorbild des „Dritten Reiches“ ausgerichtet sind.
 * Der Neonazismus ist eine besonders abstoßende Erscheinungsform des Rechtsextremismus. Er umfasst alle Aktivitäten und Bestrebungen, die ein offenes Bekenntnis zur Ideologie des Nationalsozialismus darstellen. Neonazis fordern die Errichtung einer Staatsform und eine „Volksgemeinschaft“ auf den historischen Grundlagen des 25 Punkte umfassenden Programms der NSDAP vom 24. Februar 1920 und streben somit einen totalitären, nationalistischen und rassistischen Führerstaat mit einer Einheitspartei an. Eine ausformulierte Ideologie, die auf ihre Prämissen und Widersprüche hin kritisch befragt werden könnte, ist nicht vorhanden.
 * Der Begriff Neonazismus, eine Abkürzung für Neo- oder neuer Nationalsozialismus steht für rechtsextremistische Bestrebungen, die sich auf den historischen Nationalsozialismus beziehen.
 * Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is English Wikipedia. Try not to be snotty "Ubi merda flabellum incursat."--Cberlet (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with foreign language sources, especially when no sources of comparative quality can be found in English. Neo-Nazism is largely a German phenomenon (Reichspartei, NPD), elsewhere these groups are quite marginal and insignificant. Intangible2.0 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Foreign sources are quite fine as long as they are cited accurately. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim that neo-Nazism is fascism is just a leftist POV. Look, Fascism and Nazism are two completely different ideologies. Just because both are totalitarian, it doesn't mean that Nazism is Fascism. Otherwise we might as well call the Soviet Union a Fascist state. Please put aside your leftist agenda and accept the fact that Nazism is an ideology based on the biological race (all aspects of Nazism are focused on what's good for the race), and that neo-Nazism is simply Nazism post-WW2 and not the same as neo-Fascism. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. Let's wait for mediation. "Causa merdae flabellum incursandae."--Cberlet (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it can only get more ridiculous when Wikipedians are trying to be intellectual by writing in Latin instead of engaging in discussion. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism is not a separate ideology, but rather a vague political phenomon. It should be noted that no movement that identifies itself as 'Neo-Nazi', its a labelled given by outsiders and opponents, its a term used to describe any post-WW2 resurgence of NS ideology or political movement. As such I think the article should be kept to a minimum, possibly shifting material from here to National Socialism. --Soman (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, Soman. That is what I've been trying to say all along. Bear with me on this one. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Neo-nazism" is a term used by many published scholars. Not all Neo-nazi groups are national socialist in any way that conforms to German Nazism.--Cberlet (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Neo-nazism" is a term used by many published scholars. &mdash; That is beside the point, because scholars, are not neo-Nazis. Those who know their ideology better than anyone else, are the neo-Nazis, and they very rarely call themselves neo-Nazis (pretty much always, National Socialists). Not all Neo-nazi groups are national socialist in any way that conforms to German Nazism. &mdash; Yeah sure Berlet, let's not forget that you consider the Ku Klux Klan to be neo-Nazis... &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if neo-Nazism was the exact same ideology and movement as that found in Nazi Germany, then it would just be called Nazism, and the term neo-Nazism would never have been invented. Also, National Socialism is a disambiguation page, so material from this article should not be be moved there. Spylab (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if neo-Nazism was the exact same ideology and movement as that found in Nazi Germany, then it would just be called Nazism, and the term neo-Nazism would never have been invented &mdash; The entire reason why it's called neo-Nazism is to differentiate the context of the time period: pre-1945 and post-WW2. It is the exact same ideology. Perhaps neo-Nazism has been updated somewhat to conform to modern science and research in studies of anthropology and race research (for instance, Race and intelligence), but that is pretty much the only thing that differs. It's still the exact same ideology, in a different period of time. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be fascinating publishing views on Wikipedia talk pages, but since Wikipedia depends on reputable published sources, this entry should evaluate what the majority of reputable contemporary published scholars have to say. So no matter how many thousands of words anyone plops onto this discussion page, what really matters is the weight of recent scholarhip. I am sure that a mediation will help sort this out. In the meantime, what is the prupose of the endless circular discussion?--Cberlet (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your obsession with scholars you can't cite because they don't write what you claim (e.g., Kathleen Blee) and your inability to cite page numbers to the book titles you've provided, is not a concern of this article's definition of neo-Nazism. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No one editor owns a page
Note to EliasAlucard. Your reversions and deletions are now simply aggressive and disruptive. Not an auspicious way to begin a mediation. You do not own the entry: WP:OWN. The last material you reverted was a compromise by some outside editor. It was a good edit. Cut it out.--Cberlet (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True - no one owns the page. Self praise is not a praise. Adhere to this rule and get agreement of other editors to your changes.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is not an auspicious way to start a mediation either &mdash; so, I've given you all 2 weeks to work it out. --Haemo (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do not own the article (likewise, by the way). What must be understood here is that ALL OF YOUR SOURCES are unanimous, that Nazism is the ideology. Therefore, if neo-Nazism is an ideology, it is already covered by the current lead. Either get scholarly sources that deal with, in length, about the ideological roots of neo-Nazism and how neo-Nazism supposedly differs from Nazism, or simply accept the current lead. Note to Berlet: listing book titles, is not sufficient. Note to Haemo: make sure you keep the article locked the rest of the year. I have a strong feeling this is going to take its time. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi ideologies
Because User:Cberlet has been completely paranoid and resorted to some sort of censorship, I'm moving the question to this talk page:


 * We've been having a long and tired discussion on neo-Nazi ideology. You say that it consists of several ideologies but you've never really given any specifics. Do you consider, for instance, the Nouvelle Droite to be a new form of neo-Nazism ideology, and if so, on what basis? Answer here and not on my talk page. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing false Völkish citations
I've removed the virtually uncited statement: or some variant that echos aspects of Nazi ideology such as racial or ethnic nationalism or Völkish integralism.[8][9][10][page # needed] added by User:Cberlet. Reason? Berlet never cited page numbers. He thought he could get away with just adding his own uncited POV by just listing impressive scholarly book titles without citing the books' pages. Well, it just so happens that I did a quick search after Völkish and Volkish on Google books where these two books are previewed. No matches for anything regarding Volkish/Völkish integralism. This seems to be an abuse of sources from Chip Berlet, who has taken it for granted that he can add whatever content he wants without citing it properly. Clearly, this is a WP:ABF example Berlet has demonstrated. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistake with first photo caption
In the caption under the first photo of the racist with the rifle, the words "rifle" and "in" are merged and form a link to the rifle article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.196.7 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.--Cberlet 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Poland
"Poland

In Poland, neo-Nazism is somewhat in background. However, in 2005, the new government included members of the ultra-conservative League of Polish Families party, which is linked to the All-Polish Youth (APY). Some consider this electoral victory a triumph of ultra-conservatism and neo-Nazism  because some of its members have neo-Nazi backgrounds or sympathies."

STRONG POV. 1)APY can't be a Neo-Nazi organization because its declares "Great Poland", they do a lot of actions against Neo-Nazis (because of Nazis as once who destroyed Poland). 2) LoPF officialy broke-up with APY after the "drinking Nazi party" by organization youth (which was only 1 person who rised her hand and said "Seig Heil !" after this that girl officialy has been kicked out from APY. 3)Section about Poland is written by left-wing point of view where they see all over Nazis in Poland.

Section about Poland need references and need to be updated other way its nothing more then left-wing propaganda.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbia
This paragraph contains the same text as the one under Neo-Nazism in Serbia. Accordingly, I removed this paragraph as the redundant one.--Stagalj (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its inclusion is perfectly appropriate with the inclusion of a "Main Article" tag per WP:MOS. Stop vandalizing the article --Strothra (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel
I took the text about Israel away since it does not deserve any recognition. I thought we were talking about MAJOR nazi groups, a few russian kids in Israel is not.

There is a nazi party in Mongolia with a couple of thousand members. Why not write something about them? (SebastianGS (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC))


 * If you have references about a big neo-Nazi party in Mongolia, by all means add the information. In the meantime, do not delete referenced material about neo-Nazis in Israel, a topic which attracted significant worldwide mainstream media attention. Spylab (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spylab, please provide references to neo-Nazis in Mongolia. That sure sounds interesting. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The name is Blue Mongolia. Look here or here. They are mainly antichinese but do use a swastika and an eagle as symbol. (SebastianGS (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks User:SebastianGS, this looks interesting, since I can read Swedish, I'll try to look into it and see what I can glean from it into this article. Give me some time though. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've read the article. User:SebastianGS, please explain to me in what way these racists in Mongolia are related to neo-Nazism? Being racist does not mean you are a neo-Nazi. Racism is not synonymous with National Socialism. Unbelievable, please do your homework on Nazism before you post more of this stuff. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Invisible editing spacer
I have a visual problem reading multiple long form references, especially when stacked in the middle of sentences. I have added invisible editing spacers inside comment flags to show the start of new text or new references. This in no way changes the text, just allows me to read the page in editing mode. I would appreciate accomodation to what for me is a visual handicap that extends outside of Wikipedia edit pages. (black on white spreadsheets are pretty much incomprehensible for me) Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please I cannot read to edit with the references format created by you, EliasAlucard. The spacers are harmless. Please be considerate and courteous. Leave the harmless spacers in the text. Do not exploit my difficulty in reading the page. Preview is not helpful, the issue is finding the proper place to edit in editing mode. This is a simple request.--Cberlet (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrites while in mediation
This is frowned on. If you are in mediation for this page, please do not edit the first few paragraphs.--Cberlet (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Israel section
User:Boodlesthecat, I don't mind copyediting, but why have you shortened the Israel section by several lines? In this edit, you've more or less removed half of the section and rephrased it somewhat. Why? &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is clearer and summarizes the info, instead of being a bunch of quotes cut and pasted from the sources. This is an encyclopedia, and should not read like a newspaper article--especially one copied from a real newspaper article, which is what the section was before. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation?
EliasAlucard, it is not appropriate for you to be acting as the faux arbiter of this page while you are supposed to be in mediation. Please rejoin the mediation and stop acting like you are the official editor of this page.--Cberlet (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of comments
I believe the following section was deleted improperly. I have restored it.--Cberlet (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for mistake in deleting wrong part of discussion .--Rjecina (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey
What about the turkish Grey Wolves? Aren't they Neo-Nazis? --85.182.26.24 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they are not. Nationalism is not copyrighted by Hitler and his followers. And to my knowledge, the Grey Wolves and other Turkish nationalist aren't racial nationalists (they are usually only fanatically obsessed about Turkish culture and accept anyone who has the same frenzied fervour about "Turkishness"). There are many different flavours of nationalism, and not every sort of nationalism adheres to the ideology of Nazi Germany (which was, in its essence, strictly based on race, and more specifically, the Aryan race, as it was called back then). There is cultural nationalism as well as state nationalism (sometimes called Statolatry), and these differ very much from Nazi-like nationalism. The closest sort of racial nationalism we have to Nazism, is ironically, Zionism; the difference being that Zionists tend to be a lot more radical than the Nazis ever were. But since neither Jews nor Turks are Indo-European peoples, they would never actually be accepted by any hardcore orthodox Nazi as neo-Nazis. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That remark about Zionism is completely baseless crap. I suggest you read up a bit on the issue and retract it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No it's not at all baseless crap. I've read enough. I think it's you who should be doing the reading. Oh and drop your unalterable view of Zionists as the "good guys". Politics isn't black and white. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, what? In other words, I'm a bit surprised about your information about my alleged opinions. Would you care to elaborate or retract? Or did you confuse me with someone else? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could elaborate if that's what you want. But first, explain to me why you think it's "baseless crap", so that I can understand your alleged opinions better. And spare me the lame "anti-semite" remarks, if you're interested in having an intellectual discussion. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Being an antisemite does not bar you from being an editor here on Wikipedia,EliasAlucard, but it does mean that some of us other editors can point this out to illustrate the POV and marginal nature of some of your discussion comments and edits.--Cberlet (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did I state that I'm an anti-semite? I certainly don't consider myself one. It's interesting that you apply such conclusions on me though. It's true that I'm critical of Zionism, but that is for obvious reasons, such as state terrorism (Lavon Affair), the recent disastrous Israel-Libanon war, and many other examples. Other than that though, I have nothing against Jews from a religious or racial perspective, but politically speaking, they should be criticised severely for their actions in the Middle East. I don't think I qualify as a an antisemite, unless of course, if you define antisemitism as criticism of Israeli politics, then I am most certainly an antisemite. In any case, I believe this conversation is going off topic and the question has been answered: no, Grey Wolves are not neo-Nazis since they can't be for ideological reasons (i.e., non-Europeans and certainly not of Nordic race), regardless of how much they actually admire Hitler. &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's summarize this. You claim that Zionism is "the closest form of racial nationalism we have to Nazism". Then you claim I have "an unalterable view of Zionists as the 'good guys'", although I cannot remember to have ever commented on Zionism or Zionists before. Next you insinuate I might accuse you of anti-semitism. And then, in a reply to Cberlet you demonstrate a complete confusion of "Zionists", "Jews", and the state of Israel. I'm impressed about the resilience and completeness of your world model. Less so about its explanatory and predictive power, though.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that Discussion is currently in mediation with me and others on this very question--among others...--Cberlet (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

<-Clarification, please, EliasAlucard. Are you suggesting that to be a neonazi in 2008 one has to be of the "Nordic" race? And that this means that the ideology of neonazism can only be held by persons who identify as part of the Nordic race? And that only "Europeans" can be neonazis?--Cberlet (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism online
Is this covered in another article? Is there a list of Neo-Nazi online sites like this ?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism and Slavic nationalism
Out of curiosity, anyone have any idea how Slavic neo-Nazis, particularly Russians, reconcile their admiration and/or imitation of Hitler's ideology with Hitler's Slavophobia? Do they just write off Generalplan Ost as a hoax or what? --Grimgerde (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegation of Duke being a Neo-Nazi
Duke once wore a Nazi suit when he was a teenager and has never been part of a Neo-Nazi organization. That hardly warrants mentioning him in the opening paragraph as if he were a major proponent of the ideology. Also, he has renounced Nazism several times, including in his book -My awakening- and has compared Israel to Nazi Germany when he has strong feelings of antipathy for Israel which suggests antipathy for Nazi Germany as well.--Spitzer19 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS's cite him as having been a neo-Nazi. Stop pushing your POV in this article. If you revert again I will take it to a noticeboard. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only one pushing POV is you, they cite him as a former Neo-Nazi and no details are given. The ADL even acknowledges that he has rescinded his glamourization of Hitler and was only a Neo-Nazi as a teenager. That does not warrant inserting him in the opening paragraph as if he were a major proponent of Neo-Nazism. You have no case to take me to a noticeboard.--Spitzer19 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are on very thin ice with respect to WP:3RR even now. Reliable sources do call DD a former neo-nazi. The sentence in question is in the past tense. I have reverted to the previous version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SPLC is hardly a reliable source for the allegation of being a Neo-Nazi. The blurb in Amazon for the book actually about Duke nowhere mentions the word "nazi". The ADL report makes fairly bald assertions that Duke founded a neo-nazi organization and "sold neo-nazi literature", but doesn't give any further information to allow anyone else to independently judge the veracity of those claims. The so-called "reliable sources" seem to add up to (provable) allegations that Duke is a racist and a nasty person, and a variety of professional wolf-criers claiming that Duke is a neo-nazi. If you need 9 citations, 6 of which are books, it seems that your case is relatively thin. Providing page numbers within those 6 books might help matters. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the somewhat Orwellian-sounding claim of "If you need 9 citations, 6 of which are books, it seems that your case is relatively thin" (more = less?). If you've been following along, you will see that Spitzer19 had been edit warring the sourced info out, hence I supplied ample sourcing. In any case, I'm not sure what your point is here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are 9 sources needed to establish that Duke is a neo-nazi? If he is, then one reliable source ought to suffice. Wikipedia tradition appears to be that when the sources are weak, provide several, to create the appearance that one's point is proven. In any case, part of my point is that some of your sources are absolutely not reliable (SPLC and NYT), others are suspect (ADL, and the book about Duke), and that some are useless without further information (page numbers in the books). The sources, as provided, do not appear to provide sufficient defense against an action for libel by Duke against Wikipedia or its editors, which is the point of WP:BLP. Spitzer19 appears to be correct in removing the allegation. Argyriou (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is indeed a reliable source and has been considered one probably since WP:RS was written. What makes you believe it is not one in this case?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has been repeatedly caught in fabricating stories and general editorial sloppiness, especially regarding people whose politics it opposes. To the NYT and most of its reporters and editors, there's no real difference between a (white) racist, a Klansman, or a neo-nazi. The point of the NYT article was to horrify its readers that such a scary man might end up as governor of an actual state, not to accurately classify Duke's politics. Wikipedia aims for (though often misses) more precision than that. Just as WorldNetDaily can't be trusted to accurately distinguish between a Socialist, a Trotskyist, and a Stalinist, the NYT can't be trusted to describe David Duke accurately. Argyriou (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your opinion. However, the information is reliably sourced per WP:RS. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not because none of these sources provide any details as to which Neo-Nazi group he was a part of, of course that is because he was never a member of any Neo-Nazi group and makes it inappropriate to state he has been one of the major proponents of Neo-Nazism. Also, the ADL and the SPLC are too biased to be considered reliable. It would be like using JewWatch.com as a source for the article on Ehud Olmert--Spitzer19 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Continuing to repeat that claim does not make it true. Perhaps if you could provide a page number citation for the Tyler Bridge book where he states that Duke was part of an actual neo-nazi movement. He was a Klansman; there is ample proof of that. But I have not seen anything in the sources provided which convinces me that Duke was a Nazi. Incidentally, you ought to provide sources for all the other people on that list per WP:BLP, but with the exception of Yockey, that should be pretty easy, as the articles on them should have more than sufficient sources. Argyriou (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, please don't instruct me what I additionally should source and what edits I should make. If you care to improve the article with sourcing, feel free. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have improved the article by removing sourcing which does not verify the claims made, by improving one reference, and by commenting out one person who does not have a source for the claim of neo-nazi activity. Should I delete all the names but Duke's, for lack of sourcing, per BLP? WP:BLP says I should, but I'm lazy; you should have plenty of time to find appropriate references in the articles about those people to avoid the BLP issue. Argyriou (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Improvement is best accomplished by adding well sourced material, or providing sources where needed; deleting is, as you note, a lazy approach. A slight effort on the reader's part as it stands would have them click the names, and find ample discussion of the neo-nazi background of all of them. It's not like the list contains Mother Theresa. If you feel any of the names there present BLP problems, tag them. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this works now, although I'm a little concerned that changing it to "neo-Nazi activity" begins to open the way to weasel-words. The categorization becomes rather broad. Nonetheless, I think it's a fair compromise on the issue. croll (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He is informing you of what the Wikipedia rules are that you don't seem to grasp and I just checked the page and you have now edited the article more times than you're allowed as well.User reazurro is not me BTW. You can ask the editors to check, I haven't logged out from this account.--Spitzer19 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Boodlesthecat and Stephan Schulz. Whatever you want to say about ADL and SPLC, the New York Times is an established WP:RS. Regardless, there clearly is no concensus on this issue, so deleting the references and just saying, "See discussion" is premature. Personally, I think deleting the references other than the NYT-one would be sufficient. As it stands, it does look "overly-sourced" and, while I happen to think the ADL and SPLC are correct on this, I can see how some would question their neutrality. croll (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is the New York Times does not give any explanation or details as to which Neo-Nazi group he was allegedly involved. If all his activism involved dressing as a Nazi as a teenager it hardly qualifies him as a major proponent of Neo-Nazism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd be inclined to agree with that. Even more so, the sentence in question says that the individuals have attempted to revive Nazi-ism, which the Times article does not claim. croll (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Spitzer19's claim that "the problem is the New York Times does not give any explanation or details" regarding David Duke being a neo-Nazi. Sounds like original research to me.67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

David Duke in Intro
Totally ridiculous having David Duke in the first paragraph. Who is grinding an ax? I love the 3 citations that don't actually link to anything. I think that maybe we should put George Wallace in the intro too. Duke a neo-nazi is news to me, former KKK I think is the tag. Are there any other (former?) racists that we can think of to throw in the mix. Maybe we can put Strom Thurmond in the first line. Definitely put a few non-existent citations on that too, makes it look real.

Seriously, maybe a sidebar or a mention somewhere, but the hackneyed incomplete sentence wrapping up the intro, very poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssavelan (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of non-clickable sources is a little bothersome in that it's more difficult to confirm but, as far as I'm aware, perfectly acceptable per WP:Source. If someone could show that any of the cited authors have been discredited, or that the citations are inaccurate, well then that's a different story, but so far no one is claiming that. I think the citations should stay, but if someone wants to make a trip to the library to confirm them that's great. (BTW, this really is just a continuation of the above topic... probably should have been put there instead of having a new section created for it.) croll (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. Published books available in public libraries are superior sources to "clickable sources." A library card is the key to reputable published sources.--Cberlet (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I happen to agree, nonetheless it does make it more difficult to verify. Fortunately, Argyriou was able to find the books and discovered, indeed, two some of the sources were incorrectly used. croll (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The book sources for David Duke, with one exception, were locatable in Google books. Upon not finding a statement that David Duke was a neo-nazi in some refs, I removed those refs. Upon finding in one ref a pretty clear discussion of his neo-nazi activities, I added the appropriate page number to the ref. Even "non-clickable" sources are sometimes on the internet. Argyriou (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Learned something new. Great. croll (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically incorrect text
Current form: "some former Nazis retained their political beliefs, and passed them down to new generations."  Suggestion: "some former Nazis retained their ethnic attitudes, and passed them down to new generations"

Reason:  Political beliefs require personal choice and development according to life experiences. It cannot be taught in socialization. Considering what neo-nazies represent, it is more like an attitude than politics. In fact, I think it would be wrong to suggest that even the germans in 1930'ties had real political beliefs, since they lived in an autocratic state and followed a charismatic leader. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it seems likely that most retained their ethnic attitudes--these aren't likely to change simply as the result of defeat in a war. The "some" refers to those who maintained the political stance, and passed it along. That would seem to be a valid subset of the former. Your implication that those who held Nazi views in the 30s did not make a "choice" seems odd--it was only a few short years before that they lived in a multiparty democracy, albeit a tumultuous one. Analyses of the voting in 1933 suggest a self conscious choice on the part of many voters for Nazism as a solution to the various crises. Did a massive, brainwashing fog sweep the land in a mere two or three years? Not likely. So I find this notion of lack of choice to be not very tenable. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you still accept changing the words? About this notion, according to sociologists, people have a natural attitude, which means neither conscious choice nor brainwash. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really; I think it would be inaccurate. Unless you have a source. I really don't think it's a matter of abstract sociological pronouncements. There were Nazis who retained their political views, and changing it as you suggest would deny that. I will try to find some sources. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that is sociologically wrong. And we can't settle for what feels right either, so are questioning my expertise? I say, knowing what nazis are like, that it is not a political but a learned socialized role, group identidy and a lifestyle. The simpliest way to say that is that they have retained their attitutes. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What source in sociology are you citing? I have never heard of such a thing. Claims of expertise have no validity here. Citing reputable published sources is what matters. In the U.S. there is a Political Sociology section in the American Sociological Association where the issue of political attitudes and their replication is frequently discussed. See, for example, their newsletter: here in pdf.--Cberlet (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Greece
I would just like to point out that citing Greece and its far right winged organisation as some sort of example of neo-nazist movement is simply retarded. Nationalism, patriotism and nazism are completely different things. Greece has a history of protecting the Jews during the war and not collaborating with the nazis. At the same time it has almost non-existant anti-semitic history, and this can be verified even by jewish sources. . Greek resistance groups, both communist and non-communist, battled the Axis occupiers in an effort, not only to save Greece, but also to save the Jews living there. The small number — 8,000 to 10,000 — of Greek Jews that survived the Holocaust was due in part to the unwillingness of Greek people to cooperate with German plans for their deportation. So please, show some respect and remove the section on the non-existant neo-nazi movement which was probably injected by the typical Balkan nationalists who roam wikipedia. Miskin (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you so upset about? There are two lines - one about a fringe neo-Nazi party (which, like most neo-Nazi parties, seems to be a bunch of losers), and one line about twelve - yes, twelve - Greeks going to fight for Serbia. (Why are neo-Nazis fighting for Serbia?) Copare that to the amount of space occupied by neo-Nazi groups in other countries, and it's obvious that Greeks are generally too smart for neo-Nazism, but there are always a few retarded people in any large enough group. Argyriou (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Template
I propose we change the lead template to the newly created Nazism sidebar template.  Yahel  Guhan  07:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler despised Russians
As a slavic people it always amazes me when i hear of Russian Neo-Nazis because Hitler made it known that he despised ALL slavs. Perhaps it would be wise to include this as it is quite surprising that Russian Neo-Nazis would admire Hitler despite his clear hatred towards the Russian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnos (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead
Let's discuss the lead before having a spat. I agree with the wording by Nikodemos. It represents the majority view of scholars.--Cberlet (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how previous wording doesn't represent the majority view of scholars. Also, Wikipedia articles should represent all views, and not just views of majority. -- Vision Thing -- 16:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority of editors both here and on Nazism disagree with you, Vision_Thing. The previous editors who agreed with you have been banned from Wikipedia or were apparently fake accounts. That you continue to revert back to the POV wording you prefer, in direct opposition to the majority view of scholars and other Wikipeduia editors, has become tendentious and disruptive. Please stop.--Cberlet (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * About what majority view of scholars are you talking about? -- Vision Thing -- 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Give it up. Your marginal POV has repeatedly been rejected. Just stop. Your POV war on this issue is tendentious and disruptive.--Cberlet (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While I can easily see why the term "National Socialism" should be included in the lead of the Nazism article, I have never heard of "neo-National Socialism" being used by anyone, anywhere. It only gets 653 hits on google. So how is it in any way notable? -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's valid argument for not mentioning it in the opening sentence. -- Vision Thing -- 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Still, the second paragraph already notes that neo-Nazis sometimes refer to themselves as "National Socialists", so I'm not sure if the term "neo-National Socialism" should be used in the intro at all... -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "neo-National Socialism" is seldom used, and is not used by the majority of recognized scholars in the field.--Cberlet (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead rewrites
Please, folks, bring suggestions for rewriting the lead to the discussion page first. Thank you. The current version reflects a consensus.--Cberlet (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi
The proper term in the United States is "neo-Nazi," not "national socialist." Not all neonazi groups in the U.S. consider themselves national socialist. I know this is confusing, but there is abundant evidence of this in the published work of several scholars.--Cberlet (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I understand that and I don't mean to step on anyone's toes but the intro sentence to that section made no sense. To say that neo-Nazi (literally new-Nazi) groups existed prior to the breakup of the NSDAP in 1945 (let alone prior to the 1920 name change from DAP) is historically inaccurate and a physical impossibility.  The Free Society of Teutonia, the German-American Bund, the Friends of New Germany, and the Auslandsorganisation weren't neo-Nazi at all, they were just Nazi. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My toes are fine, it is your understanding of English sentence construction that appears to be in pain. No one is disagreeing with your historic timeline, just you claim that the sentence is flawed. I rewrote it to make it even clearer, nad yet you persist in not reading it correctly. --Cberlet (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I was responding to your comments on my talk page and this one; giving my reasoning for changing the sentence. I was not complaining about the rewrite, the rewrite looks great.  If you want to explain how you think the previous version made sense with "English sentence construction" I would love to hear it but the rewrite looks fine to me.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

KHD
I would like the Kärntner Heimatdienst removed from the list. It is right-wing, but hardly a Neo-nazi group.
 * A lot of groups listed as Neo-Nazi groups are in the same boat, put there because a few members have links or have made comments sympathising with certain Nazi policies/ideals etc.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That may well be, but is hardly a criterion. By that norm, you could add every Austrian political party or organisation. Absurdistani (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with Absurdistani. In France a leftist president called Mitterand had links with collaborators during WW2... yet he's not mentioned in this article.. and rightfully so. The new Pope who was in the Hitler Jugend isn't mentionned.. and rightfully so.. I also would like to redirect everyone to that discussion I started on "France"... its the same problem. Munin75 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fault in classification
The classification of the "Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging" or "AWB" as a neo-Nazi party is incorrect. A short study of their official website will reiterate this (although the website is predominantly in Afrikaans, not English).

The confusion comes with the AWB's insignia, the triskelion 777 on a white and red background. This is incorrectly attributed to be influenced by the Nazi Swastika.

Reccomend immediate removal of the AWB's link from the section "Neo-Nazi Organizations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurras (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

France
The "Bloc Identitaire" is mentioned as an actual neo-nazi organization in France. Nothing proves it is and it is totally false. While one or a few of its creators or members may have had ties with previous "fascist" organisations ("fascism" isn't the same as "neo-nazism" anyway), the Bloc Identitaire today has never openly showed any link with neo-nazism, weither its in their manifesto, or their actions. Calling them neo-nazis is an opinion as nothing proves they are... mostly far left activists or left media call them neo-nazis (they even call the actual president and government "fascist"), the more neutral and accepted term is simply "far-right" or even "regionalists". I think the Bloc Identitaire should be taken out of this article. Its a legal organisation in France, if it were openly neo-nazi it would be illegal. If you absolutely must mention the organisation, do so for its supposed link with the former Unité Radicale. But doing that still suggests they are neo-nazi and I feel thats an obvious blow to neutrality. Munin75 (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No Remorse
No Remorse is an album by Motörhead. The article is blocked to edition, so please fix your wiki shit. 80.230.161.62 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With that attitude, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. Anyway, you're wrong. Click on the link you yourself have provided here and you'll see that the article is editable, even by rude anonymous users. Emeraude (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article however is blocked - and he was talking bout the entry under bands.

Lars T. (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then he should have said so! (Which article?) Emeraude (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Supposed "neo-Nazism" in Croatia is really neo-Ustashism
There are a lot of ass licking Yugo-nostalgics who just keep on spreading their lies across wikipedia. Those people who "admire" NDH are not neo-Nazi's but rather neo-Ustashi's. I live in the Croatian diaspora (Australia to be sure where all the 'far-right' emigres live) and there is indeed strong Ustasha support amongst the populace but lets get one thing straight! They worship and hang pictures on the wall of Pavelic, Francetic and Boban NOT Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels, they have maps of HDH NOT Nazi Germany and have the NDH flag NOT the Nazi German one. To go a bit further, they worship the Ustasha because they're seen as Croatian independent fighters NOT because NDH aligned itself with the Nazi's who were used as disposable tools (i.e a means) to have Croatia become independent (i.e to the end). The Ustasha started as a movement in the late 1800's (HSP) to fight for Croat independence and only that aim sufficed. The Ustasha are a distinct and separate movement from the Nazi's and only became aligned to them when it was convenient and when there were no other options to achieve their aim. Those who support the Ustashe thus do so NOT because they aligned themselves with the Nazi's but because they are seen in the light of Croatia's historic right to independence. There should be a neo-Ustashi wiki page DISTINCT and SEPARATE from this neo-Nazism page because they are TWO distinct movements NOT inherent to one another.

p.s > I hate the Ustasha but I wont sit by whilst Yugo-nostalgics deliberately misrepresent the facts in relation to neo-Ustashism and neo-Nazism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.220.228 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is this? Old and new Ustashe are Nazi-like.--Remind me never (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)