Talk:The Enemy of Europe

Notable?
Reliable third-party sources about The Enemy of Europe are scarce. Lee writes that this book is "essentially a condensed version of the second part of Imperium", which already has a Wikipedia article. Also, this book is not summarized at its author's Wikipedia page. Is The Enemy of Europe WP:NOTABLE enough for an article?
 * It is a separate book, published in 1953 in Germany, and although Yockey claims that there is nothing in the book that was not mentioned in Imperium, it still contains new ideas like "Europe-Russia Symbiosis". ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does a RS say that "Europe-Russia Symbiosis" makes it different? Llll5032 (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not word for word, but yes, Russia and the Western Far Right even says that "none of the previous pan-European fascists or interwar National Bolsheviks had ever gone as far as Yockey did in his geopolitical envisioning" while discussing the book.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, do RS say the book had any influence that Imperium did not? Llll5032 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't mention other new authors but they say that the 1952 Slánský trial in Czechoslovakia influenced Yockey's pro-Soviet shift.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To rephrase my question, do third-party sources say that this book affected the world in any ways that Imperium did not? Llll5032 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, SPLC says this book was an "obscure tract". Is that right? Llll5032 (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If the book is obscure, mostly condenses part of the author's previous book, lacks much third-party commentary, and had no obvious impact, then why shouldn't we turn this article back into a redirect to the author's page, where a sentence could be written (for the first time) about the book? Llll5032 (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither it is obscure, nor lacks third-party commentary (numerous sources are cited), and impact is also mentioned in the article.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do the RS say this book had an impact, or just Yockey had the impact? Llll5032 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Close to copyvio
The sentence about the barbarians being absorbed into the "Culture-Body" paraphrases very closely. Change it? Llll5032 (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC) If th

Summary section
I believe that the Summary section is massively bloated and that at least 90% of it is undue and unencyclopedic. Since my bold cut was reverted, I am opening up this discussion, but the onus is on (or anyone else who would like to argue for it) to achieve consensus for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I shortened it by 300 words, it can be shortened more, although without deletion of essential information.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think only a sentence or two could be DUE, describing what third-party reliable sources say the book adds to Imperium, if they do. A longer recap is WP:UNDUE. Llll5032 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources describe it independently from Imperium, as a separate book. So it should not be discussed in context of Imperium but separately. One or two sentences is certainly not enough to explain anything. The most important topics which are mentioned in reliable sources should be discussed shortly in summery.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I shorted the section significantly, now only 650 words are left.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing "at least 90%" as Generalrelative suggested would leave less than 100 words. I would prefer 50 words or less, if the RS say something notable. Rehashing Imperium in a far more obscure work is not due. Llll5032 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not rehashing of Imperium, in fact there are many new concepts in the book. I don't think 100 words would be enough, maybe around 500 or something. Also, which parts are exactly not "notable" in the article? Everything stated in the article is supported by RS.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:FRINGE? Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are "many new concepts", then which do the RS explicitly say are new to the book? Llll5032 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Europe-Russia Symbiosis" for example.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. How is this book notable enough for its own article? Doug Weller  talk 17:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to agree as well, and would be in favor of redirecting to either Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics or Francis Parker Yockey. Generalrelative (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is notable since many RS mention it, also it develops particular strand of pan-European nationalism which was peculiar in its assessment of Russia and America and exerted significant influence (as said in the Russia and the Western Far Right). - ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I favor a redirect to the author's article, where his views about Russia are discussed. Llll5032 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The book is not just about his views on Russia so this is not really a good argument.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, I say go ahead. Not interested in continuing to finagle here, and the 3-1 rough consensus should be sufficient. Generalrelative (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3-1 is definetly not enough to achieve any consensus and decide such topics. If you are not interested in debating, you can simply leave instead since this page is exactly for that. Also, the dispute about the summary section is already solved.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of these statements are false. 3-1 is a fine rough consensus (see WP:1AM as has been suggested before), and no one agrees with you about the summary section. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly does "no one agrees with me about"? The section has been reduced in size as suggested on this page.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary falsely claimed that you shortened the section to around 100 words when it was in fact 187 . And cutting by 90% was my off-the-cuff upper limit whereas Llll5032 argued for 50 words. So yeah, no one agrees with you that the dispute about the summary section is already solved. And in any case, the larger problem is one of notability for the work as a whole. I've added to the existing post at FT/N asking for additional comment about this. I'll give it a couple more days and if the consensus doesn't change I'll go ahead and do the redirect myself. Generalrelative (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Various sources support that the book is notable, and there is only one source in the article that suggests that book is "obscure" and only rephrases the second part of Imperium. Also, I will shorten summary section and add it again.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, where does that page that you reference suggests that 3 persons is enough to move the page? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Author's Nazism
ArsenalAtletico2017 is correct that more sources describe the author as a fascist or neo-fascist than a Nazi or neo-Nazi, but the author's Nazism is also DUE to mention. I think both descriptions could be used. I don't think this article should omit the author's Nazism. Does anyone disagree? Llll5032 (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Also, why is it DUE?ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FRIND says articles must use independent reliable sources "to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." For this book, a relationship is that the author was a neo-Nazi, according to reliable sources. So we need to say he was a neo-Nazi. Llll5032 (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * His own article mentions "believed in Nazism" and his involvement with Nazi aligned groups. So I don't see it as undue, to mention along with his support big fascism. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What his article mentions is not relevant, if someone wants to know that they should visit their article. It would be redundant to add so many details, most of the sources describe him as fascist so I think it would be enough.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The National Renaissance Party also should be described as neo-Nazi, as the cited source describes it. I reverted ArsenalAtletico2017's edit that removed the description. Llll5032 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources mention it as fascist, so it would be enough to mention fascism, other would be redundant.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, Remer (who recommended the book) was Hitler's former bodyguard. I added that to the article. Llll5032 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)