Talk:Neo-Nazism/Archive 1

message: Their supporters are frequently low-income young men who blame their or their society's problems on immigrants and a  presumed Jewish conspiracy.
I have a small quibble with this. Their members are generally as described, but their supporters, both ideological and financial, are often quite wealthy and/or politically involved. -- April
I've cut :
"However, more mainstreeam organisations such as the FN and Vlaams Blok strong refute this description."
It was writen in the previous para. :
"no political party of significant importance will describe itself as neo-nazi."
I think this is somewhat redundant.
Ericd 15:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion from 2003

message: I think the article should mention whether the party is openly neo-Nazi or whether its a label applied to them by their apponents. Those of you who know more about the subject please say whether the party is openly Nazi or not.
Italy
*Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI) (Mussolini) Wikipedia says it is neo-fascist
*Movimento Solidad Italiano (MSI) (LaRouche) ?? ~ not a chance.
*Alleanza Nazionale (AN) Musolini's grandaughter left the party because the party leader condemed her grandfather, so its not openly neo-fascist anymore.
*Lega Nord (LN) ??
USA
*The Ku Klux Klan dificult question because it was founded long before Nazism existed although politically very similar, also there are different organisations calling themselves the KKK
*American Nazi Party name says it all really
*National Alliance/[National Vanguard]] dnies beeing Nazi (although the evidence seems to suggest otherwise).
*Christian Identity??
*World Church of the Creator??
*Buchanan Brigade definately denies it
*Lyndon LaRouche definately denies it
*Council of Conservative Citizens??
UK
*The British Movement originally called National Socialism Movement so openly Nazi atleast originally
*The British National Party definately deny it today, I think they denied it under Tyndall aswell but not sure
*The British Nazi Party also known as the "November 9th Society". -name says it all
*The International Third Position??
*The National Front (UK) probably deny it
*The [[National Socialist Movement - linked to London nail bomber David Copeland -title says it all
*The Flag NF??
*League of St. George??
*Combat 18 openly Nazi
*The White Nationalist Party??
Other countries
*Austrian Freedom Party - (Austria) don't think they'd admit it 
*Front National - (France)  don't think they'd admit it
*Mouvement National Républicain - (France)  don't think they'd admit it 
*White Noise - (promoters of nationalist skinhead/Oi bands such as Skrewdriver) probably would admit it, not sure
*Blood & Honour - militant neo-Nazi network, distributing racist music -openly Nazi
*Vlaams Blok - (Belgium) don't think they'd admit it (they don't, and they're called Vlaams Belang now -- Jon Sneyers, 14 May 2005)
*Liberal Democratic Party of Russia??
*Hvit Ariskt Motstand (White Aryan Resistance) - (Sweden)??
*Swiss People's Party - (Switzerland)??
*Greater Romania Party - (Romania)??
Saul Taylor 07:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Groups

message: There is a lot of data to support adding the popular new age neofascist, David Icke to this page.  I have a few paragraphs of information at this point, but I want to get some  feedback on this idea if possible.  If anyone would like to help, that would be great, too.  --Viriditas 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of controversy over whether David Icke is anti-semitic, but it would be hard to describe him as a fascist. Townmouse 19:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: David Icke is not anti-Semitic. He denies that any of the people he names are Jewish, or indeed even people. His problem with these people's actions is that they misrepresent the bona fide Jewish people, who he has insisted on many many occasions that he has "enormous respect for". Paranoid, yes, crazy, maybe, anti-Semitic, definitely not. To allege so indicates a misunderstanding of his theories. Jdcooper 16:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Icke is antisemitic according to scholar Michael Barkun who notes that Icke promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.--Cberlet 13:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: David Icke

message: Where did the data on the Russian neo-nazis come from?  It's quite striking information, but it also makes me suspicious somehow...some sources would be helpful. 137.22.1.33 11:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: A number of scholars of the "extreme right" in Europe make distinctions regarding the differences between neonazism, neofascism, and right-wing populism. Betz and Mudde for example. Buchanaatin in the U.S., for example, is called neofascist by some, but not neonazi. Front National in France is another example, as is de Benoist in France. I would like to attempt to put up a page Neofascism to accompnay the new page Neofascism and religion and detail the groups that might be considered neofascist, but are not accurately called neonazi.  Also, note the spelling.  It is gaining currency to distinguish the trends from original Fascism and Nazism.--Cberlet 16:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisit neonazism & neofascism issue

message: Now that George W. Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?
:Probably not, because whether or not President Bush did indeed called liberals terrorist sympathizers, that would not make him per se a neo-fascist. One might say, if he truly spoke the words, he might be misjudging liberals or it could be called libel, but that would not make him a neo-fascist, as the definitions do not agree with the person. --Soetermans 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that George W Bush has declared all liberals to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?  

message: June 23, 2005, marked a controversial statement from Karl Rove, when he said that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
:First, this is the Neo-Nazism page, not the Neo-Fascism page.  At least pay attention to such detials. Second, editors can't prove a negative. Third, you need to cite a published reputable source that says this statement is evidence of neo-fascism,  And finally you need to go back to point one and contemplate the fatc that YOU ARE ON THE WRONG PAGE!--Cberlet 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this not an example of Neo-Fascism? 

message: This merge was proposed by User:Humus_sapiens. I'm disappointed to find he has offered no rationale here, since I was hoping to rebut it. 
I don't see this as a good merge because Nazi skinheads have not only a neo-fascist aspect, but a skinhead one, and the two aspects are intertwined in their identity. Although they partly share origins and early history with both skinheads and neo-fascists, they have evolved separately from either group and have developed their own distinct cultural characteristics--although the current article  merely hints at this fact. As a separate article, we can hope for more detail to reveal this at some time. On the other hand, if this article were merged into either Neo-Nazism or Skinhead, exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture would seem out of place or out of balance with the article as a whole. The merge would effectively discourage potential editors from providing in-depth coverage of unique Nazi skinhead history and culture. I would rather wait a while, allowing time for the Nazi-Skinheads article to mature. --Unconventional 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider myself a tolerant person, but "exploration of the Nazi skinhead subculture" sounds weird (maybe because I am a tolerant person?). Should we have a separate article on Nazi-Highboots, Nazi wearing red socks, Nazi owners of Volkswagen and all other important "Nazi ... subculture[s]"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The various topics seem to fill articles on their own. Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazi Skinheads are all sufficiently complicated, and documented, to merit articles of their own. As long as we don't glorify (or denigrate) these subcultures, I don't see a need to merge the articles. -Willmcw 09:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I too consider myself a tolerant person, and recognize that it takes particular dedication to that principle to be tolerant of intolerant people—perhaps this is what you mean by "sounds weird"?—but I don't see how this has any bearing on whether a topic is notable. As regards your hyperbole, when such topics start appearing widely in the news, they will become notable and will merit articles. "Nazi skinheads" has already achieved that status, obviously. --Unconventional 17:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge of [[Nazi-Skinheads]]

message: In one sense this is a trivial point, but the article is all over the place in how it spells the phenomenon it talks about. I noticed all of these variants: "neo-nazi", "Neo-Nazi", "neo-Nazi", and "Neo Nazi". Can someone authoritative rule on which it should be so it can be cleaned up? Metamagician3000 00:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how authoritative I am, but standard English spelling should be Neo-Nazi, as both the whole and "Nazi" are used as proper nouns.--Stephan Schulz 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at  this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

message: The Austrian section seems to be based largely on 
Stiftung Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes / Anti-Defamation League (ed.): Brigitte Bailer-Galanda / Wolfgang Neugebauer, Incorrigibly Right. Right-Wing Extremists, "Revisionists" and Anti-Semites in Austrian Politics Today, Vienna-New York 1996, p. 5-21)
found online here.
Is there a copyright, or at least acknoledgement issue?
For example
Wikipedia
"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence.
In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the Neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."
ADL
"The Austrian public saw itself confronted with the organized Right for the first time in 1959, on the occasion of the "Schiller Celebrations", when "national" (Pan-German) youth, sport and cultural organizations took to the streets. Within student and university bodies the so-called Burschenschaften and schlagende Verbindungen (fraternities of male uniformed students), the FPÖ's students' organization RFS and its graduate equivalent FAV (Freiheitliche Akademikerverbände) attained considerable influence. In 1960, during the so-called "South Tyrol Crisis", such right-wing extremists, along with German Kameraden, gained widespread notoriety by involvement in terrorist acts ("freedom struggle") in Italy. Prominent among these was Norbert Burger, the ex-RFS leader and subsequent chairman of the neo-Nazi NDP (Nationaldemokratische Partei). The influence which the extreme Right had gained in the universities became dramatically apparent five years later, during the so-called "Borodajkewycz Affair". Hundreds of students demonstrated in favour of the antisemitic university professor Borodajkewycz and were involved in street battles, in the course of which Ernst Kirchweger, a former concentration camp inmate, was beaten to death."
I think neo-nazism is disraceful and should be outlawed from the world
Excluded Pro Patria Union (Estonia) from the Neo-Nazism In Other Countries section. (I suppose random parties get often inserted in this list by people who just don't like them and think it would be a smart place to show their disapprovement.)--Oop 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Austrian Section

message: There is just one thing I cannot understand. Why do American kids think they are right for Nazism when 99% of the times they do not fit the racial standards?
Nazism may be OK for us Europeans, but I hate how it is spreading faster than communism! 
I'd also like to add that riots caused by American "nazis" are plain stupid from a European's point of view, they don't lead anywhere. I've seen that in over a million years of history of my continent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SS-Handzar (talk • contribs) 
:I've got an answer for ya. Nazism is not okay for us Europeans. I'm ashamed to be one if you are of the opinion that nazism is good thing. There's things called WWII and the Holocaust that occured mainly because of them. You must have a real blind spot if you still believe that national-socialism or fascism could benefit any society. You are right about one thing, nazi riots are plain stupid. But not just by a European's point of view, but to anyone who ever tried to look further.--Soetermans 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: There is overreferencing in the section Neo-Nazism in Croatia, the reference  has no substance next to the text in the article: the article in Croatian talks about the graffiti of the Ustasha hailing "Za dom spremni",  chetnick grafiti 4 c's around the cross as well as graffiti "Oslobodite Norca hrvatskog borca - komunjare - Gotovina - EU 1:0", te "Niste vi oslobađali Hrvatsku, pa nećete ni vladati - bando crvena" which relate to the Croatian generals Norac and Gotovina. This graffiti was found the main council building in Mursko Središće, so no Orthodox church was graffitied in this reference as well as the following: . The other references do support the sentence and they are OK for referencing the point. [ FrontLine 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and text in the article

message: The article had the following, which was deleted and pasted here:
Proving the existence of a ready audience for fascist thought in Croatia, Mein Kampf was published and sold in the year of 1999 - in the number more than 600 copies in hardback within days at the remarkable price of 500 kuna (75 dollars each) - roughly equivalent to a week's average salary here. That time German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was prompted to press his Croatian opposite number Mate Granic to have Hitler's book banned in Croatia. .
You do not have to be a Muslim to own or read the Kuran, or a Cristian to own or read the Bible the problem was that the Mein Kampf was banned literature during the Yugoslav era. So does it make you a fascist to read or own a copy of Mein Kampf ?? Don't think so. The book Mein Kampf is available in many bookstores freely over the couter in: US, Canada, Australia as well as on Amazon.com, and other countries except Germany see:  , so many versions for the "ready audience for fascist" for anyone who can read English ??? Don't think so. FrontLine 03:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that you are sidelining this issue intentionally. One thing is to academically or simply educationally read this book and another thing is to use it to inflame hatred and intolerance. So, why should Joschka Fischer had to press Mate Granic?  Why Simon Wiesenthal Center should raise their voice against publishing and publicly selling this book? Any idea?--Purger 04:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sidelining the issue, well why can not the book be available in the Croatian language for academic purposes or and educational read, which was the intention of the tranlation and publication. And the answer to your other quiestion is quite simple: in Germany the book is banned cannot be purchased or imported, and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is against the public publications of Mein Kampf or having it available anywhere, in an unabridged version. FrontLine 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sidetracking again? Whenever is the Main Kampf published for the academic purposes then it comes from an academic institution and the very edition of the book is done by some world renown historian. There, in Croatia, the edition was purely commercial aimed to exploit the upsurge of hatred and intolerance. Please, do not vandalize this page!--Purger 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Come on this book is available in many countries around the world,  what nonsense. Come on how many books are published to loose money ? The sentences used are pure POV FrontLine 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True - it is available, but not for the purpose of inflaming racism, hatred, intolerance - like in Croatia. That's is the reason why Joschka Fischer had to teach the good manners lesson Mate Granic, the Croatia's foreign minister.--Purger 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Purger, maybe You could write ana article Neo-Nacism in Amazon.com, they also have Mein Kampf. --Ante Perkovic 13:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  That is such a weak argument Purger for such a POV statement, and the statement you have made that the purpose of the book was to inflame hatred is not true, and the overreaction of Joschka Fischer is nothing but a stunt. Also the claims of vandalism do not stand FrontLine 02:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mein Kampf]]

message: The previous sentence order was a bit of a mumbo-jumbo job, this no a bit better FrontLine 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in sentence order in the Croatian section

message: Regarding 2 links from http://index.hr that Purger, they prove just opposite from what Purger would like to prove. one of them is about a 14 year old kid being interogated from police for Ustasa graffiti, so this proves that there is zero-tolerance for Ustasa grafiti in Croatia. Thanks, Purger, nice work :))).
:Your point is very weak. As you can read from the link - the 14-year kid was not held in police station - rather called on 'informative talk'. As usual, whenever the graffities are spotted, the police always started 'search' for the culprits - which yields regularly 'not found' result. Not zero-tolerance - rather zero result! Also, not a single person of the Croatian nationality was ever fined for writing graffities or for singing 'Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara' in public. Prove me wrong!--Purger 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Purger|Purger]]'s own references proved him wrong 

message: The litigation section in the article about Neo-Nazism in Croatia was almost a pure copy paste and it has no place there: 
In 1999 a suit was filed at a court in San Franciso against the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works) and against the Franciscan order, the Croatian Liberation Movement (the Ustashe), the National Bank of Switzerland and others. The suit was filed by Jewish, Ukrainian, Serb and Roma survivors, as well as relatives of victims and various organizations that together represent 300,000 World War II victims. The plaintiffs demanded accounting and restitution. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs is Jonathan Levy. "Many of the plaintiffs have been reluctant to be pictured, after all these years," says Levy. "Many are still terrified of the Ustashe, the Serbs particularly. Unlike the Nazi Party, the Ustashe still exist and have a party headquarters in Zagreb."
FrontLine 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's a copyright violation. Please don't re-insert plagiarized material, especially not from a copyrighted source. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Purger read the line above, and do not put this section without proper discussion or rewrite. FrontLine 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. --Purger 13:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is about the Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others. --Joy [shallot] 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Litigation 

message: The section:
In the late 1990's, an attempt was made to bring to the justice Nada Sakic who was a guardian at the Stara Gradiska concentration camp. Nada Sakic according to her accusers was known for her cruelty towards the prisoners and is reflected in diverse testimonies that were the basis for her extradition in in November 1998 to Croatia - where she was held until her release. Croatian government granted her Croatian citizenship. Mrs. Sakic, then 72, was never even indicted by the Croatian authorities.  The Croatian government falsely claimed that no evidence or witnesses exist to indict Mrs. Sakic. However, the New York based Jasenovac Research Institute was in contact with Survivors living in Yugoslavia who had given eyewitness testimony to Mrs. Sakic's crimes at Stara Gradishka (part of the Jasenovac camps). At the First International Conference on Jasenovac in New York City in 1997 one of these Survivors, Mara Vejnovic, gave an eyewitness account of Nada Sakic's activities as a death camp commander. 
is a reflection of some failure of the Croatian judicial system, the trial od Dinko Šakić shows one end of the specturm and the Nada Šakić does not show Neo-Nazism.
FrontLine 15:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, do not vandalize the page--Purger 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nada Šakić

message: Since the main problem here is not the accuracy of some parts of the text, but their relation to the subject, I propose opening a new page Anti-serbian sentiment in Croatia. Then, everything related to ethnic hatred, but unrelated to neo-Nazism (attacks on people from Serbia unrelated to neo-Ustasa etc.) could be moved there. We could also put links to this new page from Neo-Nazism in Croatia and from this page. What do you think?
:Yes, definitely a good idea. Go for it! TK, 13 June 2006 14:55 (UTC)
::Excellent idea!--Cberlet 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a new article 

message: Can anyone in wikipedia create a new paragraph on the problem of Neo-Nazism in France? I will appreciate it, since France harbors a small undercurrent of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi gangs. In the early 2000's, several incidents by neo-Nazis against French Jews and Jewish synagogues are reported. The French government wanted to take direct action against the attacks, but declined to really crack down or do anything. The percentage of hate incidents by neo-Nazis and neo-fascists in France is small, compared to what the French media and Jewish interest groups claim, were done by North African Muslims with a binge against Jews over the issue of Israel. The French public mood appears more quiet and fickle over anti-Semitism, but most right thinking French people oppose anti-Semitism and the French Republic tradition of inclusion forbids it as an attack on "fellow Frenchmen/citizens". But the topic is too hot to handle in France, some call it "taboo" and many dare to address anti-Semitism and neo-Nazis a real threat. Also to discuss the Alsatian Nazi problem in the German-speaking region of Alsace, where skinheads are on the rise and some far-right groups hold sympathy to WWII-era Nazism. Some carry a code word "Ich Allemagne" which translates to "I" in German with the French word for Germany. I doubt they want reunification with Germany or are certain the Alsatian Nazis were never terminated after the war. + 207.200.116.134 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-Nazism in France

message: I've semi-protected this article to protect it from the blocked User:Purger, who (having gone through a series of sockpuppets) is now using anonymous IP addresses from the 4.249.*.* range to avoid his blocks. Unfortunately I don't think I can block this range, as it corresponds to Level 3, a major US ISP - too much collateral damage. -- ChrisO 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Neo-Nazis played a huge role in the late 20th century tabloid talk show craze. Many appeared on Jerry Springer. Geraldo had his nose broken in a televised brawl with Neo-nazis. Even the world's only black billionaire Oprah Winfrey confronted a skinhead in her audience(The best of Larry King page 371):
WINFREAY: "I just heard what you said. You just said 'I don't sit with monkeys.  You think because she's black, because I'm black, we're monkeys?"
SKINHEAD: "That's a proven fact."
WINFREY: "That's a proven fact?  It's a proven fact that I'm a monkey."
SKINHEAD:  "Could be."
WINFREY:  "Go ahead. Go ahead."
SKINHEAD:  "First thing I want to get off my mind is-"
WINFREY:  "No, I want to talk about this monkey stuff.  No, no, no. I want to talk about the monkey business.  I want to talk-"
Later when a riot threatened to break out half the studio audience ended up leaving the studio.
:There is so much material, and the issues are so specialized, that it would be better to treat that topic in a separate article. Though I can't find a precise parallel with Nazism, we do have Godwin's Law, Nazi Chic, Nazi punk, Nazi memorabilia, and probably many more. Perhaps "Neo-Nazism in popular culture"? -Will Beback 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we add a Neo-Nazis in pop-culture section?

message: The section is not very neutral:
*Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a xenophobic and chauvinist movement without a clear agenda beyond the opposition to the "democrats"...
*However, soon enough it became clear that neither of these parties was capable of accomplishing any serious changes in the national policy, and indeed soon they came to be widely seen as having had "sold out" to the "anti-people regime"
* Also, the youth had only experienced the last days of the Communist regime, which were made up of brutal crack downs, but without any idealistic presence, and were thus similar to Nazism.
--Konstable 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has removed my tag without any attempt to disguss it, and I can't find it in the history - so probably no edit summary on the removal either.  I am re-inserting the tag.  I wish I could fix this myself, but I don't know enough about this to give a fair analysis.--Konstable 06:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Roots - POV 

message: Since it is mentioned by the article, it should be linked from White_Aryan_Resistance.
:No, the mention is to a Swedish Group with the translated name "White Aryan Resistance," and the list of Neo-Nazi groups in the U.S. is at: Neo-Nazi groups of the United States.--Cberlet 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE stop just pasting unsigned blobs of text onto this page and have a real discussion. And please sign your posts in some way. This is not a page for a list of groups.  That list is here: Neo-Nazi groups of the United States.--Cberlet 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Aryan Resistance page should be linked to this page in some ways 

message: <incitement to murder removed>
:This isn't the place for such comments. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalist Movement Party - Turkey  

message: The article states:
A trial was held before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitution Court), the highest court in Germany, about the prohibition of the NPD (National Democratic Party), considered (though not proven to be) a Neo-Nazi party. 
Yet it still continues to refer to the party as a Neo-Nazi organization, and there is an image showing an NPD rally which is caption as a "Neo-Nazi rally in Germany" thus the article appears to contradict itself.
--Nazrac 04:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considered, but not proven, is not a "contradiction". Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPD Neo-Nazi party? 

message: I do believe it is the second sentence in the entire article, very true yet very POV... I'm going to remove it now, if anyone opposes this feel free to complain about it. Also, in the "Holocaust Denial" section there are more sneaky words which I am also deleting. If you want people to visit your site, make sure it is related and include a link in the appropriate section. Cissel 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky Words! 

message: The inclusion of several nationalist organisations on this page is inaccurate and renders the category as useless; in particular: British National Party (UK), Australia First Party (Australia), National Action (Australia), Patriotic Youth League (Australia) - none of which are "neo-nazi" parties. I would assume there are other misclassified examples here as well (as evidenced by reading through the above discussion).
To label nationalist groups as "neo-nazi" is as silly as labelling democratic socialist groups as "communist". This page needs to be cleaned up, with several organisations moved to the "nationalist" category [expertise needed].
It seems that biased commentators will classify any group with a political racial basis as "neo-nazi". Obviously, this is not the case, as evidenced by the "racist" nations who fought the Nazis in WW2 (Australia, USA; possibly Canada and UK).
Wikipedia should be a bastion of political neutrality and facts, not a bastion of political bias and propaganda.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDawn (talk • contribs) 
[actually, I did sign it, but it was rendered in a box, as I was not aware that one signed by typing four tildes]
:We do not determine what is true and what is not. We just report reputable sources. If political studies or reputable media label an organisation as neo-nazi, that's what wikipedia will do. That's what WP:NOR dictates anyway. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two points to be noted here:
1) The journalistic profession is dominated by multiculturalists and multiracialists, often with a political axe to grind, and therefore often use propaganda techniques to paint their political foes in a bad light. The use of the "neo-nazi" slander is a prime example of this. So-called "reputable media" are - in fact - not reputable, and giving their slant creedence is like giving creedence to Lenin's slant on Trotsky.
2) [directly applicable to the point Michalis Famelis makes above]
The mainstream media do not label the Australia First Party as “neo-Nazi”, such name-calling (for that is what it is) comes from the globalists and Multiculturalists in their blogs, sites, etc.
As Peter Charles Henderson noted in his BA (Hons) thesis, A History of the Australian Extreme Right Since 1950:
“There is also a tendency to label groups with titles like 'neo-Nazi' as a form of censure even when the group has no links or sympathies toward Nazism. This name calling has originated not only on the left but on the right where terms like 'femi-Nazi', reputedly coined by US talk back radio personality Rush Limbaugh to describe feminists, has gained currency”.
http://library.uws.edu.au/adt-NUWS/public/adt-NUWS20030924.134813/index.html (p.8) (see also pages 28-29) It should be noted that Henderson is a leftist (p.31) (all these pages are in the Introduction, 01Front.pdf).
Peter Henderson is certainly a reputable source.
Therefore, the classification of the Australia First Party needs to be moved to “Category:Nationalist_parties”, not only for reasons of truth and clarity, but also to abide by Wikipedia guidelines.
RedDawn 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect categorisation, need to move elements 

message: I'm seeing bits of vandalism spread across the page; I think it might be necessary to semi-protect this page until it can be cleared of at least blatant vandalism. --akuyumeTC 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotect and recover? 

message: Something should be written about Sumka, the Iranian Neo-Nazi Party. The Idea of Iranian Neo-Nazis sounds laughable, but then so does the idea of Neo-Nazis in Italy, Greece and Russia. Is there an Indian Neo-Nazi party as well? They had contingients who fought in the SS and many could claim Aryan heritage.  I wonder if they would be accepted by Neo-Nazis in the U.K.!!
I 've explained that Meditteraneans are White many times. I 'm not going to tell you the same things again. Mitsos 12:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUMKA 

message: The previous version of the Croatia section focussed on people and events from the World War Two era. That does not fit the definition of neo-Nazism. That version was also horribly formatted, with no separation into paragraphs. I replaced that substandard version with content taken directly from the article Neo-Nazism in Croatia. Twice those improvements have been reverted by an anonymous IP user, with the unfounded accusation of vandalism. 
To the anonymous editor: please 1) do not revert productive edits 2) do not make false accusations and 3) sign up for a Wikipedia account so you can be held accountable for your edits and comments. If you have productive additions to that section (including much-needed references), please add them, but do not revert to a version that doesn't discuss the correct topic. Spylab 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unjustified reverts to Croatia section

message: people who suppor the popular view that people were gassed love to put these photos like the one on the main page of this article. the bodies are emaciated. they probably died of typhus not from poisoned gas. this photo probably needs to be removed. Keltik31 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo illustrates the point you are making, "neo-Nazis claim such evidence is either counterfeit or misrepresented." -Will Beback · † · 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The picture is to stay, nazism and fascism lead to those attrocities.--Soetermans 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo on main page 

message: Pleae seek constructive discussion on Croatia, or I will seek to have the page protected against further edits until collaborative discussion takes place.--Cberlet 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome protection of this article from the destuctive edits by User:NovaNova and his sock puppets. If you look at the edit history, I made a compromise by combining text from the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article and text from the old version of the Croatia section of this article. Everything in my version of the section comes from content that was already on Wikipedia. Although NovaNova has pointed out possible weaknesses to the section in this discussion page, instead of fixing those weaknesses, NovaNova has chosen to continuously revert to an inferior version that focusses on WWII-era people and events (instead of neo-Nazism), and which is improperly formatted (with no separation of paragraphs). Spylab 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spylab, please use colons to indent comments. It takes two to create a revert war.  What you see as your "superior" version (both here and on several other fascism-related pages) reveals a lack of consideration that others may not see your edits as "superior." Try a more cooperative and collaborative tone, and engage in actual discussion rather than intellectual pissing matches.--Cberlet 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war over Croatia

message: :::Spylab went so far that (s)he marked me as someone's sock-puppet. I'm just wondering what makes him/her to behave this way?
*The editing behaviour in this article (specifically in the Croatia section) — as well as the language style in edit notes and talk pages — by User:NovaNova, User:Purger-related sock puppets and various anonymous IP accounts is very distinct. I'm just wondering why you thought nobody would notice? Spylab 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppetry

message: This edit war is annoying.  Learn some manners.  I am seeking page protection. Grow up.--Cberlet 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not complicated at all. The revert war has nothing to do with point of view, and I am not an expert on Croatia at all. However, I do know the difference between World War Two Nazism and neo-Nazism, which is the topic of this article The old version mostly concentrated on issues related to World War Two people and events. It's a very simple matter of having the section focus on the actual topic of the article. I did make a comprimise by combining the two versions of the section, but still focussing on neo-Nazism instead of World War Two-related topics. The funny thing is that now the section only links to the neo-Nazism in Croatia article, which is where I copied the text from to paste into this article. I pretty much pasted it word for word, other than adding citation requests and making a few minor adjustments to the writing style. Spylab 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The failure to take any responsibility for an edit war is part of the problem.--Cberlet 23:30, 8 December 2006(UTC)
*Take a look at this unjustified edit to the Neo-Nazism in Croatia article which NovaNova deceptively describes as "Added about failed ammendments of penal code, and about attempt to publish Mein Kampf": []. That description in no way describes the extensive counterproductive and destructive edit that was actually carried out. Instead of actually simply adding the new content as described in the edit note, NovaNova has chosen to destroy several necessary improvemts to the article, and then lied about what has been done. This is what we're dealing with: someone who shows total contempt for the editing process and displays no sign of any "collaborative, constructive attitude" at all. Spylab 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Post-script: And just so nobody accuses me of making a knee-jerk revert to the edit I mentioned in the Neo-Nazism in Croatia, article, I tried to decipher which content was added, so I could save that part instead of reverting the whole thing, but NovaNova's edit was so big and confusing that I could not figure out which text was actually added, and which text was just moved around. Spylab 14:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection sought

message: The problem on this and other pages related to neonazism in several European countries, is that in several countries, the fascist and Nazi collaborationist forces later became recast as heroic anti-communists, and their historic fascism, Nazi collaborationism, and anti-semitic actions were sanitized as part of Cold War propoganda. In some cases, these same people did lead movements against communist totalitarianism, yet this should not obscure their other ideas and actions. In Croatia, as in several other countries, the neonazi movements often are tied to earlier interwar and WWII Nazi collaborationist forces, and thus it is not possible to exclude a discussion of this historic set of relationships.  However, this discussion should not dominate the section on the particular country.  Also, the issue of murderous rampages against Jews and Serbs in the WWII period might need to be raised as part of a discussion of current (and changing) Croatian government attitudes toward specific current fascist political movements, especially if they link themselves back to the interwar/WWII Ustasha.--Cberlet 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazis - old and new

message: Let's start over.  Note the text at the top of the entry that the page is protected "until disputes have been resolved." If both of you (in your own way) refuse to engage in collabortive editing of text here on the discussion page, then the solution is not to keep the page locked, but to seek to have both of you banned from editing this article for some appropriate period of time. Please start placing text here on the discussion page and discussing how it should be edited. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to being temporarily banned from this article as long as User:NovaNova is banned for the exact same length of time. To start off the collaborative process, I will post both versions below. Spylab 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collabortive editing

message: Please keep in mind that this article is supposed to be about neo-Nazism (emphasis on neo), and that there is a full article on neo-Nazism in Croatia, which discusses all aspects of the topic in more detail, including the movement's origins in World War Two Nazism.Spylab 16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of two versions of Croatia section

message: So, Spylab, is there a compromise version that you can craft?--Cberlet 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me to do a proper and thorough job, I would have to print out both versions, compare them, and combine the relevant text. Due to technical and time constraint reasons, I might not be able to do that until another day or two.  Perhaps the best solution would be for you (or another editor who wasn't involved in the revert war) to combine relevant text from both versions. Judging by User:NovaNova's response above, it is clear that NovaNova still doesn't get it, and shows no evidence of being willing to compromise or be constructive. Spylab 10:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is worth the wait, and would very much appreciate the attempt when you have time. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration?

message: Alleanza Nazionale classified as a neo-nazi organization? Are we kidding? Please remove it. 82.58.169.151 08:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleanza Nazionale

message: I'd like to see some proof that the person on that picture is actually a "militant Neo-Nazi in Germany". What tells us that he really is a) militant, b) a Neo-Nazi and c) in Germany?  As long as there is no proof for that, I suggest a new title for the image: "Armed person in front of a swastika flag."--62.214.246.78 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A militant Neo-Nazi in Germany." 

message: I've attached to this section the totallydisputed tag due to a few issues
* first of all, the whole section is completely unsourced
* secondly, chetniks are not listed by any serious historical sources as the Nazis; the basic notion - as seen in the modern dictionaries of the English language - is quite clear:
* chetnik - a member of a Pan-Serbian movement or home-defense band for resistance to oppressors by guerilla tactics.
** from: Webster's Third New International Dictionary Merriam-Webster Inc, Springfield, MA, 1993, page 386
* chetnik - a member of Slavic nationalist guerilla force in the Balkans,esp. one active during World War II
** from: The New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2001  page 295
Also, mentioning Srebrenica atrocities has nothing to do with neo-Nazism in Serbia nor Srebrenica is in Serbia. Mentioning Serbian ultranationalist Seselj here is quite clearly out of context.
My proposal is to delete this section or write the text truly particular to the neo-Nazism in Serbia.
:Deleted. Actually, the entire listing by nation is fairly thin; besides, there's also entire Neo-Fascism article. Some of Serbian groups (like Obraz) do fit into "clero-fascist" organizations, plus some frenzy skinheads/Stormfront sympathizers around, but I somehow feel that this entire section was brought for revenge of "Croatia" section (which is also very doubtful and highly POV). Isn't this article supposed to be about active Neo-Nazi groups rather than post-factum attempts of minimization, historical revisionism, and justification? There is a difference, you know? Duja► 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Serbia 

message: Wiki article on National_Power_Union identifies it as "far-right nationalist political party". That in my opinion corresponds well with what can be read in their program (in Latvian). [Neo]-nazi (as in national-socialist)? I don't believe so. Could someone quote a reliable source in support of their inclusion here?
-- Doc15071969 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Please, remove phrase neo-Chetniks in Serbia from Analogous European movements since there is no single reference branding neo-Chetniks in Serbia as an European movement analogous to nazism 178.223.95.72 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019 

message: Please, remove phrase neo-Chetniks in Serbia from Analogous European movements since there is no single reference branding neo-Chetniks in Serbia as an European movement analogous to nazism. My request is quite clear - no references supporting the claim. Response to Beyond My Ken: The article is about neo-nazism, not about chetniks, not about fascism. 178.223.95.72 (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a pop at it then. That paragraph does need a source. Since we are discussing it here though can we not simply find a source and put it there rather than removing the text?  is there a relevant source somewhere else in the article which could be repeated here? Edaham (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not say that neo-Chetniks are neo-Nazis.  It says: Outside Germany, in other countries which were involved with the Axis powers and had their own native ultra-nationalist movements, which sometimes collaborated with the Third Reich but were not technically German-style National Socialists, revivalist and nostalgic movements have emerged in the post-war period which, as neo-Nazism has done in Germany, seek to rehabilitate their various loosely associated ideologies. These movements include neo-fascists and post-fascists in Italy; Vichyites, Pétainists and "national Europeans" in France; Ustaše sympathisers in Croatia; neo-Chetniks in Serbia; Iron Guard revivalists in Romania; Hungarists and Horthyists in Hungary; Banderaists in the Ukraine (which had a complicated relationship with the Axis powers) and others. Neo-Chetniks are, by this statement, an "Analogous European movement", which is to say neo-Fascistic.  I've added a source to support the general statement.Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beyond My Ken The above quote does not verify the false statement. The article is strictly about neo-nazism, not about analogous something. You even did not correctly quote the page 66 of the reference you added. Also, the quoted text is an author opinion given without a primary source supporting it.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to make an argument that the entire "Analogous European movement" section should be removed from the article, and perhaps moved to Neo-fascism, then open up a new section and make that argument.  It could be that other editors will agree with you.  But with the article as it stands, the inclusion of neo-Chetniks in that section is justified and reasonable.  As I said in a comment that I either neglected to post or was accidentally deleted, I view your request as an attempt at whitewashing the reputation of the neo-Chetnik movement, of which there is no doubt that they are neo-fascists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beyond My Ken First of all, the reference you've added is not about neo-nazism. Your reference even does not have a primary source when writing about neo-chetniks.Analogous can be only about neo-nazism, not about nacionalism or fascism. Neo-nazism is analogous to nazism, neo-chetniks to chetniks. Chetniks were nationalists and collaborators, not nazists. They do not advocate arianism, extermination of minorities, did not run konzlagers. Bottom line: you do not have a valid reference and your analogy is sensless.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment above still pertains, your arguments are neither correct nor persuasive. Stop trying to pretend that neo-Chetniks aren't neo-fascists, which is what this is all about, at the bottom line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beyond My Ken The article IS NOT about neo-fascism! Further, Serbia subsection of the Analogous European movements does not have anything about neo-chetniks. Therefore, Serbia subsection contradicts the introductory of the Analogous European movements You do not know what are you talking about.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The section about "Analogous European Movements" IS about neo-fascists, though. I"m not going to remove neo-Chetniks from that section, because they are most certainly neo-fascists.  Other editors may feel otherwise.  As I said above, if you think the section should not be in the article, start a discussion in a new section on this talk page. I'm certainly not going to remove the "Analogous" section, because I believe it's relevant to the subject and to the times.I think that, unless another editor wishes to comment, this discussion is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

text: @Beyond My Ken does not have a clear idea what is neo-nazism. The reference he added is out of the neo-nazism context. Therefore my request is reactivated.--178.223.95.72 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. Other editors can comment here, certainly, but you cannot file another request, (or "re-open" this one) while this one is still active.  If you do that again, I'll request that an admin block you for disruptive editing.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, stop pinging me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

text: The request is not answered; marked as answered does not make the request active. The reference he added is out of the neo-nazism context. --178.223.95.72 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019 

message: Beyond My Ken, you may wish to read WP:OVERCITE. In regards to your comment here, "PLEASE STOP REMOVING VALID SOURCE CITATIONS FROM THE ARTICLE. AN/I IS THE NEXT STOP", I can only point out that removing "valid source citations" is entirely appropriate when the citations are being added for no good reason. Shouting at me in capitals does not make your point any more valid. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Two citations is not overciting. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. If one citation proves your point, you don't need two. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleass stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon? Stop what? Why don't you stop adding more citations than the article really needs? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please" what? What are you talking about? What constitutes excess citation depends on the circumstances. In this case, if you believe that the citation that was already in the article supports the "and implement" wording, then there is no good reason for adding an additional citation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sigh) Well, I suppose you just can't stop yourself. Is that why you went to Turning Point USA, an article I don't believe you've edited before (certainly not recently) almost immediately after I edited it, because you couldn't stop yourself from following me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with any of my edits at that article, then by all means explain the basis for your disagreement - at the relevant talk page, which I believe is Talk:Turning Point USA. My edits there have zero relevance to anything being discussed here. Again, could you please give a valid reason for adding multiple citations to support the "and implement" language rather than resting content with one? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no argument with your edits, I have a problem with your behavior.  Please read WP:HARASSMENT, especially the part that says Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. That you and I are in an editing dispute here, and that in the middle of it you go to an article you've never edited before right after I edit it, that's prima facie evidence of Wikihounding. I ask you here and now to stop: stop removing valid citations I add to this article, and stop shadowing me. I will not be intimidated by your actions, and I will take you to AN/I if you don't stop.This is my last communication with you on this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You may note the inclusion of the words, "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" in WP:HARASSMENT. I did not "confront or inhibit" your work at Turning Point USA in any fashion. I made four minor and utterly uncontroversial edits, which you apparently do not even disagree with, but now suddenly you consider this a major atrocity and a basis for an ANI complaint? The behavior you are objecting to simply is not what WP:HARASSMENT is intended to prevent, and you are behaving in a completely unreasonable fashion by objecting to it. As for the removal of "valid citations", once again, that can be reasonable if the citations are excessive, which in my view they are in this case. I will be happy to leave it to the judgement of other editors whether they stay or go, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

text: No, you do not have this right. I objected to a phrase ("and implement") being included in the article for multiple reasons, primarily because it was unnecessary and in my judgement an incorrect usage of the word "implement", and only secondarily because it was uncited. Beyond My Ken added a citation to support the phrase, and I did not remove that citation. Following that, Beyond My Ken pointlessly added another citation, a completely unnecessary one. I removed the additional citation, and explained why I considered it unnecessary. Rather than address the point, Beyond My Ken went into a rage and made a baseless accusation of harassment against me, accusing me of trying to intimidate him by making minor formatting corrections to another article. Why making minor formatting corrections at any article could reasonably be considered an attempt at intimidation, Beyond My Ken has not bothered to explain. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You removed the word again here despite being a cite being added. BMK then re-added it here with additional cite. You then started quoting the OVERCITE essay. As an experienced editor you know that multiple cites are often used to back up contentious and/or exceptional claims per WP:REDFLAG (which is policy). If you want to challenge inclusion of the word, that's fine, but challenging the inclusion of sources that back up this seemingly contentious inclusion looks to be a backhanded way of doing so. --NeilN talk to me 12:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The disagreement is not, as already noted, about a word. The disagreement is about a phrase, "and implement", which in my opinion is both unnecessary and an incorrect usage of the word "implement". The problem with it was never primarily that it was uncited. There can be legitimate reasons to object to a particular phrasing regardless of whether a passage is cited or not. I have every right to hold that some other phrase besides "and implement" would be better or more appropriate. As an experienced editor, I, personally, have never ever bothered to use multiple cites to back up "contentious and/or exceptional claims". Furthermore, you should realize that the claim that neo-Nazis want to "implement" their ideology is not a "contentious and/or exceptional claim". It is a totally unremarkable claim and it does not require multiple citations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a "totally unremarkable claim", then why did you remove it with the edit summary rm 'and implement' as uncited (emphasis added)  and then go on to comment in the edit summary of a null edit Beyond My Ken, as already noted, the material you restored is uncited. It thus violates WP:VERIFY. There is no source that supports "and implement". Why would you restore uncited material?  It is you and you alone who insisted that "and implement" be cited, then you turn around remove one of the citatons I added, and now you say "The problem with it was never primarily that it was uncited. ... Furthermore... the claim that neo-Nazis want to "implement" their ideology is not a "contentious and/or exceptional claim". It is a totally unremarkable claim...", but it was you and you alone who turned into into a "contentious claim" by disputing it.  You're being intellectually dishonest, playing both sides of the street. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:VERIFY, any claim requires a citation, including unremarkable claims. The "and implement" claim did appear to be totally uncited at the point I removed it. It never required more than one citation, and it is still my view that it was unnecessary to add multiple citations. The "contentious" part is not the claim that neo-Nazis want to "implement" their ideology, but rather your insistence on using the term "implement" rather than some other and more accurate and correct term. So, no, I am not being "intellectually dishonest"; I am simply taking a different view of the issue from you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, you have never once offered any "other and more accurate term" for consideration, even though I specifically asked you to, and your understanding of what "implement" means is -- by the evidecne of your postings above -- well, "non-standard" is the absolute nicest way that I can put it.The word is without a doubt appropriate, and no one who reads it who understands the English language will have any difficulty understanding what it means: you yourself said that it was "non-ambiguous". Well, if it's not ambiguous, then it must say precisely what it means to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. In this edit I replaced the "and implement" phrase with different language that covered the same territory, but you didn't like that and removed it without explanation. You have already claimed that if a phrase is "not ambiguous" then it "must say precisely what it means to say". You were and are wrong about that. An unambiguous phrase can be wrong, misleading, or inappropriate if it uses language incorrectly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the writing in that edit was deficient, in that you lost the primary point -- the connection to Nazism -- in your zeal to use the exact language of the source.  There's a lot more to Nazi ideology than simply creating "a superior society" -- at lot of ideologies claim that.  The point of the citation was to show that the Neo-Nazis want to establish something, and not just bring an ideology back to life; it was cited to support "and implement". What about "and establish"?  Would you accept that as a replacement for "and implement"?  Or how about "and put into effect"?  Would that be acceptable to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the connection to Nazism was clear in the wording added here. It made the first sentence of the lead read, "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism, and thereby establish what they consider a superior society". The "thereby" establishes a clear connection between neo-Nazis wanting to revive an ideology and their wanting to establish what they consider to be a superior society based on that ideology. You are being tendentious by suggesting a false antithesis between creating an allegedly superior society and establishing something. Obviously creating a different kind of society is establishing something. You have also missed the point that taking actions of some kind is an inherent part of reviving an ideology. There would be no advantage at all to using a wording such as "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and establish the ideology of Nazism", or, "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and put into effect the ideology of Nazism". The wording is redundant. Reviving an ideology by definition means putting it into effect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I hope for the last time:(1) Assuming that the Nazi ideology died after WWII (which is doubtful), bringing it back into the public eye, publicizing it, making it the subject of civic discussion, putting it out there, re-creating it as an acceptable choice, that would be "reviving the ideology".  "Implementing it" "putting it into effect" or "establishing it" would mean actually taking over a country and instituting the ideology on a practical basis.  As I think you well know, the Nazi ideology existed long before Hitler actually achieved the power he wanted.  It is the difference between the former and the latter that I see as being very close to the dichotomy between "revive" and "implement".(2) Now, can I get a straight-forward yes-or-no answer from you:(2a) Would you accept "revive and put into effect"?(2b) Would you accept "revive and establish"?(3) Again, a simple straight-forward response please: Is there anything you would accept to help indicate the dichotomy I pointed out in (1), or are you adamantly wedded to "revive" all alone and by itself?Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's incorrect. "Reviving" an ideology has a broad meaning, and of course it can potentially include taking over a country and other things consequent on that, even if only by implication. You have insisted on a rigidly narrow and incorrect understanding of what reviving an ideology means, which has always been the problem. Neither of your two proposals (2a) and (2b) is any good at all. The contorted and peculiar phrasing just goes to show the mistaken thinking behind them. The phrase "and implement" should be simply removed, with or without some alternative replacement phrasing (and many alternatives might be possible). Like you, I am not really interested in having an endless argument about any of this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

text: * You've had a 3O so either you can hold a RFC or post a neutral message to Talk:Nazism asking for input. --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for a request for comment, which is blowing matters out of proportion. Rather there is a need for rational discussion about how to improve the lead. It can take place slowly if need be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think I've had enough "rational discussion" with you.  I'll be setting up an RfC shortly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean discussion between myself and you. It would be good to hear from other voices. Presumably multiple editors are potentially interested in this article. Their comments would be welcome. A problem with a request for comment is that it oversimplifies complicated questions and unhelpfully focuses the issue on the specific phrase "and implement" when in fact broader issues are involved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to open your own threads on the "broader issues" you feel need exploration, but our discussion has been almost entirely focused on your (in my mind, unreasoable) objections to "and implement", the roabblocks you threw up to attempt to get rid of it, and the constant goalpost moving you engaged in, so that is the issue which I wish to put to rest.  Unlike some others, I'm not here on Wikipedia to engage in debates, I'm here to improve the encyclopedia -- and this eternal palaver just prevents me from doing the work I could be doing to edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive citations 

message: The opening sentence of this article used to readNeo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism. On 24 March, User:LightandDark2000 added the words "and implement" to the sentence, so that it readNeo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism.The purpose of this RfC is to determine whether "and implement" – or other equivalent or near-equivalent phrases, such as "and establish" or "and put into effect" – should be kept in the opening sentence, or if it should be reverted to the original version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Neo-Nazis, especially the more hardline ones, do want to the their ideology put into effect. They even have manifestos on such goals, and some branches actually have a long-term plan for spreading/realizing their ideology across the world. I think it's important to mention this facet, just like how al-Qaeda and ISIL don't just dream of a "Caliphate" - they actually want one, and they are working towards building a Salafist "Caliphate". I'm fine with revising the exact wording though, if there is a better way to say it. 'LightandDark2000' (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is misguided to hold a request for comment about a particular phrase, and expect to establish consensus for the use of the phrase "and implement", or the equally bad alternatives "and establish" or "and put into effect." They are all poor writing. LightandDark2000's comment, "I'm fine with revising the exact wording though, if there is a better way to say it" is reasonable. The language Beyond My Ken is so attached to is so poor that it really should not be difficult to find something better, clearer, more specific, or more informative to readers. Specific and concrete information about neo-Nazi goals would be helpful to readers; a vague phrase like "and implement" isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

text: *There are two sources provided. I'm certain that I would be able to provide as many other citations as you would like, but FreeKnowledgeCreator accused me of "overcitation" with with second one (when, of course, he was the one who had demanded citations). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Neither of those sources states in so many words that "it is part of the definition of neo-Nazism that they necessarily seek to implement the Nazi ideology" and I think it would be unrealistic to expect to find such sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

text: *@Maunus: As I said, as many citations as you like can be provided. I'm almost certain I can give you one for every group on List of neo-Nazi organizations. If that is the case, then a formal definition is not really necessary, just a good dose of WP:COMMONSENSE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

text: *@Maunus: I'm curious as to why you would accept "revive" without a specific citation that says that every neo-Nazi group wants to revive the ideology -- after all, maybe they're like book clubs, and just want to discuss it (and maybe to examine each others collections of Nazi trading cards) not to revive it -- but require one for "implement".  Haven't these groups made their purpose more than abundantly clear in both their rhetoric and actions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the first sentence of the third opinion provided by Rhinopias above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Maunus: Any thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best approach would be find examples of how "Neo-nazism" is defined in other secondary and tertiary sources. The SPLC source ptovided incidentally says specifically that some groups "emphasize simple hatred, others are more focused on the revolutionary creation of a fascist political state" - i.e. some are content merely sharing their ideology and having an outlet for their hatred while many others do work to change society politically. I can't access the other source by Gay.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The SPLC is talking about relative behavior. They're not sayng that all neo-Nazis don't share basically the same goals, they're saying that some focus on the hatred, at the expense of acting to establishing a Nazi-style government while others focus on revolutionary action, at the expense of just spreading propaganda and hatred about Jews, homosexual, and immigrants, among others.  These are relative differences, not absolute ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would phrase it differently, the SPLC definition talks about actual practices, which differ even though the ideology may be shared among all groups. But there is no reason that the definition should emphasize ideology over practice - and by adding "implement" we are basically saying that unless they work explicitly on the implementation part they are not really neo-nazis. I think it is better to have a more encompassing definition that does not risk excluding some groups that ought to be included. I think we need to focus on how reliable academically published sources about neo-nazism define the concept.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is Kathlyn Gay and Enslow publishers a good source? She seems to be a writer of non-fiction for teens, and probably can be expected to simplify issues a bit on that account. It should be able to find better academically published sources on neo-nazism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, because the concept is so intuitively obvious, it didn't surprise me that a lower-level source would have a definition, when higher level sources wouldn't. As I said, I stopped looking for sources after FreeKnowledgeCreator castigated me for "overcitation" , , after demanding that "and implement" be cited, , , then denied that citation was ever a major issue for them. But I'm totally open to new sources, so please feel free to look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quality of citations should be a major issue for everyone. I think the original wording is equally intuitive, since, in my understanding, the only thing that really is required to be a neo-nazi is to express adherence to a nazi ideology after 1945. There may me many different ways of doing this. But again, we should defer to the best sources not to our intuitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: on the inclusion of "and implement" in the opening sentence of the article

message: *Support "implement". "establish", "put into effect" or any equivalent phrasing which receives consensus. When I first saw LightandDark2000's edit, I was considering reverting it, until I thought a bit deeper about it.To "revive" means to bring back to life, but it doesn't, in this context, say anything about whether the revived ideology is put into practical effect or not.  One can "revive" an ideology by bringing it back into the public eye, publicizing it, making it the subject of civic discussion, "putting it out there", or re-creating it as an acceptable civic choice. All of these techniques would make a "dead" ideology be viable again.  But Neo-Nazis don't simply want Nazism to be talked about or to remove the social stigma from it, they want that ideology to be be put into effect, to have the power to institute the various parts of the Nazi ideology. To fulfill this goal, the neo-Nazis would have to take over a country -- by legal or revolutionary means -- and actually make Nazism a functional ideology, not simply something that is discussed.Historically, the Nazi ideology existed long before Hitler actually achieved the power he wanted in Germany. Before that time, Nazism was merely a possibility, afterwards, it had been put into effect and became the official ruling ideology of Nazi Germany.  It is the dichotomy between these two states of being, the first with the potential to be powerful, and the second to have the actual power, that I believe "and implement" (or an equivalent phrase) makes clear.(If anyone wishes additional thoughts about these, there is byte and byte after byte of discussion between myself and FreeKnowledgeCreator in the two threads above this one that one can peruse.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Neo-Nazis, especially the more hardline ones, do want to the their ideology put into effect. They even have manifestos on such goals, and some branches actually have a long-term plan for spreading/realizing their ideology across the world. I think it's important to mention this facet, just like how al-Qaeda and ISIL don't just dream of a "Caliphate" - they actually want one, and they are working towards building a Salafist "Caliphate". I'm fine with revising the exact wording though, if there is a better way to say it. 'LightandDark2000' (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is misguided to hold a request for comment about a particular phrase, and expect to establish consensus for the use of the phrase "and implement", or the equally bad alternatives "and establish" or "and put into effect." They are all poor writing. LightandDark2000's comment, "I'm fine with revising the exact wording though, if there is a better way to say it" is reasonable. The language Beyond My Ken is so attached to is so poor that it really should not be difficult to find something better, clearer, more specific, or more informative to readers. Specific and concrete information about neo-Nazi goals would be helpful to readers; a vague phrase like "and implement" isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

text: *There are two sources provided. I'm certain that I would be able to provide as many other citations as you would like, but FreeKnowledgeCreator accused me of "overcitation" with with second one (when, of course, he was the one who had demanded citations). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Neither of those sources states in so many words that "it is part of the definition of neo-Nazism that they necessarily seek to implement the Nazi ideology" and I think it would be unrealistic to expect to find such sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

text: *@Maunus: As I said, as many citations as you like can be provided. I'm almost certain I can give you one for every group on List of neo-Nazi organizations. If that is the case, then a formal definition is not really necessary, just a good dose of WP:COMMONSENSE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

text: *@Maunus: I'm curious as to why you would accept "revive" without a specific citation that says that every neo-Nazi group wants to revive the ideology -- after all, maybe they're like book clubs, and just want to discuss it (and maybe to examine each others collections of Nazi trading cards) not to revive it -- but require one for "implement".  Haven't these groups made their purpose more than abundantly clear in both their rhetoric and actions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the first sentence of the third opinion provided by Rhinopias above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Maunus: Any thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best approach would be find examples of how "Neo-nazism" is defined in other secondary and tertiary sources. The SPLC source ptovided incidentally says specifically that some groups "emphasize simple hatred, others are more focused on the revolutionary creation of a fascist political state" - i.e. some are content merely sharing their ideology and having an outlet for their hatred while many others do work to change society politically. I can't access the other source by Gay.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The SPLC is talking about relative behavior. They're not sayng that all neo-Nazis don't share basically the same goals, they're saying that some focus on the hatred, at the expense of acting to establishing a Nazi-style government while others focus on revolutionary action, at the expense of just spreading propaganda and hatred about Jews, homosexual, and immigrants, among others.  These are relative differences, not absolute ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would phrase it differently, the SPLC definition talks about actual practices, which differ even though the ideology may be shared among all groups. But there is no reason that the definition should emphasize ideology over practice - and by adding "implement" we are basically saying that unless they work explicitly on the implementation part they are not really neo-nazis. I think it is better to have a more encompassing definition that does not risk excluding some groups that ought to be included. I think we need to focus on how reliable academically published sources about neo-nazism define the concept.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is Kathlyn Gay and Enslow publishers a good source? She seems to be a writer of non-fiction for teens, and probably can be expected to simplify issues a bit on that account. It should be able to find better academically published sources on neo-nazism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, because the concept is so intuitively obvious, it didn't surprise me that a lower-level source would have a definition, when higher level sources wouldn't. As I said, I stopped looking for sources after FreeKnowledgeCreator castigated me for "overcitation" , , after demanding that "and implement" be cited, , , then denied that citation was ever a major issue for them. But I'm totally open to new sources, so please feel free to look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quality of citations should be a major issue for everyone. I think the original wording is equally intuitive, since, in my understanding, the only thing that really is required to be a neo-nazi is to express adherence to a nazi ideology after 1945. There may me many different ways of doing this. But again, we should defer to the best sources not to our intuitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and comments

message: Please change: "In the German Democratic Republic a former member of SA, Wilhelm Adam, founded the National Democratic Party of Germany." to "In the German Democratic Republic a former member of the SA, Wilhelm Adam, founded the National Democratic Party of Germany." because the former sentence is grammatically incorrect (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung, https://www.britannica.com/topic/SA-Nazi-organization). Thank you. FilmTheory (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But in the future, please be clearer about what you want to have happen, for instance "In the sentence X, please add the word "the" before 'SA'"  Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019 

message: I've deleted improper content of the Serbia section added by someone. The added content is about alleged neo-fascism in Serbia. We have two different Wikipedia articles: Neo-nazism and Neo-fascism and there is no need for arbitrarily mixing their contents on the basis of some "closely-related" or "relevant" opinion--Богаљ Рајовић (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of two distinct Wikipedia articles is completely irrelevant. The fact that an article on a given subject exists does not mean that its subject matter is irrelevant to a different article. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that because the material on the Serbian Chetnik Movement states that the organization was "oriented towards neo-fascism", this makes it irrelevant to neo-Nazism and inappropriate to an article on the subject. Such a position is ridiculous. There is no reason a neo-Nazi group cannot be "oriented towards neo-fascism", and suggesting that fascism and Nazism are not related is stupid. You have no consensus for removing that material, and should not continue to remove it in the absence of consensus. So far, you have not tried seriously to establish a consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-nazism vs. neo-fascism 

message: Beyond My Ken, I do not think that this edit, which changed "seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism" to "seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism" is reasonable. I think that it is unnecessary, bad writing, and confused. A reader of normal intelligence can be expected to understand that if someone thinks an ideology should be revived, then they also think that the ideology should be acted upon. Actually reviving an ideology by definition means taking action based on that ideology. The editor who added "and implement" perhaps assumed that reviving an ideology does not necessarily involve acting upon it. The assumption is incorrect; reviving an ideology by definition involves acting upon it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hypothesize for a moment that the Nazi ideology had existed (as a whole, not simply in parts) before Hitler and the NSDAP.  Then, when Hitler came along, and made the ideology acceptable and attracted large numbers of voters, it would have been "revived" -- but it would not have been actually "implemented" until the Nazis came to power.Right now, although there are quite a few neo-Nazi groups (much too many, in fact), it cannot be said that the Nazi ideology has been "revived", because it is, in fact, reviled by the vast majority of people.  If (and let us all hope this never happens), Nazism begins to be accepted by large numbers of people, it can then be said that Nazism has been "revived" as an ideology, but until neo-Nazis actually take over a government, by force or by democratic means, and actually run a country, it cannot be said to have been "implemented".  That is the difference, and that is why the addition of "implemented" by another editor was a reasonable one.  It is not sufficient for the neo-Nazis that Nazism be widely accepted, they want it to be put into effect as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. While discussion in ongoing, the article stays as it was. Do not assume that your argument was definitive by reverting again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of a distinction between reviving an ideology and "implementing" it is not important. Anyone can assume that if someone advocates "reviving" an ideology, that this means that they want governments to take action based upon it and thereby "implement" it. That was my original point. Why would anyone assume that someone would advocate "reviving" an ideology but not taking action based on it? Besides that, I also have to note that "and implement" is awkward and incorrect language. The word "implement" has several meanings, the most relevant of which seems to be to "put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect". An ideology is not comparable to a decision, plan, or agreement; no source that used correct and formal language would say that an ideology is "implemented" like an agreement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion -- and I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of other editors -- there is absolutely no ambiguity in the phrase "to revive and implement", as no other definition of "implement" fits it.  Further, an ideology is indeed very similar to a decision, a plan or an agreement -- what is an ideology if not beliefs that have agreed upon between people, a common decision amongst a group, or a plan of action? As for formality - if anything, the phrase is just a tad too formal.  It could be replaced with the phrase "to revive and put into effect". If you have another suggestion -- aside from removing "and implement" entirely, I mean -- I'd be pleased to hear it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not suggest that the phrase "to revive and implement" is ambiguous. Rather, the problem with it is that the inclusion of "and implement" is unnecessary and poor writing, as well as a confused and incorrect use of language. I am holding open in front of me the 12th edition of The Chambers Dictionary. It gives several different meanings for "implement", the most pertinent one being, "to give effect to, to carry out; to fulfill, complete or perform." It does not make sense to speak of performing an ideology, and while it might possibly make sense to speak of completing an ideology, that is not what "implement" was intended to mean in this case. An ideology is of course totally dissimilar to an agreement because in the nature of things not everyone is going to agree with any given ideology, and because there are always disagreements even among people who share the same basic ideology, and for other reasons as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you admit that "to revive and implement" is unambiguous in its meaning, then it is not poor writing, in that it expresses what it means to convey, and whether there is another definition of "implement" is irrelevant, since the phrase is, in your words "not ambiguous."  Therefore, this complaint really comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not sufficient grounds for a change without a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the idea that because something is unambiguous, that therefore it is good writing? Or that "unambiguous" means "expresses what it means to convey"? The problem is not that there are multiple definitions of "implement", the problem is that if you consider properly the meaning of the word "implement", you can see that it is not the correct word to use here. A properly written, professional encyclopedia would never refer to "implementing" an ideology because that is not how one writes. Insisting on proper use of the English language is not what WP:IDONTLIKEIT was meant to prevent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's "good writing" and then there's "good writing", it all depends on the context. We are an encyclopedia, and the purpose of our writing should be to convey information clearly and unambiguously.  If -- as you admit above -- the phrase "to revive and implement" is "not ambiguous" -- meaning that no other interpretation of it is conceivable, no matter how many definitions of "implement" there may exist in a dictionary -- then it properly conveys the information it intends to convey. Therefore, in the context of an encyclopedia, it is "good writing."  It's certainly not going to win any literary prizes, but that's not its purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Until you come up with an alternate phrase or word to consider, or at least an alternate argument against "and implement", I think my participation in this discussion is at an end, since it's become quite repetitive, and it's already moving into WP:LAME territory.  If you come up with something new, or other editors chime in (I rather think they've stayed away because it's all rather silly), I may comment again.  Mind you, that doesn't mean that you can change the article, since there is still no consensus for the removal of "and implement". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is trying to be taken seriously as an accurate, reliable reference work. That means that it should use strictly accurate and formal language. Your assumption that because a phrase is unambiguous that it "properly conveys the information it intends to convey" is incorrect. A statement can be entirely unambiguous but still be incorrect or poorly written if it uses language incorrectly. It is incorrect to speak of "implementing" an ideology. I note your failure to respond to the point that the addition of "and implement" was entirely unnecessary. Should I assume that this is because no reasonable response is possible? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, if you want an example of a correct use of the word "implement", an example would be, "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism, gain power, and implement policies based on their ideology." That would be a possible wording for the lead - except that the part about neo-Nazis wanting to gain power and implement policies based on their ideology is 100% unnecessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you for a reasonable and concise third opinion. It was and remains my view that taking actions based on an ideology is indeed part of the meaning of reviving that ideology. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The lead fail to "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." WP:LEAD There is a lot that has no mention, especially about the history and the contemporary issues. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: FreeKnowledgeCreator could you explain why is pointless? Rupert Loup (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. If the lead is too short and some material is missing that should be present, then simply add that material. The template accomplishes nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The purposes of templates "are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made". WP:TC If I could do those changes I'll do it my self, but I doubt that I can do that, english is not my first language and the result may be poor. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The template simply puts onto other people what you -- if you think the lead is too short -- should do yourself.  The vast majority of clean-up tags are useless in the same way: just fix it, don't tag it.And if someone removes your tag, it means they disagree with it, and it is therefore disputed.  Dispited edits are discussed on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead too short

message: I'm not sure if this section should be included in the article because I think that it was added to imply Neo-Nazism in regards to the Constitutional Court's practice prior to my explanation on why the Court actually annulled those amendments (which is merely due to procedural breaches and not because the Court was against their content as implied before; And by the way, that verdict is significant for the whole Croatian legal system because the Court set out its position on what the organic law is, thus defining it, because it wasn't defined by the Constitution). What's your opinion? United Union (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRO; Penal code amendments 

message: The article includes a "criticism" section mentioning some comments two people made about Neo-Nazism. I am sure that section was well-intentioned, however, in my view, it does not serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and should be removed. There are many things wrong with it. The fundamental problem is that it is not appropriate to include "criticism" of an extreme political ideology that obviously has no mainstream acceptability or credibility, as though that ideology were something that needed to be debunked or discredited by Wikipedia. Mentioning "criticism" of Neo-Nazism implies that the ideology might be considered credible in the absence of criticism of it, and that is not something Wikipedia should be doing. In the absence of anything whatever that might suggest that Neo-Nazism is an acceptable mainstream view, it is counter-productive to Wikipedia's credibility to include a section arguing against it. Instead of including "criticism" of Neo-Nazism, as though it were an arguable view that required some counter-argument to disprove it, the article should simply note that it is not a mainstream position, that it is illegal in some countries, and so on. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there's absolutely no need for a "criticism" section.  It would be somewhat like the articles on murder or rape having a "Criticism" section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to add my voice to this, I agree with the change. NZFC(talk) 04:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Neo-Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006030523/http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/pavelic/ap0011.html to http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/pavelic/ap0011.html
*Added  tag to http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/DGB4V0MCGNFLU49E.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010052901/http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2004/04/28-4-04-e01.html to http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2004/04/28-4-04-e01.html
*Added  tag to http://www.resistances.be/network
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610082700/http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/07/1005697/brazil-sets-anti-neo-nazi-commission to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/06/07/1005697/brazil-sets-anti-neo-nazi-commission
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified