Church of Satan use

Only anti-Satanic views here. Thobold (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Satanism is well-referenced. It's hardly controversial to highlight that the Church of Satan, for example, employs these symbols. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, its well sourced if you have a source saying it is not the black sun symbol please provide it and we can discus adding the denial.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well-referenced? From where? I only see one citation and it's just some book by some guy with a lot of bad reviews for being biased. I can't find a single image of the Church of Satan using the Sonnenrad anywhere online. Somebody simply saying that something happened isn't proof, even if they put it in text. 7:48, 28 February 2021 (EST)

We do not say the church of satan does, we say satanism. But I can see the confusion, as we mention them in connection with other Nazi symbols.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the logo of the recently formed neo-Nazi group Antipodean Resistance is very relevant to the text. The group is not mentioned in the article at all, and the only source for the logo is the group's own website, rather than any reliable, secondary source. As such, the use of the image is unduly weighted and seems purely decorative. The logo itself, presented as it is with no context, doesn't illustrate how it might be used; all it does is increase the visibility of the group using it, which is a form of promotion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an rganizationthat uses the symbol as part of their logo, so it's clearly relevant. Adding a mention of it to the text is a trvial matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-sequitur; should we include the logo of every organization that uses a symbol in their official propaganda? Wikipedia's purpose isn't to serve as free advertising for neo-Nazi groups. If there are reliable, secondary sources discussing AR's use of the symbol, I haven't seen them, so what would we even add to the text? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly we should, in which case a gallery would be best for presentation. The bottom line is that the use the symbol is put to is quite obviously a subject that the article should deal with, in order to be as complete as possible. This same argument was made regarding Dragon's Eye (symbol) and its use by Identity Evropa, and it was not successful there either. We have an obligation to present facts to our readers, whether or not we like or agree with them, and the use of the Black Sun by AR is a fact.
if you want to add other such uses, that's fine, I think it would improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as independent, reliable sources exist for a given piece of info (thank you for adding one here), then that info may be suitable for inclusion. However, Wikipedia is not just an indiscriminate collection of facts. To be "complete", Wikipedia would have to reproduce the entire Internet and every book, film, album, speech, etc. ever published, which is obviously neither practical nor desirable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, since we don't have a gallery of various uses of the symbol, whether by neo-Nazis or otherwise, presenting this one image as representative of modern usage still unbalances the article as a whole. Should 1/3 of the images about a symbol with centuries of history (including use in Old Norse and Celtic art) really be represented by a group that didn't exist before 2016? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I believe it may be the only use of the symbol by neo-Nazis for which we have an image available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes your comment about me adding others look like a taunt. Be careful there, please. In any case, a lack of other images doesn't make this image suitable by default; we don't have an image quota. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, no taunt intended. I didn't realize that we didn't have any other uses of the symbol available until after I made the comment and went looking, with the idea of perhaps creating a gallery. Please [[WP:AGF)). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. But I still think the image is given disproportionate emphasis here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake as well. For some reason I neglected to look at the Commons category, where I found the logo for the Azov Battalion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS Noticeboard

The reliability of the ADL and SPLC’s claims about the history and name of this symbol is the topic of a thread at Wikipedia’s reliable sources notice board ([1]. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your notification of the editors on this talk page of the report you opened at RSN. I'm sure if any of them have any thoughts they will go there and present them, and if there is anything amiss about your presentation of the facts as you see them, they will present the corrected information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. I’ll be glad to correct the article once discussion concludes, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schlegelmilch 2018

This source seems to have a lot to say about the symbolism of the Schwarze Sonne ('black sun'), but it's a bit much for me to go through sentence-by-sentence with a machine translator. I'm parking it here in case anyone fluent in German feels like summarizing it for the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images that demonstrate contemporary use by neo-fascist groups

File:Antipodean Resistance Logo.png
Logo of the Australian neo-Nazi group Antipodean Resistance
Logo of the Azov Battalion

Why do these keep getting removed? No real explanation has been given other than one editor not liking it. They seem to me to be useful, self evident examples of its use by neo-fascists/neo-Nazis - I can't see how they could possibly be seen as undue. This kind of example is a great way to inform readers as to how it is used by such groups. Its use by fascists is the reason I first came to this page, I saw a member of Antipodean Resistance at a Cosmic Psychos gig wearing one, he was confronted and removed from the venue as a result - I wondered what this strange esoteric Nazi symbol actually meant, so I came here. I think its safe to say most people will encounter it for the first time via neo-Nazi groups, why not give an example or two of its use by them. Bacondrum (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include things because they're "self-evident", but because they've been commented on by published sources. When including the logo of a specific group, we have to be wary that we don't simply end up promoting said group. The use of the symbol by both of these groups (but not these specific images of the symbols) have been given at least a passing mention by reliable sources, so I'm fine with keeping them. Nonetheless it would be ideal to more thoroughly contextualize the images themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC) (edited 20:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC); see comment below)[reply]
Hi Sangdeboeuf, thanks for the explanation. I don't think publishing them as described in accompanying text; "associated with Nazi occult circles...used by neo-Nazi, neo-völkisch, and white nationalist groups...Australian neo-Nazi group...widely associated with neo-fascism and neo-Nazism...used on the cover of the Christchurch mosque shooter's manifesto...engraved on the guns used in the attack" promotes the groups or presents them in anything but a negative light. We shouldn't censor Wikipedia based on the very slight risk that some minute number of sad boneheads think Nazi's are cool, at least I don't think so. Isn't the context the use of this articles subject by contemporary neo-Nazi groups? Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a useful demonstration of the symbols contemporary usage, but I also think extreme caution is called for here. Anecdotally, I can think of at least one sock puppet who has methodically tweaked and inflated various Nazi symbols on relevant pages and templates to make them more prominent. This editor knew how to use wiki-jargon and sources to make it appear neutral, also. From that and other incidents, I don't think the risk is as minute as a reasonable person might think it is. After all, looking cool and being edgy is kind of all these boneheads can aspire to, so we need to make sure we're not added to that without a very good reason. Every image needs a very good reason, and plenty of context. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never would have thunk it...I guess it never occurred to me that there really are some sad people out there that think this stuff is cool, I'm used to them hiding, lurking in the shadows, in chat rooms and behind esoteric symbols etc. Bacondrum (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it may be similar to the way some used the Confederate flag as late as the 80's as a symbol of rebellion (and that alone) without really getting the historical connotations. So I think we should only use symbols that have been linked by RS to the black sun explicitly. We are dealing with a BLP, so they must also be pretty top draw sources.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've noticed since the ABC Religion and Ethics source was added that it only gives a verbal description of the Antipodean Resistance logo. We can only infer that it's the same as the above image, which incidentally comes from the group's own website, which is not an independent RS (and is now apparently defunct as well). Ditto for the Azov Battalion, although at least there's a different image in an independent source that seems to match. Frankly, I think the article would be fine if we omitted these images. They are useful more as propaganda for making the groups in question seem "cool" and "edgy", as Grayfell said, than to explain how the symbol itself fits into the ideology and aims of neo-Nazi movements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bacondrum: by "context", I mean what the symbol signifies for the groups in question, how it's used as a recruitment tool, etc., according to reliable sources. Actually, your anecdote about the AR member wearing the logo in public would be just the sort of context we could use (if it came from a published source). It also suggests that some people think neo-Nazi symbols are "cool", doesn't it? Why else would this person have deliberately advertised his membership at a punk show? That's where the cool kids are likely to be, I'm told. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, thanks for the thorough explanation. The last thing I would want to do is help promote these vile groups. Indeed, I've noticed Nazi's attending gigs and using more obscure nazi symbols in their attempts to recruit...years ago they essentially took over a live music venue where I grew up by kind of infiltrating the punk and metal scene. It definitely seems to be a tactic. Our own Nazi exposing legend Andy Flemming (an alias) has documented such tactic at his blog https://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=22224 - I know its self published, and not really a RS as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it is a thorough and accurate documentation of neo-fascists here in Australia. Worth a read. [2] Bacondrum (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The images are somewhat useful, but removing them was probably the right call. There is a cottage industry of people making and selling these images as patches, flags, etc. and I suspect they are using Wikimedia Commons as a resource. Thinking about it further, these images are useful to neo-Nazis specifically because they walk the line between known and obscure. They want these things to be recognized, but still rare enough to be shocking. Using them them on a Wikipedia page fits their purposes, but we should still inform people who need to know what they are looking at.
I find it mildly reassuring how insulated these bands are. It is such a crap genre that nobody else wants to play with them. Unfortunately it's still a tactic, for sure, but there is a healthy backlash. "Sonnenrad" is, of course, the name of at least one NSBM band, although one that's obscure enough that it doesn't have an article. Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can of course still see the images at the groups' respective Wikipedia articles, where it's much easier to place them in their full context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sangdeboeuf thanks, I'll be more mindful of the fact that there are some sad, misled people out there that actually think this vile stuff is cool. I always assume this stuff will repulse people, as it does me. Grayfell I find it so strange that Nazis want to make art and music, that requires a lot of thought and effort...I would have thought being creative was too much work for the average bonehead...I guess that's why their music is so crap. Bacondrum (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satanism section

The Satanism section seems to be getting a fair amount of attention, and probably places too much emphasis on a single source. Should we reduce this section down to a sentence or something? If so, where in the body would it go? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs that giant quote, but one paragraph can be sourced to a single scholar, that's not an issue necessarily. I reckon the size can be reduced, simply mentioning that it is used by satanists on occasion and how/why would suffice. The section that bothers me is Shakira, a pendant sold at a pop concert that a few people didn't like because it unintentionally resembled a fascist symbol is undue/cruft, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Shakira thing is notable, in that it received some media attention, a rare occurence for the symbol. It'd receive mention in, say, a study on the transmission and use of the symbol, if only briefly.
The reduced section on Satanism looks good, btw. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think it reads better now. I disagree about Shakira, a pop star selling a pendant that just happens to look like an obscure nazi symbol is cruft, IMO...but I could be convinced otherwise. Bacondrum (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of neo-Nazi groups

I added logos of neo-Nazi groups that use the black sun in their logos, and an editor deleted them as "cruft." I'd like that editor to explain here how those symbols are any more cruft that the SS runes above. I'd rather do this informally. but I'll start an RfC if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been had above [3]. I suggest you self revert, an ANI report has been started. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a year atgo six weeks ago, and WP:Consensus can change. The new edits require a new discussion. If this informal discussion cannot come to a new consensus, or valid the old one, then an RfC will do the trick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion and consensus was from April this year, no further discussion on the subject has been had. Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That;s what this is here, a further discussion.
BTW, in case glorification is an issue -- and I think many of the people here know that I am dead set against glorfying Nazis, fascists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, etc. -- I've reduced the size of the images significantly, to the point that one can see the Back Suns in the background. Any smaller and they'd be useless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you make changes against consensus, then start a discussion and claim consensus can change? If that's not disruptive I don't know what is. Bacondrum (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a WP:BOLD edit. what of it? We're encouraged to be bold -- and, frankly I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. I came to the article after a while away from it, and noticed that these things, which I deemed to be important, were missing, so I restored them.
BTW, it's been pointed out to me that the previous discussion was 6 weeks ago, not last year, so I've changed that in my previous comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And your bold edit was reverted, so you admit to edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdeboeuf Grayfell Slatersteven I feel like we recently had a thorough and civil discussion about this and reached a consensus to remove. Care to share your thoughts on the subject with BMK? Bacondrum (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Bacondrum, what is your opinion - since you began the above discussion complaining about the logos being removed, and now you are adamant about removing them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take the time to read the discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's a brand new discussion right here, which, if you continue to dodge it, will be an RfC soon enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above discussion. I oppose there inclusion as per above discussion. Stop making obnoxious threats, if you want to make it an RFC there's nothing stopping you. Bacondrum (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the logos of neo-Nazi groups which use the Black Sun symbol be shown in the article?

Should the logos of those neo-Nazi groups which integrate the Black Sun symbol be used in the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey and discussion

Here are the logos and the size I suggest they be presented at:
File:Antipodean Resistance Logo.png
Logo of the Australian neo-Nazi group Antipodean Resistance
Logo of the Azov Battalion
  • To be honest, at one time in the past I was considering a gallery, but we just don't have any other logos to put in one. In any case, it's not like the two images are likely to grow into a gallery if they're overfed or something. As to your first point, I'm generally opposed to forcing our readers to go elsewhere to get information when we can easily present it where the reader is, in this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yesm you are in favor of censoring it from this article, which is the only issue here, not whether it appears in some article or on Commons. It's also available on the INternet - that's nothing to do with us and this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 On Wikipedia, the general concept is that concepts should not be censored, and that media which illustrates such concepts should likewise not be censored, if it has encyclopedic value. Determining whether something has encyclopedic value is subjective and debated....

Zezen (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson seems to mention it

The Arch-absurd: According to the assertion of Beelzebub, our Sun neither lights or heats...


https://gurdjieff-heritage-society.org/beelzebub/chapter-xvii-the-arch-absurd-according-to-the-assertion-of-beelzebub-our-sun-neither-lights-nor-heats/

Hm? Zezen (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The black sun is an alchemical symbol and a neo-pagan symbol more generally -- I'm not sure that the Nazi symbol should be called "black sun" but rather I think it should be named "Nazi Black Sun". Their version is very specific. Not all black sun motifs are Nazi. StarTigerJLN (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a published, reliable source for this. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a strong consensus against the proposed target, since "Nazi" is not part of the name, and no consensus whether it should be moved to Black Sun (Nazi symbol), default to remaining at the current location. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Black Sun (symbol) → Nazi Black Sun (symbol) – Nazi Black Sun is more appropriate name; the "black sun" is a common Jungian and neo-pagan symbol not directly associated with Nazis and the Nazi symbol is very specific and does not look like the general black sun symbol in alchemy and neo-paganism. The current location is very unfair to alchemists and neo-pagans, who are not generally Nazi. header = Rename this? StarTigerJLN (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 21 March 2021

Black Sun (symbol) → Black Sun (Nazi symbol) – Following up on the above discussion. There was no consensus for this more specific title. But just regarding symbols, I'm not sure we have a primary topic (that is, the present title insufficiently disambiguates) between this and Sol niger, the alchemical symbol also called "black sun". The latter certainly has had more enduring notability. Although it's debatable whether the Sol niger is more a metaphor than a symbol per se. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) edited 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users StarTigerJLN, Slatersteven, Necrothesp, Beyond My Ken, Rreagan007, and Bloodofox from the earlier discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might note from the fact that Sonnenrad is a disambiguation page, that "Sonnenrad" ("sun gear") does not necessarily refer to a specific symbol, but more to a number of related symbols. If you're suggesting that this article should be moved to "Sonnenrad" (1) It's not clear at all that this particular symbol is the proper primary target for that word, (2) It would be a mistake to move it to a term as ambiguous as "Sonnenrad" appears to be, and (3) I don't think "Sonnenrad" passes the WP:COMMONNAME test. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Nazi symbol used by neo-Nazis would still be a Nazi symbol -- the swastika doesn't become a "neo-Nazi symbol" because they use it. As for "fascist", I don;t thin any non-Nazis or non-neo-Nazis use it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's notability comes from its current use not it's historic use, 'fascist' is probably best as it doesn't tie it to the historic party—blindlynx (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That topic doesn't even have its own article and there is already a hatnote at the top of this article that takes care of that. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories