Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism

Who is involved?

 * User:Gnostrat
 * User:Harrypotter
 * User:Loremaster
 * User:Paki.tv

What is the dispute?
The dispute is primarily over the definition of National-Anarchism in the lead. It seems that Harrypotter and Paki.tv feel that the lead should describe the movement as a "neo-nazi", "far-right" movement while Loremaster suggests it should be described as "a synthesis of fascism and anarchism"  or, better yet, "a synthesis of neo-volkish tribalism and green anarchism"  and feels this is a compromise.

What would you like to change about this?
While previous discussions have occurred, the order of the day seems to be edit warring. Parties should seek to find middle ground and also invite outside opinion.

How do you think we can help?
I would like MedCab to assist the parties discuss the issues in a collegial manner and ensure that fundamental principles such as neutral point of view and verifiability are given full consideration.

Mediator discussion
I'll take this if there is no objection from the parties. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objections for now. Wikipedia administrator Xeno told User:Paki.tv that:
 * it is an inappropriate approach to editing to simply keep re-inserting "far right" or "radical right" into the lead sentence by tacking on refs that loosely support this claim. Please develop consensus here before repeating this edit.
 * In light of Paki.tv's refusal to do this and his recent edit, you should consider blocking the article to prevent an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the parties do not seem willing to compromise, so I'm not sure if this mediation is going to be worthwhile. – xeno talk 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is paki.tv aware of this attempted mediation? Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course he (as his statement below clearly proves) is but he doesn't care. --Loremaster (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation only works if every involved party is willing to participate. If P.tv isn't willing to participate, this won't work. I'll attempt to approach him. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do so but Paki.tv is quite intransigent. He is not interested in real compromise. He simply wants to get his way. --Loremaster (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first step I'll ask you to take is to disengage from other users and instead engage with content. In fact, if I am acceptable to P.TV, the first thing I'll ask you both to do is to create a version of the article that is, in your opinion, the best, and place that in your userspace. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you been following the debate on the National-Anarchism talk page, specifically the arbitrary_break - 16 april discussion? Gnostrat and I are working on doing just that. --Loremaster (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not especially interested in reading the article talk page till I am confirmed as acceptable to all parties - just because my time is valuable to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. However, you should keep in mind that Paki.tv (as well as Harrypotter) has no problem with the vast majority of the content of the National-Anarchism article. He simply wants to edit the first sentence to add a redundant POV word... --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If the entire dispute is over one word in the first sentence I will commit with 85% confidence that I can fix the dispute if I get buy-in from all three parties. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, the fact that both Paki.tv and Harrypotter have made statements here indicates they are amenable to mediation. Unless you were wondering if they had an objection to you, personally, as the mediator. – xeno talk 16:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm worried they might object to me personally. Honestly, having now viewed the one word dispute, I amend my prior statement and estimate a 95% probability of success. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. I hope... --Loremaster (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try it with one person - why not. It appears that the intractable problem is that you feel that wikipedia should state that NA is "syncretic" and they think it should be described as "far right," in the lede, but that all parties are mostly ok with the body. Is that correct?


 * Yes. In short, I think this article should follow the example set by the Fascism article, which does not describe Fascism as “far-right”s in the first sentence but only does so in the third sentence while carefully explaining that this is only the opinion of scholars rather than an indisputable fact. --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Do you agree that sources state that NA is "far right?" Do they agree sources state that NA is "syncretic?" I don't know the 'correct' answer, and please don't mischaractize their perspective because it won't get anyone anywhere. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The most reliable sources on this subject state that N-A is syncretic by arguing that it is a synthesis of right (fascism, Third Positionism) and left (anarchism, anti-globalizationism) ideologies. These same sources directly or indirectly describe it as either “groupuscular right” or “radical right” or “extreme right” or “far right” before or after explaining that their right-left synthesis makes their classification on the political spectrum problematic as well as stating that national-anarchists honestly do believe that they transcended the dichotomy of conventional politics to embrace higher political forms that are ‘beyond left and right’. So in the interest of a neutral point of view, the lead should be present both points of view fairly. --Loremaster (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, I adhere to Consensus decision-making. What I'm about to do is merely me forming an initial proposal. I don't know if it's right, or if it's accptable, and I don't support it as an edit. I'm just throwing it out there. in the hopes that presenting something concrete will crystalize objections.


 * National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism) is a political and cultural ideology. Its classification problematic,[5] scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the radical right of the left–right political spectrum, though it's proponents characterize it as a reconcilation of neo-völkisch tribalism with green anarchism.


 * What do you think about that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The last I checked, Paki.tv and Harrypotter were steadfastly insisting on having "far right" (or "radical right", or "right wing") in the very first sentence. – xeno talk 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok...
 * National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism) is a political and cultural ideology, which has been described as both far right and syncretic. Its classification is problematic. Scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the radical right of the left–right political spectrum, though its proponents characterize it as a reconcilation of neo-völkisch tribalism with green anarchism.
 * Now it's in the first sentence. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno is right. It doesn't matter how much we arrange the lead section in light of the position that Paki.tv and Harrypotter have taken. Gnostrat and I have explained quite extensively and eloquently why we think their suggestion is unwise. --Loremaster (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What of Hipocrite's current compromise suggestion? – xeno talk 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I think the versions Gnostrat and I have come up with on the talk page sound more fluid. --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My ability to craft beautiful prose is admittedly weak. However, I note that the version you have on the talk page doesn't have "far right" in the first sentence, which appears to be a blocker issue for the other "side." My version, while written in my terrible prose, appears to resolve that blocker issue while at the same time neither calling the ideology factually "far right" nor factually "syncretic." Perhaps you could edit my proposal to make it flow better? One thought I had was to remove the "Its classification is problematic." sentence, but it's not clear if that's an artifact of my not-understanding the problem here or an important point. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been more clear that none of the most reliable sources actually describe national-anarchism as “far right”. Only one describes a national-anarchist groupuscule known as the National Liberation Front as a “far-right groupuscule” but he conceded that this group probably no longer exists (it doesn't) and that national-anarchism itsefl is a constantly evolving ideology. That being said, I appreciate your effort to finding a solution to this dispute. I'll see if I can incorporate some of your suggestions in a new version. --Loremaster (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) in the most recent compromise suggestion I saw from you - 13:30, 16 April 2010, you wrote "scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the radical right of the left–right political spectrum." Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people have argued that “radical right” and “far right” do not necessarily mean the same thing. Furthemore, most sources use the term “radical right”. --Loremaster (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh.
 * National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism) is a political and cultural ideology, which has been described as both radically right and syncretic. Its classification is problematic. Scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the radical right of the left–right political spectrum, though its proponents characterize it as a reconcilation of neo-völkisch tribalism with green anarchism.
 * Fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't work for me for three reasons. 1) I think it is crucial that N-A be described as a syncretic political ideology from the outset because both national-anarchists and their critical scholars agree that it is syncretic. There is no dispute about that. However, these scholars argue that it still radical-right despite being syncretic. Ultimately, I maintain that we should follow the example set by the Fascism article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that Hipocrite is searching for a version that will be acceptable to all parties. Otherwise, the article will just remain protected forever. – xeno talk 18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok...
 * National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism) is a political and cultural ideology, which has been described as both syncretic and radically right. Its classification is problematic. Scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the radical right of the left–right political spectrum, though its proponents characterize it as a reconcilation of neo-völkisch tribalism with green anarchism.
 * How's that? Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's doesn't really address my point which was that national-anarchism should be defined as a syncretic political and cultural ideology. That being said, I'll see if I can incorporate some of your suggestions in a new version I am working on at the moment. --Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - I haven't had a chance to read everything thats gone on so far but this seems like a fair compromise Hipocrite. The Fascism article is not a good yardstick for this one because fascism is far more widely understood (and misunderstood) than NA - which is only mis/understood by a relatively far smaller group of people (roughly 5,000,000 v 3,000 google hits) ...hence the big problem here! Cheers PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument as to why the Fascism article is not a good example doesn't make any sense since the issue is that the position of any syncretic ideology in the political spectrum is a matter of debate that should be properly contextualized. However, in a previous debate, you were right that “neo-volkish” might be too obscure a term for the first sentence... but adding the term “radical right” doesn't help us understand what N-A synthesizes. That being said, if you are willing to accept a better version of this compromise, I am only willing to accept it if Gnostrat does. --Loremaster (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes
It would be nice now that there are two parties for each of you to write up your ideal lead below, since the lede seems to be the only point of dispute. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Although I didn't incorporate your suggestion for the first sentence, I've tried my best to reconcile everything sources tell us with the all the criticisms that Paki.tv, Harrypotter and even Gnostrat have made against previous versions of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was ready to endorse Loremaster's proposal of 16 April which seemed IMO to have assumed its optimum shape, bar a couple of quibbles. However, now that we have an ideal lede from Loremaster, it's kind of back to the drawing board. Some improvements there and some new complications, but I shall think it over carefully and come up with my own suggestion in a bit. Gnostrat (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes

 * 28 March 2010
 * Article fully protected until 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Loremaster blocked 3 hours for edit warring and placed on a discretionary sanction: 1RR for this article (lifted 8 April 2010)
 * Paki.tv warned for edit warring
 * – xeno talk 13:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 5 April 2010
 * Loremaster blocked 24 hours for violation of discretionary sanction


 * 7 April 2010
 * Harrypotter warned for not adhering to Lead section
 * – xeno talk 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Paki.tv warned for not adhering to Lead section
 * – xeno talk 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thread initiated at ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * 15 April 2010
 * – xeno talk 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideal lede from Loremaster
National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism ) is a radical anti-capitalist and anti-communist political ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.

National-anarchists present themselves as "beyond left and right", instead taking a more syncretic political stance. Scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the radical right of the left–right political spectrum.

The term national anarchism dates back as far as the 1920s but it has been primarily redefined and popularized since the 1990s by British New Right ideologue Troy Southgate, synthesizing ideas from the Conservative Revolutionary movement, Traditionalist School, Third Position, and Nouvelle Droite, and from various anarchist schools of thought.

National-anarchists seek to establish a pan-national network of politically meritocratic, economically secessionist, and ecologically sustainable village-communities, which practice racial, ethnic, religious and sexual separatism as a means to achieve "authentic cultural diversity".

National-anarchism has elicited skepticism and outright hostility from both left- and right-wing critics. The former accuse national-anarchists of appropriating a sophisticated left-wing critique of problems with the modern world only to offer neo-fascism as the solution, while the latter argue they want the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists while avoiding the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim.

Note: As can now be seen from the 09:03, 26 April 2010 version of the article, I've radically changed the lede in order to take into account Gnostrat's criticism and the realization that no compromise will satisfy Paki.tv. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideal lede from the PAKI.TV
Sorry for the delay - very busy in the data mines

i reckon the lead should clarify that NA is 'neo-nazi' or 'far right'

cheers


 * Paki.tv, Wikipedia administrator Hipocrite was asking you to write what you think is the ideal lede rather than restate a suggestion that is obviously not conducive to reaching a consensus, especially since you know that none of the scholarly reliable sources for this article simplistically describe N-A as “neo-nazi”. That being said, as you can clearly see above, I wrote an ideal lede that tries to take into account your numerous criticisms. The first sentence provides an accessible and clear definition that highlights the ethnicist agenda of NA that any average reader would automatically associate with the “far right”. The second sentence reports how scholars judge N-A as “radical right” in a way that counters the self-positioning of national-anarchists in the political spectrum. The last sentence reports that left-wing critics think national-anarchists offer nothing more than “neo-fascism”. Since this is best way to ensure that the lead has a NPOV, why isn't this good enough for you for the sake of ending this silly edit war? --Loremaster (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the goal of this section was to have you write a soup-to-nuts lede that was perfect - so that I can understand the differences in everyones ideal lede. It shouldn't take that long to take Loremaster's lede above, and edit it so that it reflects exactly what you think the lede should say. Could you do that? Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From past experience, it seems that the only thing Paki.tv wants is to add the word “neo-nazi” or “far-right” to the first sentence. Nothing more. Nothing less. However, neither Gnostrat nor I will accept this. Sadly, your suggestion that we add “which has been described as [...]” at the end of the first sentence is not palatable for us either. So we are at an impasse once again. *sigh* --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When you say you are an an impasse, you define any change as unaceptable. From the persepctive of trying to reach an agreement, this is unhelpful. It's necessary for him to first lay out his proposal before you declare it unsolvable. I suggest you stop assuming this will be a battleground. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand and respect what you are saying but I've been on this battleground since January and Paki.tv has almost always kept the same position (which is editing the first sentence only to add the word “far-right” or “radical-right” or “neo-nazi” or “right-wing” or all of these words in front of whatever definition of national-anarchism I've written) while I've bent over backwards trying to come up with countless changes that always move closer and close to his position but that he always rejects. So you'll have to forgive for being pessimistic if not cynical. That being said, I would welcome being proven wrong. --Loremaster (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above ideal i'd write:


 * National-Anarchism is a neo-nazi political ideology with origins in the far right.

would be what i would write, its easy to understand and the references are there as specified already.

this bit is fine and follows perfectly:


 * The term national anarchism dates back as far as the 1920s but it has been primarily redefined and popularized since the 1990s by British New Right ideologue Troy Southgate, synthesizing ideas from the Conservative Revolutionary movement, Traditionalist School, Third Position, and Nouvelle Droite, and from various anarchist schools of thought.

the article can then go on to explain that NAers themselves 'syntheise from left and right' like fascism.. etc etc... hope that helps. if not i'll try and put more time in and get something better worked out in the next few days. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Framing the dispute
So it appears that the only concern is how/if the lede should state that it is a "neo-nazi political ideology with origins in the far right." Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IE - One side likes

National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism) is a anti-capitalist and anti-communist political ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.

National-anarchists present themselves as "beyond left and right", instead taking a more syncretic political stance. Scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the radical right of the left–right political spectrum.

The other side likes

National-Anarchism is a neo-nazi political ideology with origins in the far right.Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Response from PAKI.TV
that's what this dispute is about yes - but i cannot guarantee other things won't come up later judging from the attitude of others involved in this page - but yes for now that is it. many thanxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Response from Loremaster
Hipocrite, your accessment of the only concern with the lead is accurate. Therefore, his ideal lede is unacceptable to me and probably a few others. --Loremaster (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence should be as neutral as possible in the sense that it defines National-Anarchism in way that both national-anarchists and their critics would agree to be true.
 * 2) None of the most reliable sources for this article simplistically and misleadingly describe National-Anarchism as a “neo-nazi political ideology with origins in the far right” (Note: I think using the qualifier “neo-fascist” would have been less misleading but still problematic).
 * 3) Paki.tv's definition underinforms readers by not letting them aware of key characteristics that differentiate it from other radical-right ideologies, specifically the fact that it is anti-statist and tribalist. How many neo-nazis do you know want to “smash the state” and live in neotribal communes?


 * Sorry, I'm not looking for arguments about the lede just yet. I'm just looking to make sure I've summed up the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. --Loremaster (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Response from Gnostrat
With regard to the first sentence, I think that Hipocrite has almost summed up the differences. Loremaster's ideal first sentence is one that I could accept, with modification (i.e "anti-statist" rather than "anti-communist"; and preferably "political and cultural ideology"). Paki.tv's ideal first sentence is one that I find utterly unacceptable for reasons that we have already discussed many, many times.

However, I do have concerns about other parts of the lede: I wasn't going to get sidetracked into discussing Third Positionism just yet, but over the past few days I've had a good think and I believe that the difference between N-A's self-perception (i.e. beyond left and right) and the perception of scholars (i.e. radical right) is not quite correctly framed, and that this is an anachronistic consequence of treating N-A as if it were still a Third Positionist groupuscule.
 * 1) Previous versions referred to scholarly reservation about N-A's position on the political spectrum ("its synthesis of seemingly opposed right-wing and left-wing ideological systems renders its classification problematic"), but this now appears to be subsumed into N-A's own presentation of its position, with no indication that the scholars see it as anything other than radical right without reservation.
 * 2) I would query the value of phrases like "radical anti-capitalist and anti-communist political ideology" or "national-anarchists present themselves as beyond left and right" (or "transcend[ing] the dichotomy of conventional politics..."), see below.
 * 3) Third Positionism should not be listed as a continuing influence.

For N-A, it's no longer a question of beyond left and right, of "neither capitalism nor communism", because the demise (in all but name) of an effective communist/left-wing alternative to capitalism means that a third position, beyond left and right, has ceased to be an option. There can be no third position when there is no second position. The only possibilities are pro- or anti-capitalism. Macklin observes that Southgate sees it as a matter of aligning with decentralists of all persuasions against centralists of all persuasions, thus replacing the Third Positionist model of alliances with one that's derived from green and post-left anarchism. Hence, I've come round to the view that the lede ought to express N-A's own perception of its position in terms which stress that the left/right dichotomy is not merely transcended, but is totally irrelevant (in other words, not even acknowledged).

With that in mind (and unfortunately in the midst of a rather busy off-WP schedule), I'm working on my own revision of Loremaster's lede. Gnostrat (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've radically changed the lede to take into account your critique. --Loremaster (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Moderator request for sourcing
Please source the following:

"National-Anarchism is a neo-nazi political ideology"
 * Source:


 * As Paki.tv knows full well, according to Wikipedia guidelines, these are not reliable sources for a contentious claim. The first one is a self-published article by Stewart Home (a left-wing activist militantly opposed to N-A who therefore does not have a NPOV) who only mentions National-Anarchism in a sidebar but not in the main text, while the second one is post on slackbastard, an obscure anarchist blog. Since the claim that N-A is “neo-nazi” is not supported by any reliable source, this derogatory term should be immediately deleted from the article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"National-Anarchism has origins in the far right"
 * Source:


 * No one disputes that that National-Anarchism has its origins in the “far-right”, specifically Third Positionism, or that reliable sources confirm that some scholars believe it to still be “far-right”. However, I think the origins of N-A as well as its position in the political spectrum should be discussed in another paragraph for the sake of a neutral point of view and proper contextualization. Obviously, I think my ideal lede does a better job of doing just that. --Loremaster (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It appears we have agreement that "National-Anarchism has origins in the far right," and, in fact, that "some scholars believe it to still be far-right." See next section. Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph of my new lede of the National-Anarchism article addresses this issue better than it did before. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating sources with respect to "neo-nazi"
The two sources ptv presented for "neo-nazi" were

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com and http://www.stewarthomesociety.org

Pjtv, reviewing WP:RS, could you explain to me how these are allowable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I admit they're not as solid as I woul.d like - they are blogs - but Stewart Home I reckon is an "established expert" on Anarchists, his work in the field has been published in the Independent for example so for sure is covered by this quote from WP:RS

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."


 * Great! Please demonstrate that the other source is published by established expert who have previously been published by reliable third-party publications by citing the publications. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the Stuart Home source, he writes "Today, this branch of 1920s/1930s fascism is often found merged with other far-Right currents of that time such as National Bolshevism in neo-Nazi grouplets describing themselves as Third Position, National Anarchist, National Revolutionary etc." I'm not sure he saying all National Anarchists' are nazis. It seems he is saying some are. Do you have a different read? Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence should be as neutral as possible in the sense that it defines National-Anarchism in way that both national-anarchists and their critics would agree to be fair and accurate. Although it is true that self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable, Paki.tv suggests using a self-published article by Stewart Home (a left-wing activist militantly opposed to N-A who therefore does not have a NPOV) who only mentions N-A in a sidebar but not in the main text in order to insert the highly misleading, loaded, pejorative, exnomic term “neo-nazi” in the first sentence of the article. This is simply unacceptable, especially since none of most reliable sources we have on the subject of N-A describe it as “neo-nazi”. --Loremaster (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but that wasn't the question. I asked "With regards to the Stuart Home source, he writes "Today, this branch of 1920s/1930s fascism is often found merged with other far-Right currents of that time such as National Bolshevism in neo-Nazi grouplets describing themselves as Third Position, National Anarchist, National Revolutionary etc." I'm not sure he saying all National Anarchists' are nazis. It seems he is saying some are. Do you have a different read?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't answering your question. I was responding to Paki.tv's argument. But to answer your question, I honestly think Home can be read both ways. Regardless, his description of National-Anarchism as “neo-nazi” is inaccurate and out of date since our most reliable source, Macklin, explains that Southgate abandoned the “racist socialism” of Strasserite Nazism when he began developping national-anarchism as an ideology. --Loremaster (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I read him as saying that Strasserism (a left-wing variety of Nazism) is one component which (along with National-Bolshevism) has contributed to the syncretic ideological mix in grouplets like Third Position, to which he affiliates national-anarchists and others, all of which grouplets he therefore characterises as "neo-Nazi". He's correct in identifying both Strasserite and NB components in Third Position, but I would note that (1) he problematically describes NB as "far right" when it was actually a nationalist current within Lenin's Bolshevik Party, and (2) as Loremaster points out, he doesn't tell you that national-anarchism's principal founder abandoned the Strasserism of his Third Positionist roots, according to a reliable source (Macklin), and also subsequently broke off all alliances with National-Bolshevik and Third Positionist organisations. I also don't know who has described Home as an "established expert on anarchists"; even Paki.tv only admits to "reckoning" him as such. He's not a scholar, but a journalist whose specialty is sniping at anarchists, let alone national-anarchists. Gnostrat (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat the question, and you can determine if you are discussing the question, or discussing something totally different which I'm not currently discussing. I asked "With regards to the Stuart Home source, he writes "Today, this branch of 1920s/1930s fascism is often found merged with other far-Right currents of that time such as National Bolshevism in neo-Nazi grouplets describing themselves as Third Position, National Anarchist, National Revolutionary etc." I'm not sure he saying all National Anarchists' are nazis. It seems he is saying some are. Do you have a different read?" Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's to hard to know for sure but he could be read to say that all groups that call themselves National-Anarchist are “neo-nazi”. But why does it matter? Isn't the only important issue determining whether or not Home is a reliable source for a contentious claim in the first sentence of the lede? --Loremaster (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll talk about Home below. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating Home's notability
Home is apparently a published expert on the topic, and apparently on his blog he said that NA was neo-nazi. The first step to having something included in the lede, however, is to include it in the article. Could someone please craft a section that discusses, in full context, the neo-nazi accusation leveled by Home? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Although Home may be an expert on the British anarchist/punk scene, is Home a published expert on the topic of National-Anarchism?
 * Does Home talk about National-Anarchism in a published book?
 * Is Home's description of National-Anarchism still valid in light of what other reliable sources tell us?
 * If the answer to all these questions is Yes, I have no problem adding Home's description of National-Anarchism in the Position in the political spectrum section of the article. However, I don't think that would justify mentioning this highly dubious description in the lead. The current version of the third paragraph already does a good job of reporting the consensus of views among critics of National-Anarchism. --Loremaster (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's nice. Again, that's not what I asked for. Again, please focus on the request, not on the end-step. If someone wanted to add a well sourced, balanced explanation of what Home said and what-not to the article, that might lead to changes in the intro. It also might not. However, the first step to possibly adding what Home said to the intro is to add it to the article. So I'm asking for anyone interested in doing so to do so - again, I'm not inviting you to argue about the intro. In fact, I'm instructing you to stop arguing about the intro untill we get back to discussing the intro. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Forget the intro. My point is before we even add Home's description of “National-Anarchism as a neo-nazi synthesis of Strasserism and National Bolshevism” in the body of the article (whether it be in the Position in the political spectrum section or the Criticism section), how have we suddenly determined that Home is a published expert on the topic of National-Anarchism? A brief mention of National-Anarchism in the sidebar of a self-published article, which can be easily refuted using our more reliable sources?!? --Loremaster (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, It appears I assumed agreement where there was none. Taking a step back. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating Home's reliability
PJTV points to This article in The Independent to demonstrate that Home is an expert with respect to Anarchists. Loremaster disputes Home's expert status, stating "how have we suddenly determined that Home is a published expert on the topic of National-Anarchism". I am confused, as it appears that National-Anarchism is related to Anarchism, and that Home has been accepted as a published expert on Anarchism. Please explain how I'm misunderstanding. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be corrected if I am wrong but Home is not a scholar. If he is one, he is probably a fringe scholar rather than a mainstream one in the sense that,as far as I know, he hasn't published his essays in peer-reviewed journals. However, he is a writer and journalist who is very knowledgeable of anarchism, especially the British anarchist/punk scene. Furthermore, he was involved in that scene so his point of view is not neutral. That being said, being very knowledgeable or even being an expert on anarchism doesn't necessarily make you an expert on national-anarchism, which is a synthesis of many school of thoughts including but not limited to anarchist ones. Ultimately, even if it is determined that Home's expertise on anarchism makes his opinion on National-Anarchism notable enough for this article, his description of national-anarchism is contradicted by scholars who have written on the subject. --Loremaster (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What scholars have said it's not neo-nazi? Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the point is that no scholar have described National-Anarchism as “neo-nazi”. Some have described it as a synthesis of classic fascism and X,Y,Z but they never describe as being purely fascist. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between fascism/neo-fascism and Nazism/neo-Nazism. That being said, Home says that groups like National-Anarchists are neo-nazi because they hold a synthesis of Strasserite Nazism and National Bolshevism. Macklin argues that National-Anarchists cut their links with National Bolshevisks and eventually abandoned Strasserite Nazi ideas. in his essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction, Macklin writes:


 * So there you go: Home's main argument is refuted. --Loremaster (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All of these appear to state it's facist. Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. All of the reliable sources argue more or less that national-anarchism is a synthesis of fascism and anarchism, and that the fascist elements of this ideology are dangerous. But to argue that these sources say that N-A is simply fascist is misleading. --Loremaster (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The source you provided states "While the NRF retains an ideological core that is readily identifiable as fascist, that ideology is far from a mimetic atavism." Is there a source that states that it is not, at it's ideological core, fascist? Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Maclkin and Sunshine are the only sources who argue that NA is, at it's ideological core, fascist, while other sources simply don't describe in such a way. That being said, you have to keep in mind that national-anarchism has evolved a lot since it was the ideology of the National Revolutionary Front (which no longer exists) so there is NRF national-anarchism and post-NRF national-anarchism, which most sources don`t take into account because they are out of date... --Loremaster (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're running into a synthesis problem. If some people say it's fascist, and other people don't comment on it's fascistness or lack thereof, it's wikipedia's responsiiblity to write an article that adresses all reliable sources in relative weight to their prominence - in this case, to say "some sources state that NA is, at it's ideological core, fascist." You can't impeach those sources by calling them old or out of date based on your research, or impeach them by synthesising other sources that don't comment on the issue. If some reliable sources state that it's fascist at it's core, it's our responsibility to report that. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Position in the political spectrum section of the article? All the issues you are raising are dealt with there already. --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I have, and I think that section probably does summarize. Let me note, for the record, that I'm trying my damndest to try to ask the questions that parties who spend less time in the mediation would ask to get to the quickest resolution, and I also want a full background on this page as opposed to all over the place. So, given that, I'd like to discuss how the position section is adressed in the lede. The position section states, in part "Scholars who have examined national-anarchism consider it to be on the radical right," and then the two most recent quote-farmed texts both state "retain recognizable core fascist values," and "national-anarchism is a new segment of the fascist right." It appears, then, that there is scholarly consensus that NA is on the radical/far/whatever right, and at least a notable opinion that it's core values are fascist. Would you agree? Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. The third paragrah of the lede perfectly summarize all the claims about rightism and fascism reported in both the Position in the political spectrum section and especially the Criticism section. The only question now is can both Paki.tv and Harrypotter accept the current version of the lede because both Gnostrat and me (and presumably two other users) stand by it. So it's 4 against 2. --Loremaster (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question then - it appears that there is no dispute that there are core facist values in NA. Could that go in the fist sentence? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I see what you are getting at. The notion that there are core fascist values in NA is the opinion of one scholar and one advocacy journalist repeating what that scholar says. However, national-anarchism has evolved since that scholar judged NA to be core fascist. He even acknowledges that his critique might be anachronistic by the time the essay is published. That being said, as I said before, the first sentence should be as neutral as possible in the sense that it defines National-Anarchism in way that both national-anarchists and their critics would agree to be fair and accurate. National-anarchists and their defenders would never agree that that national-anarchism has core fascist values. Furthermore, even political theorist Roger Griffin argues that we should start with how Southgate sees national-anarchism and then critique in. That's what the current version lede does very well. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this another way, then. In order to solve this, you need to make a consession of some sort. One consession that has been suggested is including what appears to be widespread critcizm of NA in the first or second sentence. One example sentence that I can think of would be "critics, however, have described NA as (xxxx)" where xxx could be "crypto-fascist," or "neo-nazi" or "racist" or anything else that reflects what critics who call NA merely nazis repackaged have called it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have proposed every concession imaginable but they were all rejected. The only concession Paki.tv accepted is the one you proposed but that I rejected because it was inaccurate and awkward-sounding. At this point, I think the only solution is majority rule. --Loremaster (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not an option, sorry. Please attempt to propose a concession that you feel the other side would accept. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is that not an option? What do Wikipedia guidelines have to say on this? --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines of relevence are WP:TE and WP:CON. It is a shame that Ptv is not fully participating in this mediation. Perhaps he'll find a time to sit down and deal with this for a few hours - or we could have an IRC chat. I'm pretty well done representing his side at this point, as it's, honestly, a waste of my time to argue for someone that hasn't shown up. I'm not supposed to be pretending to be your opposition in this matter, I'm supposed to be helping the two of you talk. Pretending to be Ptv is tiring, and it's straining my ability to be objective. As such, I will wait for Ptv to have time to engage in this mediation fully, or I'll just declare it never-opened as Ptv dosen't appear to be editing at all. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Request that ptv rewrite his lede
It appears to me that Loremaster has done by far the bulk of the work here. As such, I'm going to ask P.tv, write his ideal lead, in full, from top to bottom - IE, do the same thing Loremaster did. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I do not have time to devote to Wikipedia on a full time basis. I can't contribute the time that Loremaster does. I've just looked at all of the discussion about Home thats gone on and I can't quite believe the amount of effort gone into it - Home isnt the point. If there aren't enough sources to describe NA as neo-nazi in the lead then lets just go for 'far-right' - surely there are enough sources for that. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Loremaster, is there any way you can work far-right origins into the lede in a prominent fashion? Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I would suggest N-A's origins in Third Positionism being worked into the lede in a prominent fashion, but let's wait and see how Gnostrat proposes resolving this dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While Third Positionism does tend to be described as far-right or radical right, this is problematic in itself as Macklin acknowledges. We should not simply take a movement which synthesises a nationalist interpretation of Leninism with an anti-Hitler, "true socialism" version of national-socialism (which, on reflection, I should not have described as a variety of Nazism, as the use of that term for non-Hitlerite forms of national-socialism is also very contentious) and use it to justify a "far right" description without supplying adequate context. More importantly, Third Positionism is not currently a significant influence on N-A and its only mention in the lede (if at all) should be to say that Troy Southgate is a "former" or "post"-3P ideologue, or something of the sort. You would have agreement from me on a statement that N-A has its historical origins/roots in (has evolved out of) Third Positionism, but 3P does not merit any prominent position in the lede, and in fact it should be removed from the list of influences/ingredients in §2. Gnostrat (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A statement that N-A has its historical origins/roots in (has evolved out of) Third Positionism is what everyone meant by the suggestion that 3P should be worked into the lede in a prominent fashion. That being saids, I disagree that it should be removed from the list of influences/ingredients in §2. --Loremaster (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Compromise
In light of the fact that national-anarchists are increasingly describing themselves as “New Right”, I am now willing to add the word “right-wing” to the first sentence so that it reads:

If both Paki.tv and Gnostrat can accept this compromise, this dispute is over. However infuriating this trivial dispute has been, it unwittingly forced me to radically improve the article so perhaps it wasn't such a waste of time after all. --Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Other side? Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How have we leapt to the inclusion of "right-wing" in the first sentence? It is true that we have scholars who describe N-A as having roots in the "radical right" but always with the contextualisation and qualification without which the term misleads.


 * The use of the name New Right (in the intended Nouvelle Droite sense) has been controversial on N-A online forums, and while I realise that those can't be used as sources, the description of ND as "right-wing" is contentious since the founding ND ideologue, Alain de Benoist, has expressed regret about the choice of this name for what both he and outside observers conceptualise as a left/right synthesis: "Finally, it should not be forgotten that the New Right was an ascribed name, not one chosen by the members themselves. That is why I am so indifferent to these words. I am only interested in the content, and prefer to regard myself both on the Left and the Right" (Benoist, interviewed in the left-wing journal Telos).


 * Additionally, would we not need reliable sources to verify that national-anarchism is at base a species of New Right ideology (rather than a syncretic one with some New Right-derived elements) and that it is accepted as such by national-anarchists in general and not just by some who involve themselves in New Right groups? I have previously made the case that the New Right (UK) has not been shown to be a national-anarchist organisation but is a metapolitical forum in which some national-anarchists participate. It is a vast leap of logic from this datum to the conclusion that national-anarchism is New Right, and no less of a leap from there to "New Right, therefore right-wing". (Incidentally, describing Southgate as a "British New Right ideologue" is misleading too. For most of his political career, he wasn't. Nor did he conceive national-anarchism as a British New Right spinoff, as that phrasing might be taken to imply.)


 * Bearing all this in mind, I cannot assent to the inclusion of "right-wing" in the first sentence on the basis of New Right affiliations. It would demand an unsuitable amount of contextualising or it would mislead in major ways. The term covers so much political territory as to be practically valueless except, conceivably, in its fetish value for those who feel the need to have a satisfying label for things. It is certainly superfluous and pointless here when our first sentence already supplies a full, succinct and precise description. "Right wing" or even "far right" gives us no useful additional information and if it serves no other function than to assure Paki.tv that N-A has been pigeonholed, this is not a good reason for including it.


 * My solution (one that we were quite close to at one point) would be to re-include this sentence in the first paragraph, preferably as the third sentence: "Whilst scholars who have examined national-anarchism note that its synthesis of seemingly opposed right-wing and left-wing ideological systems renders its classification problematic, they generally consider that it represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension". This gets "radical right" (a little more accurate than the vague "right-wing") near enough to the first sentence and provides adequate context for it. I cannot agree to including it in the first sentence. Compromise should not be at the cost of misleading. Gnostrat (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, Gnostrat. I remain adamantly opposed to including the term “right-wing” or “far-right” or “radical-right” in front of the expression "syncretic political ideology". However, this expression has been dropped in favor of “radical, anti-statist, anti-capitalist political and cultural ideology”. That being said, although New Right affiliations is what convinced me to give in on the demand that the term "right-wing" be included to the first sentence, it is actually on the basis of Roger Griffin's opinion (which can be read on the Talk:National-Anarchism page) that I think such an inclusion is necessary since it does provide useful additional information. Furthermore, the term "right-wing" is contextualized since, based on the opinion of all reliable sources, we define National-Anarchism as being of a distinctive “radical, anti-statist, anti-capitalist right” as opposed to a vague “right”. So I ask you to reconsider your position for the sake of resolving this dispute. As for your solution, I reject it because, as Harrypotter correctly pointed out, it doesn't accurately reflect what sources actually argue. --Loremaster (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your criticism that describing Southgate as a “British New Right” ideologue is unintentionally misleading so I will describe him as a British “post-Third-Position” ideologue instead (which is a term used by Macklin). --Loremaster (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but "right-wing" is still a tall order. I'm not ruling it out (or in), but I think you're on thin ice. First, articles can't cite or rely on personal communication. Secondly, Griffin admits that he's not an expert on N-A. And third, a scholarly POV is still a POV. As you know, we describe opinions; we don't assert them as fact, which we are doing when we add "right-wing" without indicating who says so.


 * Before I even think about going there (and I'm not sure that our policy allows), I'd need to know where is this useful additional information? Because once we have said that this current is "anti-capitalist and anti-statist with an emphasis on ethnic tribalism", further pigeonholing adds nothing. We've described it precisely. Everybody, whether national-anarchists or critical academics, can agree on that as a minimum, so how are we clarifying anything by adding terminology on which they don't agree? The differing perceptions of the scholars and of the national-anarchists on the left/right question are both covered further down in the lede and there is no pressing need for the first sentence to state them. Neither, since they are at odds with one another, should it take sides between them. What's more, there are so many "rights" and "lefts" that these are vacuous words. "Radical right", which is what the academics tend to say, is slightly better than "right-wing" if it involves a differentiation from reactionary/conservative right, but all these terms are thrown around without definition so that I don't know what even Griffin or Macklin mean by them. They are scholarly opinions. We do not assert opinions.


 * Our best academic sources are careful to contextualise their use of these descriptions, and the context that matters is not simply that national-anarchism is anti-statist or anti-capitalist &mdash; so are other varieties of the so-called "right" &mdash; but that the "right-wing" classification belies the presence of "left-wing" elements, acknowledged even by scholars who consider the former as the more fundamental; and that while the scholars place it on the right, with reservations, the actual proponents understand it to be neither left nor right. (That's certainly Southgate's understanding and, as Roger Griffin explained, he's our primary authority.) You can provide, and have provided, all that context later in the lede, but what you can't do is short-circuit that discussion in the defining first sentence and call that neutrality!


 * My solution follows the academics and I refute the contention that it does not accurately reflect what the sources actually argue. It states exactly what our principal published academic sources &mdash; Macklin, Griffin &mdash; actually argue (and even uses Macklin's phrasing). Furthermore, you know this, because you yourself have refuted Harrypotter on the very point on which you now declare him to have been correct. The only alternative that I can suggest is to work "radical right" (not "right-wing") into the first sentence in a way that describes it as opinion rather than asserts it as fact. Honestly, right now I am at a loss for other options. Gnostrat (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it would involve putting myself in the uncomfortable position of exposing the flaws in some of my earlier statements in debates with Paki.tv and Harrypotter, I will not try to refute your arguments. So, instead, I will only say this: If I can live with the current definition of National-Anarchism, I think you can as well for the sake of resolving a dispute with no end in sight. Let's move on. --Loremaster (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would accept this as a suitable compromise. Harrypotter (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Does that work? Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * uh, Hipocrite, there seems to be a consensus building around my compromise. Your suggestion doesn't help, especially since I would never support it because it makes the sentence too long and it repeats information that already is in the third paragraph of the lede.) So let's just wait to see what Paki.tv says. --Loremaster (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it wasn't clear Gnostrat was ok with your suggestion. People here are very wordy. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hehe. Well, I'm hoping Gnostrat will come around but, keep in mind, that the edit warring itself involved me vs Paki.tv and Harrypotter. If the three of us agree to this compromise, there isn't much of a dispute anymore. --Loremaster (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * yes lets go with the compromise - nice one PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. The edit war is over. :) --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for a successful mediation. If there are any future problems, this can be reopened. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of us have a life outside Wikipedia and I would have got back to you sooner if I didn't have articles and reviews urgently in need of completion elsewhere on the web, hospital appointments and other stuff that would be tedious to mention. This dispute exemplifies why I withdrew from editing political articles two years ago. For the record, you have a consensus minus one, and if some other editor were to delete "right-wing" from the first sentence, I could not in good conscience defend or reinstate the term. However, since I'm outvoted, and since an empty phrase cannot mislead very far when the remainder of the article contains sufficient evidence of its meaninglessness, I will not actively stand in its way. Gnostrat (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I undertsand your position. However, I think keeping the word "right-wing" in the first sentence is the only way to maintain the stability of this article, which it needs to meet Good Article criteria. That being said, your insightful arguments on both the Mediation Cabal page and the Talk:National-Anarchism page greatly contributed to the improvement of the National-Anarchism article. So I thank you for your contribution. --Loremaster (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)