Talk:American Nazi Party/Archive 1

Was the Nazi Party really it's name?

Was the Nazi Party really it's name? 'Nazi' was originally an insulting term for a National Socialist.--Hexiva 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Dr. William Pierce in a conversation that I had with him, the organization was originally called American Nazi Party but the name was changed to National-Socialist White People's Party in 1966, at Dr. Pierce's insistence as I understand, because he did not think that the word Nazi conveyed seriousness. --Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.19.8 (talk • contribs)

Obviously that's not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The decision to change the name was made by Rockwell in 1966, but it did not become official until January 1, 1967.

National Socialist Movement

Shouldn't the above DAB be at the hatnote of this aricle? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The party was based largely upon the ideals and policies of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP in Germany during the Third Reich but also expressed allegiance to the Constitutional principles of the U.S.'s Founding Fathers." --- Wikipedia

That is contradictory and not only that, you don't cite a source. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it expressed such an allegiance does not mean that it wasn't doublethink; a lot of people have very bizarre ideas about what the principles of the Constitution and the founding fathers are! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is doublethink to think that founding fathers are like that, unless they have never read ANY of the founding documents. Unlike them, I have read the Declaration of Independence. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with you, Dude! Look at people like Scott Walker and whoever the gauleiter of Michigan is: they claim to be conservatives and patriots! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they ARE patriots and that is the problem. To be unpatriotic is to follow in the founding fathers' footsteps. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 04:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Collin

• Wheaton , Elizabeth (2008) Codename Greenkil: The 1979 Greensboro Killings University of Georgia Press ISBN 978-0820331485 pp46 says that the Collin was half Jewish was part of an FBI smear campaign. I think this should be refelected in the article, thoughts? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a kinda fringey assertion. What are her claimed sources for this? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What she is saying is that they used the fact that he was half-Jewish in an attempt to oust him from his position. She is not suggesting it isn't true. You can view it on G books. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy wall street endorsement

discussion

any opposition to adding this material to the article? if so, please cite policy for excluding this material. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC) http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001

To this article? It's mindbogglingly trivial (who cares what these scum say?), but not against policy if properly sourced. We've had folks trying to add it to the articles on the Occupy movement, in order to slander the latter by association.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But you have to be clear which group you're talking about: the Suhayda guys, or....? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

is there another group using the same name? The American Nazi Party put out a statement on Thursday that was supportive of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Rocky Suhayda, the party's chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the article. The Suhayda bunch has no connection to the group this article is about. You'd have to create a new article about the Suhayda gang, to which this statement could be attached. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

i read the article, i did not see anything about a different group, they said the ANP. you could make a disambiguation page if a different ANP(1) exist, however the rs is clear, ANP. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Read American Nazi Party#Namesake organization. I'm not sure the namesake group is notable enough to write about. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

the rs states ANP not a group claiming to be the ANP but is not accepted by the other ANP, perhaps you would like to start a disambiguate article to delineate the two groups? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So far I've been unable to uncover any evidence that the new group is notable enough to bother; all I see is press releases they issue, usually being used to demonstrate that whatever they endorsed must be evil. (Of course, in many cases it is; but it is evil for objective reasons, not because somebody with a swastika on his letterhead say it's good.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

notable is determined by the amount of coverage given by reliable sources like medimatters. your original research is immaterial to notability. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's impossible; just expressing skepticism. I already linked to the relevant guideline once in this discussion, about four indents ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

notability, which is what i think we are arguing, is neither impossible nor skeptical, rather factual. the guideline you reference refers to the notability of the subject matter, the ANP, which is not disputed, you are trying to exclude material about the ANP based on OR you believe proves the RS mistakenly reported about a fake ANP group. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The original ANP is notable; that's not under dispute. The question is whether the new organization which uses the same name is notable. It's as if somebody started a new company called Sears & Roebuck that ran a coffee shop. If Sears Holdings Inc. didn't sue them, would the new company be notable enough to deserve an article? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to lead

Rocky J. Suhayda's party is mentioned in the article, but it is not the ANP that this article is about, so turning the lead into something sourced from his party is obviously wrong. This article is not about Rocky J. Suhayda's party. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources?

Almost this entire article is completely unsourced. Wasp14 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Guess I must have hallucinated the 10 citations and 1 listing in the bibliography. BMK (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I said "almost". I didn't say there were no sources. Only 4 of the 11 paragraphs in the article have any sources. Half the sources, numbers 6-10, are to one paragraph at the end of the article. The other 5 citations are in just 3 other paragraphs. 7 paragraphes have no citations. Wasp14 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple of things to do when you see an article that you think is not adequately sourced. If you believe that the information is true or accurate, but simply requires a source, you can mark specific statements with a "citation needed" tag. If you think the information is untrue or inaccurate or misleading, you can remove the information from the article, which may provoke other editors to find sources for it. You can complain about the lack of sources on the talk page, or, and this is probably the preferred action, you can do some research and try to find the missing sources. In other words you could fix it. BMK (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a political ideology called "National Socialism"

Ian Kershaw is the author of the recent 2-volume definitive biography of Hitler, Joachim C. Fest is the author of the first major biography, and Michael Burleigh is the author of the recent The Third Reich: A New History. These are not WP:FRINGE writers, they are major players in this area, and they all agree that there was no coherent political philosophy behind "National Socialism", that it tried to be all things to all people in order to attract voters, and after the "seizure of power", all it really stood for was whatever Hitler demanded. Early on it tried in vain to combine radical nationalism with socialism (and when Ernst Rohm became too wedded to the socialism part, he was eliminated), but about the only thing it really stood for was getting into power, at first by putsch and then by electoral politics. Its most consistent aspects were nationalism, anti-Bolshevism and antisemitism, but even the latter was significantly under-emphasized during the electoral politics period. There really is no ideology called "National Socialism" - which is not to say that Naziism didn't exist, that it wasn't virulent and dangerous and extremely destructive, it's just that in terms of a political philosophy, there was no "there" there. BMK (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A political ideology does not have to be consistent to be an ideology - it just has to be named and espoused by someone. There is such a thing as national socialism. What National Socialism "really" stands for is irrelevant, it is what all Nazi and National socialist parties adhere to. The same argument could be made for all communist parties in the world, none of which in practice stand for the same thing, and all of which are highly flexible in the practical ways that they combine ideological elements and practices. Regardless of what is in the Hitler article or any general work on Nazism, this article will have to be informed by the literature on the American Nazi party. So unless you can produce a soure throwing doubt on whether they were really national socialists or rather something else, your proposed edits are not possible to make.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. It doesn't take much for something to be an "ideology". Some scholars might disagree, but they are quite certainly a distinct minority in this case. -- Director (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Old vs new

As it is currently written, the article makes it appear that there is a direct lineage and continuity between the original American Nazi Party (founded by Rockwell) and the new "revived" one, which like all the others, basically exists solely as a website and post office box, founded by Rocky Suhayda. These are two different organizations, and the new Suhayda version should not be conflated with the original in this article. If Suhayda's "organization" is notable, it should have its own article. This article should focus solely on the historical group. Laval (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If they are two different organizations (and that may well be true) your WP:OR doesn't cut it. It would be well to have a section on it, and WP:RS to back it up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, do you realize that there are no sources to back up the claim that the new version is the same as the original? I'm not claiming anything OR. Laval (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

And the article as written does not say anything about the new organization. Did you read it? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Putting your flags on it doesn't change what it says. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You are claiming the organization still exists. Where is the evidence for that? The article is currently claiming Suhayda as the leader of the original group, rather than the fact that the original ended and he created a new one back in 2014. Your argument doesn't make sense. Laval (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Where in the article as it sits is he mentioned? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing in this article about the Dearborn, Michigan organization. You claim that the Rockwell organization dematerialized and that it has no connection with the organization of the same name. May be true, but we need sources. What is hard about that? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever became of the old brand of the American Nazi Party and what if any relation does it have to the Dearborn, Michigan iteration? Is this a state secret? Just source it and put it in the text. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think that regardless of whether there is actual continuity between the two organizations they can be an should be treated in the same article - they are both "American Nazi parties". We can just make sure they are kept separate in the text, for example writing "in xxx another incarnation of the American Nazi party was founded ...".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. All I know is they share a name. And maybe a history. The current article does not as it exists mention the Dearborn, Michigan iteration. It does not mention Suhayda. It could. If there is organizational continuity or discontinuity it should be documented and sourced. We need WP:RS for the facts whatever they may be. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

After a quick read through I agree with Maunus on having a clear deliniation between incarnations. The lead does have a tense disagreement, one sentence using is one using was. A possible solution is to note in the lead that there are other organizations which have used the name over the years. Jbh^Talk 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been saying that all along. I understand you Laval say it ceased to exist. Prove it. We know it existed. Did it disband? Did it transfigure? Did it acquiesce in trademark infringement of its name? If you won't and don't provide a source, any source, then this is just your conjecture, opinion, and, dare I say it, WP:OR or WP:Synth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Just from reading the article I would say "On January 1, 1967 Rockwell renamed the ANP to the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP)" is definitive that the original ceased operating as the ANP. From that I would say that any continuity between the old and the new would need RS. Also, that means the phrasing in the current lead text referring to the original should be "was". A note that others have used the name should be in the lead to differentiate. Jbh^Talk 21:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I already told you to review the sources. None of them claim the organization still exists, but clearly state that it ended after Rockwell. Koehl's group and the 2014 Suhayda version are not the same as that one. Your attacks against me are absurd. Laval (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you really aren't seeing it, but do you realize how absurd your argument is? You reverted me based on my switching from the present tense to the past. That makes no sense and isn't productive. Again, check the sources. I don't have to hold your hand. Laval (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I never attacked you Laval.

OTOH, you went to ANI. Closed as a content dispute. Pick the right forum.

Respond on the talk page next time. You only just now chose to do that. These sources do not say that the ANP ceased to exist. I concede that is perhaps implicated.

In any event, if we are going to talk about the Dearborn and its connection/disconnection with the George Lincoln Rockwell organization, sources would be nice. That they proselytize his publications suggests an ideological connection. Or is this just a 'Sexy Sixties nostalgia' thing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did attack me by assuming bad faith, reverting without discussion, accusing me of original research and you continue to dump on me. All over a simple switch from present to past tense, which you absurdly oppose and continue to oppose even when a third-party is saying the same thing I'm saying. But you're not getting it. Continuing with you is impossible since you will simply revert, therefore an RfC may be the best way to continue. Laval (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Lord, it is a bit rich for you to claim what you are claiming when you reverted without even an attempt at discussion and threatened me with a 3RR block. And your responses still make no sense, especially since you didn't even bother to properly respond to any of my responses here. RfC is really the best way to continue, so I don't have to constantly deal with your irrational reverts. Laval (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not doing what you said. I am not reverting you. Rather, I want a consensus based on facts.

Do what you want. I have proposed a reasonable solution and you sir want to attack. Not discuss. Not resolve.

A source, a source, my kingdom for a source!

If the party is dead its dead. Nobody ever said that? YGBSM!

As to your comments, you are rewriting history. And not in a good way. 22:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You're claiming you didn't revert me? The rest of your response is too absurd to even bother with. Laval (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Rebirth of American Nazism show they share a claimed cultural heritage, although the order of succession and lineage is not so clear. You need to talk about edits and get over it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mint Press News is not a reliable source at all. Open a RfC on it, I guarantee no one is going to accept it as a reliable source. It is, in fact, one of the very worst sources to use for any topic. Laval (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

How exactly do you provide sources that verify that two organizations are not related? It seems like the burden of proof should be on the editor who asserts that there is a connection. If this is still a sticking point, describe the new ANP and make no statement of its relationship to the original party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Other than they share a name and ideology.

But I have never said they were the same organization. You have.

I do not know who has the corporate record books, or whatever organizational paraphernalia that might exist to prove their succession to the ANP mantle.

In any event, I am not your minion. Mint Press News chose to interview Rocky Suhayda and report his version. That should end this conversation. I am sure other editors can put in their input and we should arrive at a consensus. We should do it here. Otherwise, you yourself can go pound sand in some other forum. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, that's not how things work on Wikipedia. I'm not pounding sand anywhere. If you want to push this absurdity further, unless others enter the fray to comment on your irrational position and attempts to use an unreliable source, we will have to open the RfC. Laval (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you continue to ignore the fact that you were reverting me based on my switching from the present tense to the past in the lead. Do you still oppose that? Laval (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you are unable to provide a source, I found one. I think we should change it to "was" and putting in some other verbiage to cover the other iterations which appeared therafter.

The following is text I propose:

In 1966 it was renamed the National Socialist White People’s Party, a “conscious imitation” of the National Asociaton for the Advancement of Colored People. Rockwell wanted an more “ecumenical” approach, and felt the swastika banner was impeding organization growth. Matt Koel, although a purist National Socialist, followed Rockwell as the new leader This ended the American Nazi Party. Rockwell was assassinated by one of his own members. Thereafter, the members engaged in internecine disputes, and the membership were expelled by Koehl or resigned. After the Assassination of Rockwell, the party dissipated and ad hoc organizations usurped the American Nazi Party logo. Those included James Burford in Chicago and John Bishop in Iowa.

Thereafter, the new organization's leader, Rocky Suhayda, purported to take up the cause of the American Nazi Party, even as he attempted to differentiate its politics from the predecessor organization.

Now can we do something here or not? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You found a source? Kaplan was already used in the article and is reliable. All your reverts were based on my changing from present to past tense, which now, you accept. In other words, you accomplished nothing. The Mint Press source is useless, as is any self-published source, particularly those relying on primary material (such as Suhayda himself). There is nothing to change in the lead. This whole ridiculous dispute was over present versus past tense in the lead. Laval (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you had nothing constructive to say, I made the changes. Tweak them if you will; we can hash it out later. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, all my comments have been constructive. You, in turn, have either ignored my points, or you simply ignore your own mistake in starting this pathetic edit war of attrition in which literally nothing was accomplished except for the restoration of my changes to the tense used in the lead. I had no further interest in this article beyond correcting the tense from present to past as the life and history of George Lincoln Rockwell is complicated and convoluted, and I don't feel having any potential hard work and study reverted by others who lack any serious understanding or expertise in this subject. Have fun. Laval (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Dead horse. Read it, memorize it, and apply it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I've updated the text, lead paragraph, infobox and references to reflect the dates (which are somewhat squishy) and bigger picture. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I have made the lead conform to the information in the article as it stands per WP:LEAD. Jbh^Talk 22:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Logo in Infobox

This logo is not proper unless someone wants to claim that the Nazi's had web addresses in the 1960's. Removing as anachronistic. Jbh^Talk 22:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A concerning infobox mismatch

There is currently a fundamental mismatch between the content on the infobox and the main article, including the lead. The infobox lists leaders following the official break up of the party up to the present day. According to the lead,

Since the late 1960s, there have been a number of small groups that have used the name "American Nazi Party".

The post-1967 listings in the infobox may be perceived as implicit claims of continuity and possible (false) validation of the history of the current grouping. I believe this is a relevant [1] editorial concern that needs to be addressed on this protected page.

(Of note, the RS used to reference Suhayda's leadership of the "American Nazi Party" [2] does not discuss the history of the current grouping, and therefore should not be used to verify leadership of the original, historical American Nazi Party.)

86.189.140.44 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This page has problems listed below

Southern Poverty Law Center is a highly unreliable and discredied source Socialist party is far left, not far right I don't want to write it and did not even read it but those are glaring faults — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.64.164 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the usual tired canard and as unsourced as always. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing the placement of the ANP on the Political Spectrum

I would suggest changing the definition of the ANP to something other than far-right. In the sentence after describing the ANP as "far-right" you make note of the previous name of the organization (World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists). Now, is socialism a "right" or "left" ideology? If your answer is "left" then why does adding "World Union of Free Enterprise National" to the name move the political ideology to the right? Isint socialism inherently a "left-wing" ideology? According to wikipedia, it is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum)

I guess the best question is: Which model, as detailed in your Political Spectrum page, did you use to make this classification for the ANP?

It would seem that the most appropriate classification for the ANP, based on the Double-Axis Political Compass model would be that of "Authoritarian Left" 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to Wikipedia, the Nazi party had its origins in a league called the Freier Arbeiterausschuss für einen guten Frieden (Free Workers' Committee for a good Peace) which was created in Bremen, Germany. On 7 March 1918, Anton Drexler, a German nationalist, formed a branch of this league in Munich. On 5 January 1919, Drexler created a new political party and proposed it should be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but an associate of his, Karl Harrer, objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). To ease concerns among potential middle-class supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported the middle-class, and that its socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race. The American Nazi Party uses a term of German derivation (Nazi), so their usage of the word Nazi can be said to have originated with the Germans, and if not shared by them in reasons for use, then were at least done for the name recognition that the term already possessed.   SPINTENDO          10:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

While you are correct, you are not completely correct, because according to the page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

The party is listed as the NSDAP, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). The page for the Nazi Party mentions what you said by saying: "Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920."

You cant sit here and cite wikipedia when wikipedia itself calls it the NSDAP

And before you say that isint the case, perhaps we should look at some organizational names attributed to the NSDAP. Student wing - National Socialist German Students' League Sports body - National Socialist League of the Reich for Physical Exercise Women's wing - National Socialist Women's League

Now, for an organization trying to avoid association with socialism, isint it odd to name you student wing, your sports wing, and your womens wing to include the terms "National Socialist ..."?

Furthermore, it's like you stopped at 1920...... "To increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party).[50][51] The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers.[52]"

Here is the page for the German Workers Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party Now, look at this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party#From_DAP_to_NSDAP "The small number of party members were quickly won over to Hitler's political beliefs. He organized their biggest meeting yet of 2,000 people, for February 24, 1920 in the Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München. Further in an attempt to make the party more broadly appealing to larger segments of the population, the DAP was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) on February 24.[13][14] Such was the significance of Hitler's particular move in publicity that Karl Harrer resigned from the party in disagreement.[15] The new name was borrowed from a different Austrian party active at the time (Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei, German National Socialist Workers' Party), although Hitler earlier suggested the party to be renamed the "Social Revolutionary Party"; it was Rudolf Jung who persuaded Hitler to follow the NSDAP naming.[16]"

And finally, if the edit is being refused, I think it would only be fair to answer what should be the most pertinent question: What model, based on Wikipedia's own Political Spectrum page, was this classification based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It has been 6 days since there has been a response to this request. Either edit the page as requested or provide an answer to the question at hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well... no, that edit ain't gonna happen. This placement on the political spectrum is based on a decades-long consensus among political scientists, historians and journalists that this is where the NSDAP belongs. Efforts to alter this fact are based either on variations of the etymological fallacy or on ideological crusades for The Truth™ as the crusader sees it. (In recent years, these have mostly been fueled by Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, a contemptible political screed widely dismissed by all serious historians and political scientists.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of incorrect, uncited information regarding the renaming of the ANP to the NSWPP

Remove the uncited sentence:
"On January 1, 1967, Rockwell renamed the ANP the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), a move that alienated some hard-line members."

Replace with cited sentence:
"The party changed its name in 1968 to the National Socialist White People's Party and set up headquarters in Arlington, Virginia."

Any information related to Rockwell changing the name should be removed as well as Rockwell was assassinated in 1967. If the name was changed in 1968, then he didnt do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a basic edit, backed by cited information freely available on the internet. The information currently displayed on the page is not cited and contradictory to other information on wikipedia. There is no legitimate reason why this edit has not been addressed in the 5 days since it was requested. Please, without further delay, update the information on the page pursuant to this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The TRAC article is so short and sketchy as to be useless. I cannot see any reason we need to treat it as a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you read the footnote at the end of that paragraph, you will find a link to a far more extensive reference work, which gives a date (1966) for Rockwell's change of name, and the members' reactions to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The demand (not a good way to get what you want in these here parts) of the IP are not backed up by reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2018

Miss Identifies the group as Right, even though they state clearly they are socialists Racial Greetings White Brothers and Sisters! The American Nazi Party is a Political-Educational Association, dedicated to the 14 WORDS. We are committed to bringing American National Socialism, first created and embodied by our late Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, out of the past Phase One activities which at the time served their purpose well, and into the 21st Century Prconfer (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 19:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

Pro-Nazi trolling

I request changing the description of the ANP's ideology "white supremacy" to "white separatism" Thank You. Dylan Seey (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC) References Not done The question is not what the American Nazi Party prefers to be called, but what reliable sources call them. Our articles go by what reliable sources say. Your change cannot be made unless you present evidence that reliable sources call the American Nazi Party "white separatist and not "white supremacist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC) What reliable source says that they are "white supremacists"? From what I understand there are no sources cited on this page for calling them "white supremacists", as white supremacists seek to dominate other races while the founder of the ANP stated: "I am not out to persecute or hurt any man because of his race" And this "reliable source" situation is problematic in this context, since what is the source supposed to say? Will the "third-party" source not include what the party's leaders say? Doesn't that mean that the sources would have to include the self definition of the party? Other than that, the people who are working in the party know best of what the party's about. I apologise if I seem aggresive, I wish the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Seey (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC) References Sources are in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of pending edit requests

Why were the two unaddressed edit requests deleted before these massive revisions were done on 5/8/2017? The revisions still include the incorrect information the pending edit requests were supposed to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30d2:40d0:2839:b635:775c:f019 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2018‎ (UTC)

The requests were both turned down -- do not request the same thing again. A repeated request without the required reliable sources needed to support it will be turned down again. Please sign your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No evidence was provided as to why TRAC is not a trustworthy source. I think if you are going to accuse them of not being reliable, you should provide evidence of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got it totally backwards. It is not the case that any specific source is considered to be a WP:Reliable source unless it is proved otherwise. Instead, a disputed or unknown source is considered to be unreliable unless evidence is presented showing that they fulfill the requirements of RS - which you should read. The evaluation of the TRAC citation provided was that it was "short and sketchy", and I concur with that - it's essentially a short entry in a catalog. Besides, I don't believe a single source would be sufficient to make the change asked for, more support will be required. And you're still not signing your posts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their "Press Room", TRAC appears to be basically a one- or two-person operation. Their principals wrote an article about why the Las Vegas shooting incident was probably related to ISIS. They are most definitely not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I dont have an account on this site because of incidents like this. When sources contradict, the contradiction should be resolved before publication. Wikipedia is a living, breathing, work of knowledge. As a compendium of knowledge, associating a name, even an alias, with information, is unnecessary. My posts are logged by my IP address for identification. You are just going to have to deal with it as Wikipedia does not require an account to participate in discussion nor to propose edits. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, then please, take it up with the administration and not other users.

Moving on, the Encyclopedia of White Power is edited by a single individual, based of the works of many. TRAC has two editors, who publish the research works of many. These sources are equivocally the same in scope and function and one is trustworthy and the other is not....because you "think" it looks "short & sketchy" and disagree with some of their past publications.

The source you are relying on does not cite where it received the information claiming that the name was changed in 1966, so which one of the pieces of "further reading" is Kaplan referring to for that information?

As there are now contradicting sources, should we not dive in to the "further reading" listed in the Encyclopedia of White Power to determine if we can resolve the issue? Should we not contact the editors of TRAC and as them to provide their source for their claim? Would that not be the most intellectually honest way to resolve this discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, in conclusion, here is actual solid, proof you can cite.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32989523.pdf

That's an FBI memo about a Secret Army Organization and the appendix section discusses the ANP and NSWPP in detail. The FBI notes "On January 1st, 1967, the official name of this organization was changed to the National Socialist White People's Party."

In this case, the body of evidence now clearly points in one direction over the other. While I am not sad that I was wrong, I am sad that the responses I received were dismissive and opinionated. I am glad however, that now we all have an actual document to attribute this information to. With that being said, I will make an edit request to add the FBI memo as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am actually really, really glad we looked in to this more as both the Encyclopedia of White Power and TRAC were wrong about this.

Please learn how to properly format comments, and please sign your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Im new here and there are no instructions on the page where you make these edits discussing the formatting. It requests that you sign, but allows unsigned comments. Again, do not begrudge users who do not follow convention. If the convention is so important, make it a policy and prohibit comments that omit it. Maybe instead, you could just be happy that I properly formatted and signed this comment? (After 4 edits)

Since the validity of the FBI memo as a source is now being called in to question, I would like to ask you to help me understand why a report by an investigatory agency of the United States Federal Government cannot be used for a citation, while a compilation of sources, edited by a single individual can be used and usurps the credibility of the FBI memo when conflicting information is found between them. In other words, what happens when the Secondary Source contradicts the Primary Source? Either the FBI is wrong or Kaplan is.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am unaware of anything that "allows unsigned comments". All talk page comments should be signed. Simply add 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) to the end of your comment and it will be automatically signed by the system with your IP numbers and a date/time stamp.

The convention concerning responses to previous comments is to add one additional tab at the beginning of your comment. To do this, just add another colon {i.e. :}, so if you respond to a comment which begins with 2 colons, your response should start with 3.

The problem with the FBI report is that it is a primary source - please read the information at that link. Primary sources are acceptable under certain circumstances, but I don't believe this is one of them. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and is intended to be based on reliable (read that as well) secondary sources. If the FBI report was read and commented on by a subject expert in a book or article, the comment by the expert would be usable, because we're relying on their expertise to validate the information. As it is, what you've presented is essentially raw data, unprocessed, unfiltered, and unevaluated. It was possibly the best information that was available at the time, but a lot of research has happened since then, so it's hardly the best possible source to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then what source exactly was Kaplan referring to? Since there is a contradiction, the most responsible thing to do would be to find which source Kaplan relied on to make his determination. What you mention is a possibility. It's also a possibility that the FBI, who had a classified investigation of the organization ongoing, supplemented by confidential informants, got it right. Can we find the source for Kaplan's claim or do we just have to take him at his word? This would actually be a revision back since this page used to state the date of the name change as January 1, 1967 but after the merge, it was changed to 1966 based on the Encyclopedia of White Power2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you're not understanding. Kaplan is a secondary source, so it is automatically preferred over a primary source. If there's a contradiction, then the secondary source prevails. I don't have the Kaplan book, but (judging solely by its title as an "Encyclopedia") it's unlikely to have extensive footnoting, but even if it did, we don't evaluate which of two equally valid underlying sources to use, that would be violating our policy against original research. Instead we would report both -- but that's if they are equal in value. In any case, we don;t have Kaplan's source, so we have to deaql with what we do have. The FBI report, as a primary source, is inferior for our purposes to the secondary source (Kaplan), and the TRAC report is simply outright unreliable, the equivalent of a blog (see WP:Self-published sources). That leave Kaplan as the source to be relied on unless something more compelling comes along. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Kaplan book in question can be previewed here: https://books.google.com/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_White_Power.html?id=nNWbbhUYv8oC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you read page 3, you will find where the 1966 date is mentioned, but there really isint information about where that date comes from. At the bottom of the page, he lists 7 different books that are "further reading". I just want to know if I have to go read all 7 looking for where he got his information or if we can try to dig down further and find it elsewhere. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You're still not getting it, and I believe that is deliberate on your part, but I'll try one more time and that's it, I'm all out of AGF.

Kaplan is a secondary source. The FBI report is a primary source. Secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, therefore Kaplan is preferred over the FBI report. That's the bottom line. You can do whatever you want -- what I'm going to do is turn down your request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And look here: https://books.google.com/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_White_Power.html?id=nNWbbhUYv8oC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q=NSWPP&f=false

His own book has conflicting dates on this matter, depending on which page of the book you are reading. On page 3, its 1966. On page 423, its January 1, 1967. On page 174, it says it was renamed by Koehl, after Rockwell's assassination. So which is it? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you've blown your credibility all to hell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You are being biased and attributing motive where there is none. Lets figure out why there are different dates given in Kaplan's own book. My credibility isint at question here, wikipedia's and kaplan's is. I work in a world where the data is considered accurate and the analysis is what is generally faulty, barring exceptions for bad coding or garbage inputs.This world, where the data is seen as secondary to the analysis, it is confusing. In my life, when contradictions in data arise, we look to resolve them so that accurate analysis can actually occur. Wikipedia seems more focused on the analysis of the raw data, even if the interpretation of the data or the data itself might be incorrect. Maybe that helps explain why I am having a little trouble understanding why raw data is being ignored in lieu of a secondary analysis 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not deal with analyzing raw data. It is verboten. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yea, I get that. I was explaining why Im having a hard time dealing with it, which you are interpreting as being disruptive and trolling, when that really is not my intention. Again, I believe you decided to attribute a motive to me that does not exist and I think that has biased you in favor of rejecting edits and further discussion on the topic. If you are not willing to at least review Kaplan's own book, then I can simply use Kaplans own book to make the edit, as we know its a reliable secondary source. It doesnt matter if the information is contradicted from page to page, as long as I pick the page that says what I want, right? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Tendentious editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My last response was done admittedly, in jest, as obviously you have become to biased towards me to have an open and honest discussion without attribution of ill motive. Looking at that page though, you meet the qualifications of a problem editor. Specifically, having been blocked for a 3RR, not operating in good faith, attributing malice,and not giving me the benefit of the doubt. The only behavior I have engaged in, mentioned there, is failing to indent my discussion on the talk page for the beginning section of this conversation. Here is another quote from the page you just linked:: "Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute."2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to confirm what BMK has been saying without looking too in-depth at the sourcing: I would not consider a 1960s FBI memo to be a reliable source for anything other than what the memo itself said, and reporting on that may be giving undue weight to one primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Encyclopedias are generally tertiary sources, so when possible, we attempt to use the underlying secondary source, but this is not always possible. Wikipedia's value to the world is in that we do our absolute best to never be the first interpreter of primary sourcing. We are simply a summary of what reliable secondary sourcing has said on the subject. In many cases, when given the choice between reporting on something based on a primary source or a source of unknown reliability, and not reporting on anything, it is better to not report on anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If the FBI is a primary source, than so is the MSM. Let's use CNN for example. CNN employs journalists to engage in original thought and original research. CNN then publishes that information, making CNN a "secondary source", correct? Now, the FBI has a number of field analysts who gather data. That data is given to an analyst who writes a report. That report is then published by the FBI. How in this instance, is the FBI not a "secondary source". If the MSM and the FBI follow the same model, why is one called a secondary source and one called a primary source? Furthermore, the prior editor cites one article they found on TRAC as the basis for discrediting them as a source. If WP:OR is forbidden, is their interpretation of the TRAC posting not WP:OR? Should that editor not look for a secondary source discussing the accuracy and validity of TRAC? Any attempts to analyze data for purposes of source validity by myself got met by claims that my work was WP:OR. Basically what Im getting here is that Kaplan could come here in the talk page himself, admit he was wrong and you would still refuse to edit the passage by saying that now Kaplan has engaged in WP:OR and we must wait for a secondary source to analyze, editorialize, and publish discussion on how Kaplan said he was wrong. The accusations that TRAC "self-publishes" is not actually correct. You can go to their press room, and find the original research that they based their write up on for each article that is published. Most of the time, TRAC is just taking data found in news reports, analyzing it, and posting their findings. Just because it's done online like a large majority of MSM, its being called "self-published" by the prior editor2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A historical news report from the 1970s would be a primary source, yes. One years later commenting on the facts and analyzing them would be secondary. Journalism can in various situations be either primary or secondary. An internal FBI memo, however, can only be primary.

You are correct that we would not put an edit in by someone claiming to be Kaplan (or even verified to be). If he decided to publish something that later contradicted his earlier stance or renounce it, we would use it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source, Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun : Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity. New York :New York University Press, 2002. Print. APA . On page 14, the author states: "On 1 January 1967 the party had been renamed to the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), and issues of fund-raising, propaganda writing, and membership recruitment were addressed at a party conference in June". Now, since we have two reliable secondary sources that present conflicting information, to be intellectually honest, we must include ALL views, including the view that the NSWPP was formed on Jaunary 1, 1967, not 1966. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That does appear to be a reliable secondary source. Thank you for providing one. I'll let Beyond My Ken figure out how to best integrate it with the current sourcing and citation structure. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

At 265 scholarly citations, its more reliable than Kaplan who has 91 citations on his Encyclopedia of White Power. Is it not? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It is published by New York University Press, which is a respected academic publisher, so yes, it is a reliable source. I am not contesting that. I'm simply letting a person who is more familiar with the current formatting of the article to figure out how to best integrate it and make it so the prose is actually cited to the correct sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think as evidenced by the conversation between BMK and myself, it would be best for another editor to step in at this point and make the determination and necessary edits. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And he asked me to on my talk page, as I'm a neutral editor who has a halfway decent reputation for being calm. I'm agreeing with you that the source you provided above is a reliable secondary source published by a respected academic publisher. I prefer to let someone like him who is more familiar with the article make the needed changes. If he doesn't make them to your satisfaction, reach out to me on my talk page and I'll provide an opinion again. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If his neutrality is in question, and you were his first choice, that doesnt necessarily make you a neutral party, it makes you his PREFERRED party. I was hoping the community of editors could recommend someone who has not been involved with this discussion, but is familiar with the article to step forward and make the edits. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am unabashedly anti-Nazi if that is what you are referencing, but that doesn't make me non-neutral in terms of knowing Wikipedia's sourcing policies. I also tend to be willing to tell established editors when an IP is right more so than most, so if anything, you've got yourself someone who is more likely to take your side than some others he could have chosen. Anyway, the dispute is resolved other than your complaints about how unfair we are to non-reliable sourcing below. You've provided a reliable source. BMK can work with you to figure out how to integrate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, your pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi views are not being referenced. You never stated a position so it would be impossible to discuss said position without attribution of motive, which would be disingenuous. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)