Jump to content

Talk:American Nazi Party/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

Remove sentence:
"In 1966, Rockwell renamed the ANP the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), a move that alienated some hard-line members."

Replace with:
"On January 1, 1967, Rockwell renamed the ANP to the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), a move that alienated some hard-line members."[1] 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32989523.pdf
  • This is an unevaluated primary source, so I oppose changing the text and using it as a cited source. I'll leave it to other editors to either accept or reject the edit request, but I recommend against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the tenor of the discussion above, I've changed my mind, and I will answer the request - others can override me if they disagree. The FBI report is an unevaluated primary source and is therefore not an acceptable source.  Not done Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC
  • For someone who has been blocked from editing for rule violations, you would know what a disruptive editor is no? I am allowed to re-open it as wikipedia doesnt stop me from doing it. "This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request." Stop being biased, stop lying, and stop being a disruptive editor, as evidence by your talk page. Furthermore, the status of a ticket is not your "comment". Its a status box and wikiedia says i can change it to re-open my request if i want. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia says no such thing. Those instructions are for the person answering the request - i.e. me -- and not for the person making the request -- you -- otherwise every rejected edit request would be locked into an endless round of opening and closing. You made a request, I was going to let others answer it, until I was persuaded that the request was not an improvement to the article because the source provided was primary. As I've said (at least twice) I don't mind other editors overriding me, but you as the person requesting the edit, cannot. I've asked an admin to look into this. If I've been hasty, I trust them to say so, and I'll accept that. In the meantime, don't change the status of the request. It has been answered -- that the answer is not one which you like is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You are lying, wikipedia specifically asks if I want to re-open my request and tells me how to do it. I just showed you evidence of that. You said that was not the case. You said I edited your comments and I did not. Edit requests that are permanently closed are archived, no? It was my request and the message box says your request. What I mind, is you going back on your word and addressing this request even though you said you would not.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Having actually looked at this sourcing since a page number was provided and it was an actual request, I agree with BMK's  Not done. We simply aren't competent to evaluate the accuracy of a 1970s internal US government memo. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • But you are competent enough to determine that TRAC is not a reliable source? To make that determination, you have to review data, analyze it, and make a determination. Is that not original research? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • No, they tell us themselves that they cannot be trusted as a reliable source: Hence, TRAC cannot and does not warrant the accuracy of its profiles. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Kaplan gives no warranty of the validity of his information. Why does TRAC have to meet this burden when others do not. The MSM gives no warranty for the information they provide either. It seems like an undue burden is being placed on this source and not other similar sources. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Kaplan is a tenured academic who published through a respected publisher that has an editorial control process. Mainstream journalistic publications have fact checkers and editorial oversight as well as a code of journalistic ethics that includes publishing corrections if information is falsely reported. The process allows us to assume these sources are reliable because there is editorial oversight and in the case of academics, peer review. A random website that accepts submissions from readers that it then publishes on its own with the disclaimer that it may or may not be accurate is quite different. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
            • TRAC also, like the MSM, says it will correct itself if proven wrong. There are editors who provide oversight, but since it's only two people, its been deemed insufficient. EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE has a disclaimer about incorrect information to absolve legal liability when using the content of others for purposes of editorializaiton and discussion. If I email the ADL and they say they cannot guarantee the validity of every piece of information on their website, will we disqualify them as a reliable source? Same goes for SPLC. This is from CNN's terms of use: "CNN is a distributor (and not a publisher or creator) of content supplied by third parties and users. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or content expressed or made available by third parties, including information providers or users of the Site, are those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of CNN. Neither CNN nor any third-party provider of information guarantees the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any content, nor its merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. (Refer to Section 6 below for the complete provisions governing limitation of liabilities and disclaimers of warranty.)" (https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/cnn-info/interactive-legal/index.html) So does that mean that CNN is not a valid source because they wont warranty the validity of the information on their site? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That comes through their section on third-party content. Third-party content published through CNN that is not subject to it's editorial oversight, such as op-eds, would not be reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the authors. You are correct. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Do not call CNN a publisher, as CNN merely calls itself a "distributor". According to their own words, things are not published by CNN, CNN merely acts as the distribution vehicle for "information providers". Here is the SPLC: "THE WEBSITES ARE PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. USE OF THE WEBSITES IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE WEBSITES ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, SPLC, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AND ITS LICENSORS DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE CONTENT IS ACCURATE, RELIABLE OR CORRECT; THAT THE WEBSITES WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; THAT THE WEBSITES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME OR LOCATION, UNINTERRUPTED OR SECURE; THAT ANY DEFECTS OR ERRORS WILL BE CORRECTED; OR THAT THE WEBSITES ARE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS." From their section "No Warranty and Limitation of Liability" available at https://www.splcenter.org/privacy-policy-terms. SPLC takes it a step further basically saying explicitly that errors and defects may not be corrected at all. Looking at a different section of CNN policy, we find the following: "(A) YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER CNN, ITS PARENT, SUBSIDIARIES, ITS OTHER AFFILIATES NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE SITE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY OR CONTENT OF ANY INFORMATION, SERVICE, OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH THE SITE."
Apologies for all the caps, Im just copying and pasting from their policies.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Re: CNN, no, that section was specifically dealing with third-party content that CNN distributes using it's platform. Not content that CNN publishes itself. Please do not take their words out of context. FWIW, in general, I do not like CNNs website as a source and think there are better ones.
      Re: the SPLC was cited three times here. The first two times are from its print publication that is simply reprinted electronically, so the disclaimer you are referencing wouldn't apply unless it is also contained in the original publication. The third time was an obit about the IRS foreclosing and forcing relocation. I've updated that information to be cited to Kaplan. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The second quote from CNN does not come from its Third Party Content section. Instead, it comes from the section titled "6. Disclaimer of Warranty; Limitation of Liability." available at the same link as provided earlier. I get that you take issue with the first section of their policy that I copied due to the section it was copied from. As the later quote was taken from a different section of the policy not dealing with specific third party content, its obviously relevant for the terms of this discussion. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
        • If you can't see the distinction between generic language on websites of a trusted content provider that can reference things other than what it is primarily distributing, and a disclaimer specifically aimed at the information being cited then there isn't anything I can say or do that will persuade you otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
          • And despite every single website refusing to warranty the accuracy of their content, I will never persuade you that you are placing an undue burden on TRAC by requiring that they warranty their information to be considered reliable. Their usage of the same legal terminology used by CNN and the SPLC is being used to discredit them. Any analysis you have done of TRAC is WP:OR and is not valid as you are not published and you are not a reliable source on these matters. You have no legal qualifications to make determinations about legal statements and nor do I. We must take the statements at face value since neither of us are qualified to dispute them. Any attempt to interpret their statements would be considered original research, would it not? On the flip side of this though, CNN published those terms, so they are the primary source for those terms, so they cant be used either. See the conundrum? If we want to discuss these terms and conditions, we must wait for someone who we can agree is a reliable source to analyze them and achieve publication from a reputable publishing house.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Considering the source provided in the discussion above this one (Goodrick-Clarke), I have added an informational note which reports on the disputed date of the name change, and changed the text of the article accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
An existing citation for the book Ideas and Movements that Shaped America: From the Bill of Rights to "Occupy Wall Street" (3 vols.) by Green, Michael S. and Stabler, Scott L. (2015). Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 390. ISBN 978-1610692519. ISBN 1610692519. Retrieved May 12, 2016. also makes note of the 1967 date on page 390. Please add that to the reference note you made. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Where are we getting the other two names from the Kaplan book (Ryden & Noel)? Every publisher I can find lists Kaplan as the sole author/editor. Even the wikipedia page for the book lists Kaplan as the sole author. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_White_Power) 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
He is the editor, but not the sole contributor. [1] I assume whoever added it as a source first formatted it that way for some reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, it is just odd to me that two (correction, one) contributor(s) have been picked out of a long list and cited by name along with Kaplan. Ryden is listed first in the "contributors" but I see no mention of Noel as a contributor at the link you provided. It is just an odd way to do the citation, yes? Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. I have purchased the Kaplan book in question so we should know more once it is delivered and all pages can be reviewed. I will look to see if we can find evidence of Noel somewhere that would justify citing him. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You caught us. It's all part of a vast conspiracy that you have now undermined. We'll all be leaving for North Korea immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You are obviously joking otherwise, you would be violating multiple rules as an editor. Your response is disingenuous and does not give me, a new user, the benefit of the doubt. I was never implying a conspiracy so unless you are joking, that is an unfair and unsubstantiated accusation and should be considered a personal attack. You cant explain why the citation is the way it is. I did not request for it to be changed, I was merely discussing it and made note that I will have an actual copy of the book and will try to see if we cant resolve the issue once it is in my possession. So how did you get to where you are based off what I said? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
BMK, you know we get along, but the joke isn't helping the IP here, even though I do appreciate your frustration
IP: I would highly recommend that you create an account so that you can make non-controversial changes such as this yourself. The reason for the citation the way it is if I had to guess is that it was citing a specific chapter first and not the work as a whole. I didn't change it with my last update, because it could also be for the reasons BMK is suggesting.
From a behavioral standpoint, I can also get why BMK is frustrated: dealing with your complaints about the FBI memo and TRAC are very frustrating because we were giving clear explanations and you didn't seem to be understanding them (and I don't want to go back to that discussion.) As a piece of advice when working in fringe areas within Wikipedia: you will wear people's patience thin if you keep repeating "[Mainstream source everyone respects] is just like [unreliable source X]!" If someone had made a report to WP:ANI and WP:AE for pushing of unreliable sourcing on a controversial article and not listening to what you were being told, you could have ended up blocked. Thankfully we found a reliable source, so that is behind us. Also, like I said, I highly encourage you to get an account if you are going to edit in areas like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My apologies to all involved.
I have already changed the citation in the article to indicate that Kaplan is the editor, removing the other names, but if the IP receives the book and finds that the citation is from a specific entry written by the other names, then the citation can be re-written to indicate the name of the entry and the authors of it. If they haven't created an account and become auto-confirmed by then, the IP should feel free to report their findings here and I can adjust the citations again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Asperger's sucks man. People often cannot understand how I came to a train of thought and often, I take things literally, quite literally. It is hard for me to understand the concept of how two mutually exclusive things can be listed and discussed as fact. For me, those issues need to be clarified further. It would be a dream come true if I could use actual documentation found in the book I ordered to prove BMK's theory about why "they can both be right" ie, internal name change versus filing the paperwork at the end of the tax year. Then we could really expand this section with a rich wealth of additional knowledge. What also frustrated me is that the editors in question had not reviewed the sources with enough detail to identify the discrepancy themselves, as evidenced by the pre-existing citation that concurs with the new citation. The edit I requested could have been made without any actual citation being provided by me and simply requesting that you read the cited works already listed on the page. Instead of that happening, my disability was used against me to declare me a nuisance and a disruptive editor. For the last time, wikiedia does not require an account and until one is mandatory, I will not create one. The fact that getting an edit done without one is such a painful process should be laid bare for all to see. Stop bringing this up as an issue. You consistently address my behavior in your responses for all to see while never addressing the unsubstantiated allegations against me by other editors. Obviously neither of you could have known I was disabled so please, let me be clear, I am not implying any ill motive or intention on either of your parts in regard to that aspect of the discussion.
Regardless, I do now feel that I understand the different source models and the relationships between them. While there as some nuances I am still trying to wrap my head around, I can say my understanding of these topics has greatly improved. Thank you for sharing the information with me that you did and I am sorry that my disability has made the process difficult for both of you. If I can find references of Noel once I get the book, I will make the request as BMK asked. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No one's saying that they're both "right", we're saying that we have two different sources which provide two different dates, so we don't choose between them, we report both. That's our function, as a tertiary source.
In point of fact, it's quite possible for both to be "true" -- and bear in mind that this is pure speculation on my part, and cannot go into the article. It's conceivable that an internal decision was made by the organization in 1966 to change its name, but that official papers -- such as for tax purposes -- weren't filed until January 1, 1967, a date that supports the idea that it's due to some bureaucratic paperwork. But we don't know that so we can't even suggest it in the article unless a reliable source says it. It may, however, help you to understand why two reliable sources could report different dates. Or, of course, one could just simply be wrong -- but, again, we don't know that, and it's not our place to choose between them, barring extraordinary circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"no one's saying that they're both "right"". Actually, that's exactly what you said, "It's actually possible that both sources are right", right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni#Request_on_Talk:American_Nazi_Party. I was just trying to explain what was going on in my head to help your understand my train of thought and possibly dissuade you of the notion that I was being intentionally disruptive. I was not asking for the hypothesis you made in your post here, and on Tony's wall to be added to the article. Why you think and insinuate that I did ask for that, is beyond me. The phraseology of your reply makes it sound like I asked for that, when I clearly did not. I simply said it would be a dream come true if we could prove that from the source material and then use it to expand the section further. I was trying to explain to you that I am starting to understand, and you take it as an opportunity to hammer your points home again. Well done. Also, please stop picking a singular aspect of a multi-faceted response to respond to, while leaving the rest of my reply unaddressed 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Believe me, my anonymous friend, many of us here are on the spectrum somewhere in the Asperger's neighborhood; and we do understand something of your frustration. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think the current version is still sub-optimal, as "mid-1960s" implies a broader date range and "in 1966 or 1967" would be better. The wording of the footnote is fine. It's only a small semantic issue, though, so if others feel strongly about it the other way then I'll accept that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. Here are images from the book "Encyclopedia Of White Power - A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right"
1) The citation for this book in the Library of Congress - [1]
2) A mention of Ryden in the Preface - [2]
3) All listed "contributors", no mention of Noel anywhere - [3] [4] [5]
4) Page 3 of the book, date of name change, "1966", changed by Rockwell - [6]
5) Page 174 of the book, date of name change, sometime after August 25th, 1967, changed by Koehl - [7]
6) Page 423 of the book, date of name change, "January 1, 1967, changed by Rockwell - [8]
As indicated by the OP and disregarded by editor BMK, this book does contain date discrepancies on the above noted pages. Feel free to incorporate the wide range of dates provided by this source in to the article however you see fit. 2600:1702:4420:7C80:D9A6:AD0A:191C:BF25 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://imgur.com/5PA09ok
  2. ^ https://imgur.com/EwXCwGH
  3. ^ https://imgur.com/RjyshbJ
  4. ^ https://imgur.com/azobbdZ
  5. ^ https://imgur.com/0uBWvBe
  6. ^ https://imgur.com/ekxAvs8
  7. ^ https://imgur.com/dveQHRQ
  8. ^ https://imgur.com/fMkGQdn
Just exactly what is it you are asking for? The article says "In 1966 or 1967,[C] Rockwell renamed the ANP the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP)", and Note C says "The actual date of the change in name is unclear. Kaplan reports it as being in 1966, while Goodrick-Clarke and Green and Stabler report it as occurring on January 1, 1967." How does this conflict with what you've posted above. What specific changes are you requesting? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the book refered to as "Kaplan" is an encyclopedia, edited by Kaplan, which means that each of those separate entries you cite were written by a different person, which information you did not provide. They were presumably working from different sources, which is why there is a disparity in the reported date of change -- which is not unusual in historical writing. In any case, our article correctly identifies the accepted date range. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
As you continue to appear to have a problem with me, I am going to ask another editor to step in. It is difficult for me to work with you given our history.
On page 174 of the book, the date of the name change is listed as "Following the assassination of Rockwell in 1967", Aug 25, 1967 for reference. And it indicates that the name was changed by Koehl. This is not listed anywhere in the article and the text you quoted only mentions that it was changed by Rockwell. "Rockwell or Koehl renamed the ANP..." would be more reflective of the source material. Inclusion of the discrepancy in who changed the name can be included in the footnote that mentions the discrepancies in the dates. 2600:1702:4420:7C80:B5B7:1C72:4EC4:4753 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted material regarding ideology

Neo-Nazism
Neo-fascism
White nationalism
Ethnic nationalism
Identitarianism
White supremacism
Scientific racism
Racial segregation
Antisemitism
Authoritarian capitalism
IMO, these links help tie together the ideology of the American Nazi Party. They are not redundant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word "assassination" to describe George Rockwell death

I'm a brand new user, so I apologize in advance if this is irrelevant or nit-picking, but I was wondering if the use of "assassination" may be a loaded term in this case. If I'm not following the right rules, please let me know. I read the talk page to see if this had been brought up before, and I don't want to get in a bad argument with anyone.

I'm working on a term paper on "the history and evolution of white separatism/supremacy" over the holidays, and am on my second section after researching the German-American Bund organization, starting research on the American Nazi Party and George Rockwell next, when I read he was assassinated I was pretty intrigued, and wondering why I hadn't ever read or heard about this assassination, but then saw that he was murdered by a disgruntled former employee.

This feels a little misleading to me, and thought maybe the more standard term "murdered" would be more appropriate. I looked up the definition on Wiktionary of assassination, and it mentioned murder for political or personal gain, which I guess technically the fellow that shot Rockwell did it for the personal gain of revenge, I guess any murder committed would be for some personal gain for the murderer unless it was completely accidental, or someone who may not have the capacity to know what they're doing, but then that makes the word assassination kind of lose its meaning. I've heard plenty of folks talk about Tupac Shakur being assassinated, so has the definition of assassination just evolved to mean any famous person that has been murdered?

It's confusing, and with this example, it feels like the intention of writing that Norman Rockwell was assassinated might be to intentionally mislead, like, to give more of a historical weight to his death than if it was written that he was simply murdered (which to me just seems more appropriate). Again, I guess technically his death fits the definition, but "assassinated", though it might not be listed in the dictionary definition, has an aura of conspiracy, or if not a conspiracy, still some sort of bigger and nefarious purpose other than a run-in with an angry and maybe unhinged co-worker or employee?

Thank you to any moderator (sorry if that isn't the right term, I haven't used Wikipedia much before) who can correct me if I've brought this up in the incorrect way or format (I very much welcome any correction, or helpful tips) who might be able to change "assasinated" to "murdered", or if my logic is faulty, to correct me instead, haha.TheBlueTortoise (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the conversation from the entry on "George Lincoln Rockwell", which talks about what the correct term for his killing should be used, and what differentiates an assassination from a simple murder, the point being there should be some level of consistency between the terminology used between the different entries to avoid confusion (as I was confused reading them):

″Assassination or murder?

The lead says that Rockwell was murdered, but he was a public figure and the likely motive was political in nature. Public figures who are murdered for political reasons are commonly called victims of assassination (see MLK and Malcolm X). Is Rockwell's ideology being used against him as a reason to not accurately categorize his death? 47.137.183.192 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 

   Nowhere does the article explain how this was politically motivated, nor does it give any motive at all. The John Patler article doesn't either. This information would require reliable sources. Assassination is a subset of murder, so just saying "murder" is sufficient and more neutral until such sources are provided. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

       Agreed. I've eliminated references to assassination from the article for these reasons. João Do Rio (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)″

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueTortoise (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the term "assassinated". While I do not dispute that some sources use this term, some don't, and I do not think this adds clarity to the article. This information was not well-organized, as it included redundancy and some other issues, so my edit attempted to consolidate things, as well. Detailed information about Rockwell's death should most likely be explained at the article for Rockwell. This article should summarize this incident as it relates to the party. The source added for the term "assassinated" was this article from a 2017 Washington Post article says little about a motive and only vaguely implies it had to do with the party's direction. This is probably because Patler himself has been vague, but the article does mention "a personal falling out". Again, this could be called assassination and it would not be strictly incorrect, but it also could just be called murder, and since personally-motivated killings are not typically described as assassinations, this seems potentially misleading. Instead of using a word with ambiguous, potentially loaded implications, I think it is better to use simpler and more direct language. Grayfell (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"Death" seems somewhat bland. Would "murder" be better? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that works for me. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Blue disc in flag

We are showing an ANP flag with blue disc, which is apparently usual. However, the blue disc shows a polar map of the world, as in the United Nations flag. A Website called Flags of the World, however, calls this a variant, and puts on top a flag that shows an outline map of North America in the disc. Are we showing the wrong flag? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

American Nazi Party → New Order (American Nazi party) – renamed in 1983, no longer called the American Nazi Party Doug Weller talk 10:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Doug Weller talk 10:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it says that, as this hasn't been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I said "it made no mention of a "New Order"", which is still correct.
You are talking about what you think is accurate while I was talking about WP:COMMONNAME. Now if you want to talk about accuracy then you can have these details.
This 2019 report by SPLC named "American Nazi Party", but also named "New Order" when they added them to the list of hate groups. New Order's own website, which was deleted by Wordpress also shows a connection with ANP but in the sense that it's a splinter group than a renamed group.[3]
This proves that "New Order" is separate from "American Nazi Party".
ANP's own website names Axl Hess as the Chairman,[4] who was evidently a "spokesman" for the party in 2015.[5] In 2015, we heard that "The current version of the ANP has chapters in seven states and is headed by Rocky Suhayda, who was a member of Rockwell’s Nazi organization." Note the sentence "has chapters".
That said, it seems that "New Order" is yet another chapter or a version while American Nazi Party continues to operate with the same name. 103.240.204.158 (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
And I said the last detailed source is the Brill source "Dreaming of a National Socialist World: The World Union of National Socialists (wuns) and the Recurring Vision of Transnational Neo-Nazism'". Also dated 2019. The SPLC report is about a splinter group with the same name and the New Order. Did you bother to read it? And I'm guessing you may be a member of the splinter group. There is no evidence that the original ANP still exists under that name. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I am just an observer, not affiliated with any of these groups. Yes I have read the Bril source but the last update provided by them is from 2014, in the words that "Koehl maintained interest in the wuns until his death in 2014." Though Bril has cited the official website (theneworder.org) of New Order as a source, at least 4 times so we need to take a look at it.
SPLC report provides Westland, MI as the address of ANP which is also confirmed by Bloomberg website. SPLC provides Milwaukee, Wisconsin as the location of New Order which is confirmed by this reliable source that New Order is "Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based group". New Order's official website itself supports this location.[6]
ANP is led by Axl Hess[7] and New Order is led by Martin Kerr.[8]
Earlier, New Order was led by Matthias Koehl while Rocky Suhayda led ANP.
"The mere FACT that only a tiny handful of the literally thousands of Party Comrades followed him from the NSWPP into his newly created cult speaks for itself," said Rocky Suhayda on Matthias Koehl's foundation of New Order.[9]
Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic provides an accurate description that "In the 1960s, Rockwell organized the harassment of civil rights workers in the South. In the 1970s, the ANP organized confrontations against integrationists and eventually spawned another organization, the National Socialist White People's Party. The American Nazi Party, now based in Michigan and run by Rocky Suhayda, uses the Internet to attract membership."
That said, there appears to be a valid case that why SPLC and others treat both, ANP and New Order to be different entities. They are both different and still operating. 103.240.204.158 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
That encyclopedia is dated 2014. I see no reason to believe Suhayda. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Though I think Doug Weller is right about the history, the current name wins out on recognizability and naturalness. Also, disambiguation is needed for the proposed title and the current title would be an acceptable dab method per WP:NATURAL. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:55, 3 August 2022‎ (UTC)
    • Adding some info here per a user talk page request. When I say I agree with Doug, what I really mean is that the sources above show an unbroken chain of renamings leading from Rockwell's party to today's New Order. I think Suhayda's/Hess's ANP splinter group should have content in this article, potentially spun off into a standalone article (with a disambiguated title) if there's enough of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

*Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Reichsadler with Blue Globe

The file Logo of the American Nazi Party.png appears in this article, and shows a Reichsadler with a blue globe, however, from all images of the historical American Nazi Party founded by George Lincoln Rockwell, the Reichsadler was never used, only the Hakenkreuz (swastika.) Does anyone have a source confirming that the Reichsadler was used by Rockwell’s party? If so, please add it to the article. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Nazi_Party/Archive_2&oldid=1232828129"