This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I hope, the outline of the structure I intend for this article has become obvious. From a historic point of view I would prefer to speak only of The Occult Elements within Nazism. With the Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism, the term Nazi occultism, however, can be justified. There are four elements of Nazi occultism that I know of: Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs, the Thule SS and the origins of the NSDAP, Himmler and the SS and, yet to be added, Rosenbergs Myth of the 20th century. I hope that I will find the time to improve this article to a point where it is on the level of Goodrick-Clarke's study. The next thing I will do is search some reference for the Holy Grail part. Please give me some time with that, I just have to skip through the literature again. Also, you will see that I strongly prefer the term "Ariosophy" to "Germanic mysticism". I agree, that "Ariosophy" and "Nazi occultism" should be treated in different articles, but we probably have to discuss this point. (btw: I apologize for any grammar errors, spelling should be mostly correct thanks to spell-checking software.) -Zara1709 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry for the rather extensive use of quotes. I have moved the ones by Goodrick-Clarke into the text, but I see no way a.t.m. how I can do the same with the quotes by Gardell. And I think all those quotes are necessary to avoid the impression that this section would be original research. If you know any other author that mentions this problem at all, please let me know. -Zara1709 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to check the Manual of Style on this, and I found no reason, why the popular culture part can't be mentioned at the beginning. And I think I have a good reason to mention Indiana Jones and other popular culture references with two sentences at the top of the article. Otherwise a reader will stumble across the mentioning of the Holy Grail after 1/3 of the article. And when I first heard that there was a Nazi connection with the Holy Grail I was inclined to disbelieve that, since I previously only had heard about something like that in a movie. Since this whole topic is rather obscure, this obscurity should be mentioned early, and this was the best idea I had on how this could be done. "popular culture trivia" are not mentioned in the introduction, because they are equally important, but because they are the only thing that most readers are likely to have heard of.-Zara1709 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler ordered the location and rescue of Il Duce (Mussolini) by any means necessary. This was done through the power of the pendulum as revealed in Peter Levenda's Unholy Alliance:
I am also about to remove two external links that are defunct. Instead of using the link to the google cache, [1] , I linked directly to the page in the references section. -Zara1709 05:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Otto Rahn is a major figure in "nazi-occult" literature and speculation and should be included in the article for completeness. He is commonly portrayed as an inspiration to Indiana Jones as an "adventurer of the Grail." Rahn's collaborations and ideological assignments from Himmler demonstrate the heretical-dualist, "ario-Christian" (they considered Jesus as some sort of Hyperborean god-king with divine extraterrestrial/alien blood) and Grail obsessions of certain sectors of the Third Reich.
http://www.geocities.com/countermedia/Otto.html
http://www.maryjones.us/jce/rahn.html
http://tracyrtwyman.com/blog/?page_id=52
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/Speech%20by%20Otto%20Rahn%20SS%20in%201938.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"They Nazis" Just isn't proper English. ; ) --Taken By Robots 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
NB:Statements not supported by sourcing can be deleted at any time. Kwork 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Please re-include the material on Serrano's reliance on the Book of Enoch for the sin of cosmic miscegenation and the origin of the Hyperboreal-Aryans (and the material on the Hyperborean Tuatha de Danann), as these sources are highly relevant and document the weird, occult (alleged) substantiations of certain Nazi beliefs. Cf.
Who are the Ufonauts? (Book of Enoch)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/nephilim.htm
http://www.echoesofenoch.com/meetthenordics.htm
"[The Book of Enoch the Prophet translated by Richard Laurence...makes it clear that the Fallen Angels...were giant white men..."
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html
1After a time, my son Mathusala took a wife for his son Lamech.
2She became pregnant by him, and brought forth a child [i.e. Noah], the flesh of which was as white as snow, and red as a rose; the hair of whose head was white like wool, and long; and whose eyes were beautiful.
3And when he was taken from the hand of the midwife, Lamech his father became afraid of him; and flying away came to his own father Mathusala, and said, I have begotten a son, unlike to other children. He is not human; but, resembling the offspring of the angels of heaven, is of a different nature from ours, being altogether unlike to us.
--Thanks for the patient fair-mindedness (atypical for Wikipedia). In fact, if you study the strange phenomenon of Nazi mysticism, the Book of Enoch is widely cited by these types in their mystico-racial theories and the Enoch stuff isn't limited to Serrano in the Aryanist and Neo-Nazi underground, as the links show (even the Nation of Islam believes in similar derivation for whites--i.e. promethean/luciferian fallen angels). There is some sort of history behind the Enoch references, which is why I thought it should be highlighted in understanding their worldview.
If the Enoch stuff could be put in a footnote or relocated, that is acceptable, as this specific ancient source truly does form a 'secret thread' in the neo-Nazi and/or Aryanist underground and is key to understanding their ideological self-understanding. I trust you will tweak the article fittingly in whatever way seems best. Good day, fellow-explorer of Lovecraftian weirdness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.135.142 (talk) 01:16:57, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Julius Evola, a similar radical-right "mythologist of Hyperborea" also relies on the Book of Enoch and its theme of the Nephilim (in The Hermetic Tradition and Revolt Against the Modern World) for his concept of (racially-based) "divine elitism". Evola was not a strict Nazi philosophically, but tried to steer the Nazi-Fascist movements according to his own obscure ideology; nevertheless, Evola probably should be included in the article in some way, as he is one of the main "hot tips" in the neo-Nazi underground and interlocks with the rest... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 02:51:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
I suspect this to be uncontroversial, but I still like to discuss it first. The developments after '45 are different enough so that they should be debated in a separate article. Especially there seems to be know modern occult mythology for them. Of course, the material currently present in that section could also be use to improve other articles, but I think Serrana, Devi, etc. need to be linked from a page that gives an overview about them as esotericists, just like this article gives an overview about Himmler and Darré as occultists (and needs to be expanded to include Rosenberg, Hess and probably some more Nazis that held occult views). With a separate article for Esoteric Nazism we would also not have to worry about adding to much details, at least at first. I think the term 'Esoteric Nazism' is the most appropriate following Goodrick-Clarke's "Black Sun", but if you have any other suggestions, please bring them in. Zara1709 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, since there aren't any good relaible sources for the connection between Occultism, Esoteric Nazism and Black Metal, I am back at this topic. Zara1709 12:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Branwell's book, although not about occult elements in general, has quite a few remarks on that. I have to bring it back to the library and I'm really in a hurry, but if anyone is interested, these are pages I marked: 60, 108, 117, 130, 133, 134, 175, 178, 189. (I'd also like to use this as note to myself, if I can get the time to read the book a second time.) Zara1709 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article still misses some import historic material that can be added from Goodrick-Clarke 1985. I think that I can find the time to add that, but meanwhile I would like to suggest to split of the Esotericism in Nazi Germany- section. The question if Nazism was an 'occult thing' and if Esotericism was suppressed in Nazi Germany are obviously different. There currently isn't enought material to justify an own article: Esotericism in Nazi Germany, and I don't think that it is likely that this material can be gathered. My idea whoud be to create an article Esotercism in Germany and Austria, and debate all the developments of esotericism in Germany a nd Austria since ca. 1880 there. I would then add a section on the German occult revival 1890-1920 based on Chapter 2 from Goodrick-Clarke 1985 to that article. But I think this needs to be discussed first. Zara1709 13:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently I am in a heavy discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the term "Okkulter Nationalsozialismus"/"Nazi occultism" is appropriate, see de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung. This brought me to the conclusion that the occult part should be toned down even further in the English article. Naturally I started with the lead. Zara1709 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the very first sentence that labels occult influences on Nazism as being "of minor overall importance" - this is not in agreement with the article on the Thule Society. According to that article:
Additionally:
Based on this, the occult Thule Society was the parent body of the Nazi Party, making it of substantially more than "minor overall importance." Thule occultists forged a Nazi political movement into a coherent group, are we to assume they had only minor impact on its doctrine and temperment during its creation at their hands? I would suggest greater emphasis be placed on the role of mysticism in the genesis of Nazism. Kholtyn 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This sentence: "Some other historians would prefer to deal with this topic under the term Political religion, a concept elaborated by Eric Voegelin." This is just wrong. Voegelin, Gentile, Griffin, etc. use the term "Political religion" NOT to describe the intersection of politics and religion in ideologies such as Nazism, but to describe the "Sacralization of politics" (Gentile) in which a political entity is given sacred status (such as The Nation or The Volk) and thus politics has seen the stakes raised to a cosmological struggle between good and evil, with no room for compromise. This can be related to but is not the same as Nazi or Neonazi use of religious or religious symbols or tropes. --Cberlet (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I had already previously mentioned my intention to rename the article. The modern myth of Nazi occultism clearly is notable as such, but we should really keep fact and fiction seperate. For convienience I would like to rename the article first and splitt of the part about Nazi occultism afterwards. If there are no objections concerning the new page title (which I hope), we still have to debate I it wouldn't be more appropriate to only speak of the "Myth of Nazi occultism". But since we are dealing with a (modern) myth here I would consider the later term more fitting. Zara1709 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, Zara. I'm not exactly sure what the value is of the bracketed comment inserted into the Joscelyn Godwin quote. Although Godwin is speaking about Thule in particular, I think his point is that Hitler saw no value in paganism generally — whether Ariosophical or any other sort.
By the way, you might be interested to know that the Thulist origin of the Nazi swastika is in doubt. The Bavarian DAP may have copied the Austrian DAP (or DNSAP) which seems to have used it first. (We don't even know for sure exactly which month the Bavarian DAP was renamed to NSDAP.) It's all very unclear but I had a most interesting discussion about this at Talk:Nazism. Gnostrat (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I really think this new material should at the very least have been posted on this talk page for in-depth discussion before being inserted into the article because on the face of it, the claims are sensationalist and unlike anything to be found in generally reliable sources. Extraordinary propositions about Nazi "solar religion" require at least a few mainstream historians to back them up. What we have are:
So, what exactly does this amount to that isn't irrelevant or that we didn't already know? The Nazis were impressive with ceremonial but it didn't constitute a "religion". It was political spectacle and didn't make the participants any less Christian. If this section isn't largely a copyright violation, then it's a synthesis (interweaving sources to arrive at a novel conclusion), which violates WP:No original research. At the same time, there is something in what it says about dismissive attitudes towards Wotanism, so I'm prepared to accept that there may be short sections which could be salvaged and integrated into other parts of the article. Gnostrat (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
So, I finally sorted this out. At least halfway, there is still some rewriting necessary and the links to this article need to be looked through (some would need to be changed to link Religious aspects of Nazism instead). Zara1709 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article. I feel it doesn't try to look at the sources dispassionately. Also, much of it reads like original research. Scrawlspacer (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
However much time you've spent on the article, Zara, I'm afraid Scrawlspacer has a point. Far from looking at sources dispassionationately, the article as it stands presents Goodricke-Clarke's views as true beyond question, and dismisses nearly everything else written on this topic as unworthy of serious consideration. The article does mention, though, that Goodricke-Clarke himself considers Urania's children by Ellic Howe and The Occult Establishment by James Webb to be "serious works". And yet the article as it stands tells its readers nothing about the content of those "serious works". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Flat Earth article. As that article itself shows, on the question of roundness versus flatness of the earth, there is an overwhelming consensus of educated opinion since ancient Greek times. In other words, a lot of people have written serious stuff about that question, and overwhelmingly came to the same conclusion.... If only Goodrick-Clarke and Gardell have looked seriously at the question of alleged influence of occultism on Nazism, then the question is hardly settled in the same sense as the flat earth/round earth question... Please understand, I am not saying Goodrick-Clarke's POV is wrong. He may well be right about everything, as you seem to think... but do YOU think he might be right when he says that the works of Ellic Howe and James Webb qualify as "serious"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't have much time when I performed the split of the article, and there are a few things that I should add. Gnostrat, you have some point when you ask: "Whether senses (1) and (2) need to be separated is another matter. It's actually not going to be easy to write an article about historical occult involvements (or the absence of them) in the NSDAP without dealing with the modern myths at the same time." Reading Goodrick-Clarke's Black Sun again, I finally figured out what to make of the reference to Erich Halik, Mensch und Schicksal 6 in the section about the SS that is now in the other article. Erich Halik is the guy who invented the Nazi UFOs! In exactly that journal Mensch und Schicksal (roughly: men and fate), between 1951 and '55. (check: Black Sun, p. 130,131, 155). So not a reliable source. Neither is the statement by Rudolf J. Mund that is mentioned ion the book by Strohm. There were some general occult and neopagan activities within the SS, notably supported by Himmler himself, but generally the SS didn't care that much about the topic. Only the SS-members who later turned occultist, the Landig group (Vienna Circle (esoteric) should be renamed), pushed this up to a whole religion. Still, there is enough material there to probably fill an article: Heinrich Himmler's religious beliefs. So I need to admit that these topics Nazi occultism vs Religious aspects of Nazism are difficult to disentangle. But I think it can be done. What actually convinced me was the popular culture info that had been added by anom. editors. I really think that this information is useful, but it doesn't really belong into an article that tries to be on an academic level (not that I can bring the article there any time soon). So before another editor would remove those passages again, I performed the split. So, just let me say this. This IS a popular culture topic. Stuff like Indiana Jones is fully appropriate, although this has to be counterbalanced with the critique of Gardell and Goodrick-Clarke, who point out that this has nothing to do with the reality of Nazism, then. Zara1709 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article. I feel it doesn't try to look at the sources dispassionately. Also, much of it reads like original research.
— Scrawlspacer, 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I was wandering over to this talk page to make the very same observation (7 months later). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
>serious concerns of policy noncompliance.
As a non-wikipedian, I can tell you, this is all that's wrong with wikipedia. You're bureaucrats. I've seen so many bad articles propped up with arcane policy, and so many great ones hamstringed by a beanpusher. I've stopped contributing, because I know however well researched my contribution is, it's likely to be removed by some bureaucrat with an axe to grind, and policy sufficiently boring and complex to suffice as justification. I'm sure I'm one of many. Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, but using regulations as a weapon is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.113.164 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The so-called "deficiencies" noted by other editors above are simply the result of a misunderstanding. The article is accused of not trying "to look at the sources dispassionately". What people apparently fail to understand is that this is not an article about Nazism, but about pseudo-historic theories about Nazism. You should be able to understand that Wikipedia:Reliable sources values academic sources the highest. If academic sources say that the original authers that invented these theories are crypto-historic occultists, then the article has to describe the topic as crypto-historic occultism. Of course, we could discuss concerns about original research, if necessary. But that would require that people actually specify which statements they consider to be original research. I take such issues serious - why do you think I have a reference for almost every sentence. You're not even attempting a serious discussion currently. I can't react with anything but sarcasm to the attempts to bash this article, when you don't specify your concerns. All I understand from what you're writing is that your central objection appears to be: I don't like it.
Anyway, I have a justified reason to assume that I am an expert on the topic, since I read all the academic overviews about it that i could gather. A whole list of the academic literature that relates to this topic can be found in the "Excursus" about Nazism and Occultism in Michael Rißmann, Hitler's Gott (in German), pp. 137-172. But concerning Nazi occultism, Rißmann especially highlights Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's work (p. 143) and H.T Hakl's work (p. 141). From an academic perspective, and also from the perspective of Wikipedia, there is nothing to say against the sources used. If you want to criticize this article, you would have to read these sources and see, whether the statements attributed to them are attributed correctly. If you don't want to make this effort, you will have to leave the article alone. Zara1709 (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
((cite book))
: |editor=
has generic name (help)We don't need that list in the article, although it might be useful. Zara1709 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The use of runic symbology and the existence of an official Nazi government department for the study of the Germanic ancestral heritage (including paganism) have lent some credence to the idea that there was a pagan component to Nazism. As early as 1940, the occult scholar and folklorist Lewis Spence identified a neopagan undercurrent in Nazism,[1] for which he largely blamed Alfred Rosenberg, and which he equated with "satanism". He further connected Nazism to the Illuminati.[2]
Occultist or neopagan authors like Stephen McNallen, Stephen Flowers and Michael Moynihan (Flowers and Moynihan being translators of The Secret King) argue however that the Nazis' occult and runic pretensions amounted to a distortion and misrepresentation of the ancestral religion, Odinism.[3] Thus McNallen denounces "the lie that 'Hitler was a pagan' or that 'Asatruar trace their roots to Nazi Germany'".[4] In an article entitled "The Wiligut Saga" featured in The Secret King, Adolf Schleipfer points out the differences between Wiligut's beliefs and those generally accepted within Odinism. Flowers, who is also a scholar of Germanic religious history, contends that
This is not only the opinion of occultists. Heinz Höhne, an authority on the SS, observes that in practice the organisation was modelled on Ignatius Loyola's Jesuit order and that "Himmler's neo-pagan customs remained primarily a paper exercise".[6]
Another section that isn't needed in the article a.t.m. The problem is that these authors, Moynihan and Flowers, try to portray some occultist/neo-pagans from Germany as victims of Nazi persecution, which would at least be highly controversial. It should be noted somewhere in these articles though, I think. Zara1709 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Zara, you've based this article largely on Goodrick-Clarke's piece "The Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism", Appendix E of Occult Roots of Nazism. I agree with you that Goodrick-Clarke is a good source to use. But, have you thought through the implications of the last couple of sentences of that piece of writing? Here is the punchline...
"…and James Webb devoted a chapter to 'The Magi of the North' in The Occult Establishment (1976). By focusing on the functional significance of occultism in political irrationalism, Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas." (Emphasis added.)
I ve been looking at the James Webb chapter in question. It is almost entirely about occultists and Nazis in Germany pre 1945. Within that context, there is an interesting one-paragraph comment re Pauwels and Bergier.
As Goodrick-Clarke considers Webb's chapter to have "rescued the study of Nazi occultism", it would seem appropriate to include a summary of Webb's chapter in a Wikipedia article which has "Nazi occultism" as its title. To do so, however, would mean a widening of the article's current scope, and a revision of its introduction. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not replying here earlier, but I don't have much time for Wikipedia and the time I had was used for other issues. The reason this article relies so much on Goodrick-Clarke is simply that, as the work of a historian, his The Occult Roots of Nazism is outstanding. If it wasn't for him and H.T.Hakl, Wikipedia simply couldn't have an article about this topic. (We can discuss James Webb in another contexts, but we first have to deal with this.) If you look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, you will see that it "is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (Emphasis added) If you further look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, you will see what is meant by reliable sources: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [..] Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Note that books published in "university presses" and "university-level textbooks" are mentioned first, and that web pages and television documentaries are not mentioned at all.
There are exactly three academic historians that have dealt with the topic of this article, Goodrick-Clarke, Hakl and Rißmann. Especially Rißmann's academic reputation is beyond doubt, so even if Goodrick-Clarke alone would not be sufficient, jointly these authors overrule all the occultist and popular literature on Nazism. This is what NPOV means. The neutral-point-of-view largely is the academic point-of-view. So before someone comes along and flags this article for NPOV, first he or she would need to do some good research for more sources. Zara1709 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Zara, I have only one question about your above statement re NPOV...
What does all this have to do with my point about Goodrick-Clarke's punchline?
You keep reminding us how outstanding and reliable Goodrick-Clarke is... Isn't that is all the more reason to consider the implications of the words I quoted, words written by Goodrick-Clarke himself in the final paragraph of his overview of literature about "Nazi occultism"?
Please have another look, and think about the following questions.
For Goodrick-Clarke, does the term "Nazi occultism" refer only to postwar mythology (as the WP article intro currently implies)? Or does the term "Nazi occultism", as used by Goodrick-Clarke, also refer to an area of study that can be, and has been, "rescued"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't delete this talk section, or remove the POV flag until there has been some discussion and (non-unilateral) resolution.
It is probably my fault that my original talk edit regarding POV didn't appear. I am new to editing of wikipedia pages, though by no means new to wikipedia. In order to be very careful, and act with full good faith, I consulted the Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines to help guide my POV discussion. POV issues I observe, based on those guidelines include:
Undue Weight "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Undue weight is given to Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's texts and viewpoints, and appear to deny and marginalize any and all evidence of links between Nazis and occult fields, which include secret societies, black magic, astrology, etc. Goodrick-Clarke's name appears 37 times in the article, with significant passages, and high praise. By comparison, Himmler only appears five times, with almost no explanation of his occult background, and Hess only appears twice in book titles, with absolutely no explanation of his occult interest.
Impartial tone "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." As stated, Goodrick-Clarke seems to be just one of these individuals engaged in heated dispute, and his claims (which, at least as they are presented here, are flat wrong) are not presented in an impartial tone. To call any research into the occult connections of Nazism as "fringe theory" akin to a Flat-Earth theory, or "crypto-history" is likewise not neutral, and in fact, quite insulting to a good number of legitimate researchers.
POV forks "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article." To shift all discussion of the occult topics to "neo-volkische movements" or "hitler's religious beliefs" or some such other page not only evades neutrality, but renders this page meaningless, except as an expansion of a page that already exists on Goodrick-Clarke's book The Occult Roots of Nazism. Overlap is a common, normal factor of wikipedia pages. A very common feature is to have summaries of ALL important issues of a topic, with a link, just below each section title, to another main article. For an uncontroversial example see, for instance, Bread, where under history, not only is a discussion of Sourdough provided, but also a link to "Main article: Sourdough." I would suggest, and in the coming days will offer my help, adding expanded sections on ALL of the occult links, including secret society connections like the Thule Society, Germanenorden, and Vril, the SS Ahnenerbe sacred archaeology expeditions, connections to occultists like Julius Evola and Rene Guenon, the astrological connections with Erik Jan Hanussen and others, and so on. The connections are there, and it is not speculative theory.
Neutrality and verifiability "A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." Just because Goodrick-Clarke is cited does not mean the claims he makes are neutral, or the way they and counterclaims are presented in this article are balanced. They are not.
Let the facts speak for themselves "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." Instead of telling the reader of this article which books have been "debunked" by Goodrick-Clarke, the books should just be listed. I would, and have already attempted to, RE-include the list of books on Nazism and the Occult, and let the readers decide for themselves which books are legitimate.
Since I am the FOURTH person to dispute neutrality in this talk section, and none of the issues brought up in the past have been resolved, it would be a severe violation of etiquette to remove my POV flag again.
Parallaxvision (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It s true that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is supposed to work by consensus. Right now there is unfortunately not a consensus about the neutrality of this article. For this reason, the pov tag ought to be put back on it, and stay there until a consensus emerges.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
While I do not want to spend too much time defending myself against personal attack, let me just say a few things to clear up any misunderstandings or resentful feelings: 1. It is true that I have currently only edited one article (this one), but I have to start somewhere. I was compelled to register and begin my editing career on this topic because I feel it is important, and think that the current page is considerably biased and limited. If one checks the record of what I removed, I don't think one will find it constitutes "information" but rather editorializing and justification of POV content forking. And in my previous edit, I tried to include a useful booklist that was previously censored by Zara1709, but after doing so that list (along with my entire edit) was censored once again. The second time around, I decided to try to do less, to avoid wasting time on a lot of editing that was going to be undone. I reposted the neutrality flag, cleared up the top paragraph and called it a day. 2. "Undue weight" was not the reason for those subtraction edits, and is only one of five different neutrality issues I have raised, accompanied by direct reference to the NPOV guidelines themselves. I am willing to keep an open mind to the claim that I "don't understand what NPOV means," and to be further enlightened as I continue to edit, but I have made a considerable effort to stick closely to the wikipedia guidelines, interpret them fairly, and to explain how they relate to the problems I perceive with this page (which I am clearly not alone in perceiving). I get the impression that the charge about my neutrality misunderstanding is more a personal attack than an intellectual dispute, but I do wish to maintain good faith and be civil, so I will not insist that my feeling on the matter is certain truth. 3. My main concern is that people who come to this page to learn about Nazi occultism get the fullest, most balanced account of the issue, as I hope is true of all who edit this page. How will people know about the real Nazi occult issues of the Ahnenerbe, Thule Society, etc. if all such information is censored from this page on the logic (specifically contradicted by the wikipedia guidelines) that they ONLY belong on their individual pages? I hope all will treat me with good faith as I continue to work on this page. I hope my commitment to neutrality and fair presentation of all relevant information on this topic is not taken personally by Zara1709 or anyone else who participates in this page, as I certainly don't mean it personally. Even if we may have differences of opinion, I'm sure this page has room for ALL points of view to be presented evenly. As I promised above, I will make substantive and helpful additions to this page in the coming days and weeks. And as I see areas of other pages where I can be of assistance, I will edit those as well, so that I may avoid the charge of being a single-purpose account, and become a welcome member of the wikipedia community. I hope we can collaborate on this page with civility and openmindedness. Thanks. Parallaxvision (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
So that no one can complain about not being informed about this: I made a note of the issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Nazi occultism. When I wrote that Wikipedia is not a democracy, I was referring to the principle that we determine consensus through discussion, not through voting. You can't simply say: 'I think that this article is not written from a neutral Point-of-View', you need to give me the reasons why you think that. So this article is largely based on the work of Goodrick-Clarke and Hakl. Do you want to dispute their academic reputation, or do you have another academic historian that disagrees with them? As it currently stands, I don't know whether I can actually discuss this with Parallaxvision: You are writing "How will people know about the real Nazi occult issues of the Ahnenerbe, Thule Society, etc. if all such information is censored from this page .." Let me make this plain: There were no 'real Nazi occult issues. Admittedly, there were some occultists who worked for the SS, but the 1939 German expedition to Tibet did not search for the hidden city of Shambalah (or whatever it is called) and, as far as I know, it didn't even specifically seek to prove Hans F. K. Günther’s claims that early Aryan race had conquered much of Asia. However, what there is to say on the real relation between Nazism and Occultism is said (or is to be said) in the article Religious aspects of Nazism, where we currently have a section on Occultists working for the SS. I was rather tired yesterday evening, so probably I couldn't explain it that well, but that is what I meant with my comment at User talk:Kalidasa 777. If you are interested in the real connection between Nazism and occultism, please work on articles like Religious aspects of Nazism. The term 'Nazi occultism' is used by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke primarily to denote the fringe theories about Nazism. And concerning fringe theories our policy of wp:NPOV is clear:
It should be abundantly clear that no academic historian would seriously considers the thesis that Hitler was initiated into a hidden lodge which possessed occult powers, regardless of whether these hidden masters are supposed to be from the Thule Society or to be Erik Jan Hanussen. Therefore, following wp:NPOV we can't discuss such thesis in the articles on Nazism: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." This is why we are having this specialized article: "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space", with all the limitations the the principle of a Neutral-point-of-view implies. I think that I managed to adhere to this principle here well enough; The articles makes appropriate references to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and DOES NOT attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Therefore I think that the NPOV tag is unwarranted. Zara1709 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a new section on Occult Societies and National Socialism. I also put the NPOV tag back up. I don't think Zara1709 has the right to decide that the NPOV tag is unwarranted when others have expressed valid concerns about neutrality. To quote the tag itself: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I don't think anything is lost by keeping the tag up until all parties with valid concerns have resolved the neutrality dispute. Some pages have NPOV tags up permanently. So, let's err on the side of caution and keep it there. Deal?Parallaxvision (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
On a further note, I think Zara1709 misconstrues the minority view/popular view issue as it concerns this page. For instance, "demonic possession of Hitler" is a minority view, and is treated as such in this page, although it is presented. But the topic of Nazi occultism as a whole is not a speculative or fringe theory or necessarily cryptohistory or whatever, as my new section on Occult Societies and National Socialism should demonstrate. I'll provide further abundant evidence of occult connections in future edits, and as long as they are not entirely censored, they will suffice to show that the topic as a whole should not be disparaged.Parallaxvision (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Zara, you've written that the term 'Nazi occultism' is used by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke primarily to denote the fringe theories about Nazism. So how did you work out which of Goodrick-Clarke's published statements on this topic are primary and which are secondary??
Thank you for letting us know about your contribution to the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Have just added a note there about what Goodrick-Clarke actually says.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, Zara wrote
>These fringe theories are described by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, and following him, some other historians, as Nazi occultism... although one or two occurrences of the phrase 'Nazi occultism' in the work of Goodrick-Clarke are ambiguous, Goodrick-Clarke makes is extraordinarily plain that he wants to keep the fringe theories separate from the academic historical research.... The phrase Nazi occultism is only used in Appendix E of the book...
I'd agree that Goodrick-Clarke "wants to keep the fringe theories separate from the academic historical research". The question is, does he in fact try to do that by reserving the term "Nazi occultism" for the fringe theories rather than the research?
I've just been looking right through that Appendix E, trying to find all occurrences of the exact phrase "Nazi occultism". As far as I can see, there are only three, all of which are in the final paragraph. I ve already quoted 2 of them in this discussion, but here they all are for the sake of completeness...
1. "Books written about Nazi occultism between 1960 and 1975 were typically sensational and under-researched."
2. "But the modern mythology of Nazi occultism, however scurrilous and absurd, exercised a fascination beyond mere entertainment. Serious authors were tempted into an exciting field of intellectual history."
3. "... Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas."
Which if any of these occurrences is "ambiguous"?
The only possible ambiguity I can see is in the phrase "the modern mythology of Nazi occultism", which is also the title of the Appendix. In itself, this phrase can be read in 2 possible ways, either
1. the modern mythology pertaining to Nazi occultism; or
2. the modern mythology which is Nazi occultism.
Zara has apparently assumed the 2nd of these to be Goodrick-Clarke's meaning. However, when all three occurrences are taken into account, any ambiguity disappears.
When Goodrick-Clarke writes of "the modern mythology of Nazi occultism" he does not mean that Nazi occultism is simply the name of a mythology. He means that it is a field which has a mythology, as well as a serious place in history.
In short, Zara, I think you've read Goodrick-Clarke superficially, and found a usage that simply is not there. Goodrick-Clarke clearly does not reserve the phrase "Nazi occultism" only for mythology/fringe theories/speculation. Why then should Wikipedia?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
some people seem to be trying to pull the floor from under this article. So the lead now says that "The actual religious aspects of Nazism, including the question of its potential occult and pagan aspects, are a different topic". How come? The topic of this article is and has always been the "potential occult and pagan aspects" of Nazism. I am fully aware that there are a lot of cranks in this field. I am also aware that occultism is a marginal aspect in the history of Nazism, mostly associated with the SS and Himmler. Guess what: this article is supposed to focus on this marginal aspect. Talking about occultism in any detail at Nazism would clearly be WP:UNDUE. But this article is dedicated to focussing on the occultists within the Nazi movement, and not on latter-day cranks making loony or "mythological" claims. --dab () 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Zara. After acknowledging my point about what Goodrick-Clarke says about "Nazi occultism" in Appendix E of his book, you go on to ask "WHY DOESN'T GOODRICK-CLARKE USE THE PHRASE IN THE REMAINDER OF THE BOOK, too?" That is an interesting argument from silence. However, if we want to understand what an author means by the words he uses, I think we ought to focus on what he says, not on what he doesn't say... Throughout his book, Occult Roots of Nazism Goodrick-Clarke frequently uses words like occult, occultism, occultist. E.g. He uses the word "occultist" to describe the SS officer Karl Maria Wiligut in the 3rd paragraph of chapter 14. One might ask why he doesn't use the exact words "Nazi occultist" in that paragraph, but what would be the point of such a question?
The question I suggest we should be considering is this — if someone does a Wikipedia search with words such as "Nazi" and "occultism", what might they reasonably expect to find? Answers to historical questions about whether, and in what way, occultists such as Wiligut contributed to National Socialism? Information about books on those historical issues by specialist historians, including Goodrick-Clarke and James Webb? Information about more speculative writings, and about how those works have been commented on by people like Webb and Goodrick-Clarke? Information about entertaining fictional works?
It seems to me that someone searching words such as "Nazi" and "occultism" might reasonably expect info on any or all of these areas, in an article with a title like "Nazi occultism" or (if you prefer) "Nazism and Occultism" or something of the sort.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I posted this on the fringe theories messageboard in response to Zara1709's "playing games" message, but it really belongs here:
This might be an illustrative case for those committed to the cause of wikipedia. I am a new editor and already I am tired of it. I spent a considerable amount of time sincerely trying to make a page more complete (I'm not really committed one way or the other on the substantive argument Zara1709 wants to engage in, I just wanted to put more useful information on a page I think is lacking). In return, all I got was some uncivil commentary from the person who created this page, who appears to feel too much ownership over it, and a retraction of absolutely everything that I added to the page. I was accused of being a single-purpose account, simply because I'm new to this, told I don't understand neutrality, although I read and cited from the page thoroughly in making a complaint that I am not the first to make, and called a "fringe advocate" simply because I thought it might make sense to include information about Nazi occultists on a page called "Nazi occultism." I promised to add more to the page, and tried to make good on that promise, but since it doesn't appear my additions are welcome here, I can't see what the point would be in trying to add any more. I also promised to follow through on dispute resolution if unfair behavior continued, but I'm not interested in engaging in that sort of activity with a reactionary denialist. I already know what sort of ugly roads it will lead down. I get the sense Zara1709 would support burning all books about Nazi occultism not written by Goodrick-Clarke. He/She certainly doesn't want anyone to try reading any of them for subversive ideas. Yes, I've crossed the line of civility, but anyone who reads my previous posts will see I really did try to act in good faith. Now I'm fed up.
On a side note, I was trying to recall where I had heard Zara1709's derogatory comment about me before ("You know how fringe advocates are, Give them a little finger and they'll try to chew off your hand.") Then I saw The Pianist again tonight, and there it was: A Nazi soldier says it to Wladyslaw Szpilman about Jewish people. Something to think about...
Farewell wikipedia editing community. It was a short run, but certainly illuminating. Remember all, try not to bite the newcomers... Parallaxvision (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The introduction is better worded and contains more information than before, but treatment of Goodrick-Clarke is still hugely unbalanced. Much further down in the article, it is mentioned Goodrick-Clarke himself has written a whole book about "the racist-occult movement of Ariosophy… and this movement's potential influences on Nazism", also that he recognizes the books of Ellic Howe and James Webb as "serious works".
My question is — Why should not this more rigorous literature about Nazism and Occultism be mentioned in the introduction??Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that the intro now acknowledges that there is "academic research" and "ongoing debate" about the historical issues, and that significance of Webb and Ellic Howe is acknowledged in the article on Religious Aspects of Nazism.
I don't necessarily oppose idea of devoting this article to "fringe theories and popular views", but certain questions remain… Are the books, docos, etc notable primarily because they are fringe, or because they are popular? Your point about the sales figures of Le Matin des Magiciens and The Spear of Destiny is important. If this point is what establishes the notability, does it belong only in a note in brackets on the talk page? Or does it belong right at the start of the article itself?
I'd also repeat my earlier suggestion that, if this article is to cover only the popular literature, tv etc, then the words "popular culture" should be included in its title, so that the article's scope is clear to the reader from the very first glance. I know you mentioned similar wording being used in the title of an article that got merged into this one, but the question remains: do you still think it was a good idea to lose that wording, and if so why??Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I admit, I haven't done much at this article, and the option to move the article had been discussed some time ago; but then, on the other hand, you could simple have written something, Kalidasa 777, and I would have replied to it. Because, when I thought about where to move this article, I encountered some difficulties. But first: What would be the appropriate name for the article according to the literature? I should have written a survey of the literature a month ago, but since it required some time, I postponed it until now. The secondary literature speaks of:
What do we make of this? The title most secondary sources use is Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus, because all German language secondary sources use this title. Translation is simply, and since "Mythology of Nazi occultism" has already been rejected as title, and "The Nazi Mysteries" would likely be rejected for similar reasons, this is the most plausible choice. However, there also is a discussion going on about the article National Socialism and Nazism. Whereas in German the phrase Nationalsozialism, sometimes abbreviated as NS, is the most common name for the topic (more common than 'Nazismus' and 'Deutscher Faschismus') in English the most common name is Nazism. I don't know if you see the problem here, but you might want to have a look at Talk:National Socialism. Whereas I think that this article should be titled National Socialism and Occultism, I although think that National Socialism should be a disambiguation, and that the topic should, on the English Wikipedia, be referred to as Nazism. This would mean that I would need to involve myself in that discussion, so I was reluctant to move the article.
However, National Socialism and Occultism is certainly a better name than 'Nazism and occultism in popular culture'. Aside from the point that it is only a popular culture topic since the 1960s, I think that WP's policies favour the name that the topic is commonly referred as in secondary sources. Zara1709 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Zara, who was it that wrote, right here, on 18 June 2008 "This IS a popular culture topic."?
Same person used similar language on 23 March 2009, and 24 March 2009, and cited Goodrick-Clarke s own use of term "popular culture"… If you no longer think the term "popular culture" describes the scope of the article, when and why did you change your mind? And just why do we still see the term "popular culture" in the 1st sentence of the introduction?
I suggest to you, Zara, that we need to consider the purpose of an Wikipedia article title. What is it for? And who is it for?
Couple of quotes from Wikipedia policy pages…
"The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
"Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. A reader may have found your article with a search, through Recent Changes or in some other way that provides no context for the subject matter, so do him a favor and name your articles precisely." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)
Titles like "Nazi Occultism" or "National Socialism and Occultism" may seem optimized to you, as an editor with some specialist knowledge, but are they optimized for a general audience?
How many times have you told people, right here on this discussion page, that they didn't understand the scope of the article? That's why I think the article should have a title that would help them understand.
Regarding that list of references you ve provided… I've taken a look at the online article "Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus? Die Thule-Gesellschaft", and noticed that it discusses questions like "What sort of influence did Karl Haushofer have on Hitler?" ("7.2 Welcher Art war der Einfluss Karl Haushofers auf Adolf Hitler?")
That is exactly the kind of serious historical question that a reader would expect to see addressed within an article called "National Socialism and Occultism". And exactly the sort of issue which is not addressed in this Wikipedia article as it stands.
Yes, Appendix E of Goodrick-Clarke's 1985 book has the title of "The Modern Mythology of Nazi occultism". However the book as a whole has the title "The Occult Roots of Nazism". As that title indicates, it is a book about the serious historical issue of the relationship between occultism and National Socialism, in which just a few pages at the end offer an assessment of earlier and generally less rigorous books.
A title like "Mythology of Nazi Occultism" is far from precise -- it could mean any of a number of things to a general audience. For instance, it could be taken to refer to versions of very ancient events as taught by Nazi occultists such as Karl Maria Wiligut. No doubt it does its job as a chapter heading for a specialist's book with 20 chapters (including appendices).
But Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia of almost 3 million pages. If they are not labelled very very clearly, how is the general reader expected to get through such a jungle to find whatever it may be that he or she really wants?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not as if this was a simple question. If I knew a good name for this article, I would not have been so reluctant to discuss the issue. There isn't an obvious solution to this, and I rather would have liked to keep the previous name and spent the time that we now need for discussing the issue on editing. You do have a point, when you mention my argument that this is a popular culture topic. It might help some readers if this is pointed out in the title, but then, on the other hand, it is pointed out in the first sentence anyway. If they miss this in reading the first sentence, I don't think that this kind of reader could be helped at all, regardless of what the title of the article is. And more importantly, the third sentence already specifies: "The first examples of this literary genre appeared in the occult milieu in France and England in the early 1940s." The books from the early 1940s are not popular culture books - as far as the source for this (Hakl) is concerned, there are from the occult milieu (that should be almost verbatim). So I probably should have been more specific and should have written: This is a topic on popular culture and occultism. I wouldn't know that Crowley is part of popular culture, but we shouldn't have difficulties finding a source that calls him an occultist. That is one argument that speaks against the title you propose. The other argument is the general difficulty of Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. We do have a rather large list of reference to Nazism and Occultism in movies, computer games and that like. If we only had these kind of information, it would be hard to justify why we need this article. (Read the guideline.) If you want an example, take a look at Talk:Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Quote: "This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus." This article here, National Socialism and Occultism, has something that the article Adolf Hitler in popular culture apparently doesn't have - secondary sources. And according to the secondary sources the title of this article should be National Socialism and Occultism. Of course, you are free to help me find more secondary sources, but I think I have identified all of them.
If you still want to discuss a 'real' relation between Occultism and Nazism here, well, then I suppose I can't remove the 'unbalanced' tag yet. I really thought that we had resolved that part. I don't know why Goodrick-Clarke's book has the title "The occult Roots of Nazism" WITHOUT QUESTION MARK. The question if there were any 'occult roots of Nazism' had been pending an answer since Wilfried Daim had discovered the connection between Lanz von Liebenfels and Adolf Hitler. Goodrick-Clarke answered this question with his book, and the result was largely negative. There were direct connections, but these are very sparse. Some occultist designed a ring for the SS, and he and a few others did some occult research for Himmler, but they neither had any manifest influence on the doctrines of the SS, nor on Nazism. Paganism (or Neopaganism if you want) is a different issue, which is still controversially discussed. Anyway, these discussions belong to the article religious aspects of Nazism. The only separate article I currently take into consideration is an article Cultic activities within the SS or that like, where we could asses the significance of persons like Wiligut in detail. Concerning Haushofer: If you want , I can write you a a short paragraph on him for this article... but would you, then, consider the controversy about the balance of this article to be resolved? Zara1709 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you don't know 'why Goodrick-Clarke's book has the title "The occult Roots of Nazism" WITHOUT QUESTION MARK' I suggest you have a closer look at his book. A few quotes... On page 177, the occultist Wiligut is described as the "favoured mentor" of Himmler. A few pages later, on page 186, Goodrick-Clarke describes Wiligut's role in relation to the Wewelsburg castle as a "spectacular contribution to the Third Reich". On page 192, Goodrick-Clarke writes "The lineage of the early Nazi Party in respect of its sponsors, newspaper, and symbol has been traced to the Thule Society, the Germanenorden, and thus to the ideas of Guido von List." On page 198 "On the basis of the available evidence, then, it seems most probable that Hitler did read and collect the Ostara in Vienna. Its contents served to rationalize and consolidate his emerging convictions... and buttressed his own sense of mission to save the world." Goodrick-Clarke presents all these findings -- which I would not call "largely negative" -- under a title which includes the worlds "occult" and "nazism". Why, then, shouldn't Wikipedia mention his positive conclusions in an article under a heading like "National Socialism and Occultism"???Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)