Finland[edit]

Finland had a notorious neo-Nazi leader Pekka Siitoin (1944-2003). He started as an ardent anticommunist who organized terror campaign against pro-communist media. In 1976 one of his followers burned communist printing house. Siitoin was jailed. After his release from prison in 1982, he demanded overthrow of goverment and forming a new regime based on fascism. He did get much media coverage. Si, he ended up calling himself the Fuehrer of Finland. He used swastika flag as his symbol and promoted nazism. He received lot of media coverage in the 1990s. However, he was out of date. He continued his neo-Nazism until his death (2003).

Source: Iiro Nordling; Long Shadow of Finland’s Fuehrer: Life and legacy of the notorious Finnish occult neo-Nazi Pekka Siitoin. Amazon 2021. ISBN ‎979-8546175634.

"Trads" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Trads has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 16 § Trads until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 TT me 11:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian neo-Nazis in Ukraine[edit]

@Pizzigs: You removed sourced text about Russian neo-Nazis among the Donbas separatists twice. According to WP:BRD, you should rather take it to this talk page after seeing that other editors (in this case: I) disagree. Since the Donbas is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, and since the groups are described as neo-Nazi, I don't see why they shouldn't belong here. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do the German Nazis invading other countries belong to articles describing Nazism in those countries? Does it make them French, Czech, Polish or Soviet Nazis? Pizzigs (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the text violated both WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION by highlighting certain views and withholding information about political repercussions of the organizations' activities. Pizzigs (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about Russians who have moved into the Donbas recently or rather Russian-speaking Ukrainians among the Donbas separatists? I understand that there may be some category slippage here, especially as some folks may have changed their citizenship legally or hold dual citizenship, but the distinction really does matter. And perhaps more to the point: how do reliable sources describe these groups? As Russians or as "separatists"? If they're separatists I'd argue that makes them Ukrainian. When a conflict like this is all about denying the existence of a national group, in this case Ukraine, these difficulties are both thorny and inevitable. Let's make sure to resolve this one amicably here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles such as this one refer to Russian nationals who traveled to Ukraine, and groups like the Russian Imperial Movement and Rusich are clearly based in Russia and made up of primarily Russian volunteers, although the latter is not relevant. Even if there are some Ukrainian collaborators and separatists serving in their ranks, these groups should be transferred to the Russian section. Additionally, I believe WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION issues need to be addressed, especially the excessive use of Likhachev's investigation which is cited six times in this article. Pizzigs (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the nationality of the neo-Nazis we're discussing wouldn't be relevant for a section that's organized by nationality. Certainly there's no prohibition on mentioning groups like RIM and Rusich in both the Ukraine and Russia subsections. Or have I misunderstood your point? If so, would you mind rephrasing it?
Regarding the Likhachev piece, which is from 2016, I agree that we shouldn't be relying on it excessively. But looking over the text it doesn't appear that we currently do. Of the six times it's cited, only twice is it the sole source. If it lines up with what other reliable sources are saying, that speaks in favor of it being WP:DUE.
Above all, I think we should be looking for more recent sources, especially to support sentences written in the present tense. So much has been in flux since last year's invasion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few examples of the kind of sources I'm talking about:
  1. Rita Katz, "Neo-Nazis are exploiting Russia’s war in Ukraine for their own purposes," The Washington Post (14 March 2022)
  2. Robert Farley, "The Facts on ‘De-Nazifying’ Ukraine," FactCheck.org (31 March 2022)
  3. Charlie Smart, "How the Russian Media Spread False Claims About Ukrainian Nazis, The New York Times (2 July 2022)
  4. Mark Townsend, "Pro-Kremlin neo-Nazi militia inciting the torture and murder of Ukrainian prisoners," The Guardian (2 October 2022)
Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these articles addresses the issue in question. The first one (WaPo) in fact describes the influx of Western neo-Nazis to Ukraine to fight against Russia. The second one (NYT) disproves Russia's claims of widespread neo-Nazism in Ukraine; however, again, the pro-Russian neo-Nazis aren't mentioned. The third one (Guardian) mentions pro-Russian neo-Nazis in Ukraine, specifically the Rusich group, but without specifying their nationality or country of birth.
  • Sections are organized by nationality, which is why Russian neo-Nazi groups fighting in Ukraine should be moved to the Russian section. I don't understand why it is even controversial. Pizzigs (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are the type of articles we should be using to determine what is WP:DUE to include in the section. Believe it or not I am not arguing against you. I'm seeking to collaborate with you to find the appropriate way to discuss present-day neo-Nazism in the Russia and Ukraine subsections. But if you don't understand why it was controversial for you to completely remove discussion of groups comprised of both Russians and Ukrainians from the Ukraine subsection, I suggest that you re-read the above. This is how Wikipedia works. Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Neo-Nazism[edit]

Don't a significant number of neo-nazis oppose christianity since it's from the same branch of religion as judaism and islam? Firekong1 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firekong1: Yes, there are many prominent anti-Christian nazi groups such as Asatru Folk Assembly, Atomwaffen Division and Order of Nine Angles to mention a few. What sort of change do you have in mind?RKT7789 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added that neo-nazis opposes christianity alongside judaism and islam, but the edit was removed without much of an explanation for why. Firekong1 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should add sources, Google Books and other articles might be a good place to start.RKT7789 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will. But I don't want to seem like I'm starting an edit war if anyone misunderstands. Firekong1 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLinuz: Quite a few neo nazis oppose christianity, so I'll re-add it with sources. Firekong1 (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many neo-Nazis oppose Christianity, but then again many neo-Nazis are also Christians. Nazism has always had a complex relationship with Christianity, so I wouldn't necessarily say being Anti-Christian is an integral part of Nazism. But its definitely a possible feature, so maybe a section on Neo-Nazis and religion could be made, rather than add it to the lead. Illustrative case is Ukraine, where both pagan (Ratibor, Svarozhich Battalion) and Christian (Russian Imperial Movement) Nazis fight side by side.RKT7789 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, but I feel like we should mention it in the heading with some nuance, as it is a complex issue. Firekong1 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEAD, the introduction section of any article should consist primarily (in larger articles, only) of summaries of significant body content sections. So before anything goes in the lead, the body section needs to be written first.
Firekong1, I'm worried that your starting point appears to be an unsupported assertion. You need to be very careful to avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING sources to support that view; you will need to collect a body of evidence to achieve an NPOV analysis – before you add anything. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My essential point is that (a) a new section in the body is required before its summary can go in the lead; (b) that section has to be supported by RSs, avoiding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as well as cherry picking. There are some semantic traps on the way: racism is fairly easy to demonstrate, fascism is more difficult and Nazism quite a bit more. And it can't be a WP editor's judgement, it must be an RS that does so. Finally you have to pass the WP:DUE test: some of these groups are tiny but make a lot of noise – would anybody notice if they disappeared?
It can be done but it won't be easy. Good luck! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RKT7789:, there is nothing in the AFA or AD articles to suggest that they are anti-Christian? And nothing at the AFA article that calls it neo-Nazi? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not aware of anti-Christianity being a significant factor in the neo-Nazi movement. Indeed, the relationship between the original Nazis and Christianity was complex and fraught on both sides (the same with Nazism and capitalism, which is why they cannot be unilaterally described as "anti-capitalistic"). There's no reason that neo-Nazis have to necessarily follow what the Nazis did, but in this case, anyway, there's not a clear path for them to follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: AFA page clearly states "In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center added the AFA to its list of hate groups as part of a new category called "neo-Völkisch".[19]" and AD page details their adherence to neo-nazi satanism extensively.RKT7789 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it does not say that they are "anti-Christian". If I am Jewish, I am not a Muslim, but that doesn't necessarily make me "anti-Islam". A Satanist is not a Christian, but that doesn't make them "anti-Christian", which would have to be an active stance of opposition, not simply denial of belief or adherence to a different creed. And "neo-Völkisch" even more so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RKT7789: BTW, you cannot retroactively add a ping to a comment, it has to be there in the original. To do what you wanted to achieve, you would need to add the ping to the comment, copy the ping + comment, then delete both from the page and save. Then, re-post the ping + comment and save. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: RKT7789 wants to draw your attention to their last comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it doesn't say that on their page, but they do post anti-christian stuff on their social media. And yes I understand me saying that is not really ironclad proof. Them being neo-Völkish isn't proof of them being anti-christian but them being neo-nazi which they clearly are. They don't accept non-white members.RKT7789 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultra-Nationalism" is not a part of Nazism?[edit]

I was browsing the article and came across the line "they frequently adhere to Polish nationalism and National Democracy, in which Nazism is generally considered to be against ultra-nationalist principles, and although they are classed as nationalist and fascist movements, they are at the same time considered anti-Nazi." In the Poland section of the article and was confused since multiple times in the article it clearly labels ultra-nationalism as a prominent feature of Neo-Nazism. Doesn't seem quite correct that Poland is unique in it's usage of far-right ultra-nationalism. I get that there are the issues of that the Polish groups *sometimes* renounce certain aspects of Nazism, but that hardly makes a group not Neo-Nazi or even Anti-Nazi, especially considering that it is against Polish Law and anything they say to separate themselves from Nazism is likely so that their group or party isn't disbanded and isn't based on true ideological motive. Otherwise you could use this line of thinking for many of the subsections of the articles as many Neo-Nazi groups have separated themselves from traditional Nazism to deflect blame or responsibility. The only time that you could maybe consider the Polish ultra-nationalism movements truly Anti-Nazi was probably during the Resistance movements, and even then many eventually found themselves siding with the Nazis. Regardless, just seems like an odd sentence as Neo-Nazism isn't actually opposed to ultra-nationalism, even by the own article's admission. 2600:8801:BE28:E100:9DAF:C0BB:AAE1:5CF (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail picture[edit]

The thumbnail picture for neo-nazism is a picture of gore. Is that intentional? Apologies if this has already been discussed, I didn't find anything regarding this when I looked, but am also quite new. Oxturn (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not intentional. Some nasty vandalism somewhere. I will ask for it to be investigated. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Teahouse advises that "a template was vandalized. The vandalism has been reverted and no longer shows in the article but the preview uses caching and takes time to automatically update." --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories