Talk:Fascist symbolism/Archive 1

I've removed the image of the US "Mercury" dime from this page, as it is more applicable on the fasces page where a listing of modern usages of the symbol appears. Having the image here, on a page entitled fascist symbolism, insinuates that the US government may be or has previously been something of a fascist government, which is not the case even despite how commonly the term is tossed around whenever someone finds themselves disagreeing with someone else. :bloodofox: 04:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism, while considerably different than the Italian fascist movement that influenced it, is generally considered heavily fascist-influenced. I've requested that the Nazi symbolism page be merged with this article since it contains less information and I think the change would allow a more extensive and broad overview of the subject. Many symbols tend to overlap within various fascist-influenced and fascist movements. At the moment, both entries contain a lot of duplicate information when it's really not necessary. :bloodofox: 10:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Fascism and Nazism may be very similar, and often overlap, yes. However, the connotations of being a National Socialist or right wing extremist of one form or another does NOT carry the same connotations as being a Nazi or Neo-Nazi.

Obviously, everyone knows about the holocaust and what Nazism represents, but it would be a folly to incorporate italian or other forms of national socialism into the "typically germanic" movement of the Nazis of the 40's.

There is enough fascist non-Nazi symbolism to carry an article along without the influence of a seperate movement that might confuse people... I would say it would be better for 2 articles to remain seperate while containing similar information, rather than combining 2 things that do not equal each other...

That might be like equalling stalinism with scandinavian socialism... see what i'm getting at?O'Donnell 13:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to totally disagree as well for the same reasons. Since the only comments regarding the merge on both articles have been in opposition I'm removing the merge tags from both articles. - DNewhall 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman influenced? Shouldn`t that reed: influenced by italian fascismI mean the Romans played not a role in th nazi worldview.--Tresckow 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I guess you never studied history of Fascism or Italian Constitutional Law in your University. You should remove the "Third Reich use", "Neo-Nazi use", "Relation to Neopaganism" chapters, which are about National-Socialism, not Italian Fascism. Honestly, the article is rather poor and spread disinformation. Or you are one of those guys described by George Orwell who utilize the Italian term Fascismo to mean "farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek etc."? If you write an article on Fascist symbolism, you must limit your research to the true Fascismo. Jack 01:00, 14 Feb 2007 2006 (UTC)

I deleated the entry into this article because it is one of the most biased things I've seen on wikipedia. The use of fasces in the US government long pre-dates fascism and are symolic of the orignal Roman use not Italian fascism, and therefor has no place in this article. In addition there is already a long discusion on the use of fasces by the US, and other, governments on the fasces article. LCpl (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference in the leading paragraph to Steven Heller's Iron Fists book which looks to be an interesting work covering the political effects of graphical design used by fascist regimes. Not sure if this is the best article for this citation, since the book covers more than symbology, but it seems pretty close. Studio360 featured an interview of the author and this work on 5 September 2008. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other fascist countries largely copied the symbolism of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis for their movements. Like them, their uniforms looked typically like military uniforms with nationalist-appearing insignia of the movement." MANNERHEIM WASN'T A NATZI OR FASCIST, change Mannerheim-Hitler picture or I'll remove it myself!Angry Finn 1 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.219.77 (talk)

The text clearly indicates that the picture is there to illustrate Hitler in uniform.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is more adequate photo at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Benito_Mussolini_and_Adolf_Hitler.jpg that could be used instead of the current photo without assaulting anyone and besides Mussolini photo could be replaced with this as it shows both Hitler and Mussolini in their uniforms.Kaketti (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I saw, that you have written there about "Mieczyk Chrobrego", which was worn by ONR (National Radical Camp Falanga) members.Mieczyk Chrobrego is not a fascist symbol and ONR Falanga was not fascist organization, but national radical one.It might be close to fascism, but it is not fascist movement!Please, delete it from the article. StrumykNR (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What about historical mottos, such as Front Heil for the Stahlhelm of the nationalists who ran contemporary of the National Socialists and their Sieg Heil? The early schutzstaffeln purportedly (prior to Mein ehre heisst treue) had the German translation of "The aristocracy keeps its mouth shut" as an early motto. A Fascisti band & brigade in Italy had "Me Ne Frego" ("Don't give a fuck") and several of the romance language quasi-fascist and integralist movements had "Vive la morte/muerte" ("long live death"). Nagelfar (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: [1]. For me, the main issue is not whether the Azov battalion uses this symbol or not (they did at one point so let's say they still do, I don't know). What I object to is the obviously tendentious attempt to try and pretend that because this one particular volunteer paramilitary unit uses it, therefore all Ukrainian forces use it, therefore they're "fascists". Which is of course bullshit, but it's the bullshit that's been pushed by the pro-Kremlin propaganda machine for months (never mind that there's a ton more real to life "fascists" in the current Russian government). So if you want to note that there's a battalion which uses the symbol that's fine. If you're trying to do some kind of WP:OR or insinuate unwarrented and highly biased claims, then no, sorry, doesn't work that way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Added to this, the contributor who introduced the content initially just plopped in a direct cut and paste here from the pre-existing article on the Azov battalion. For the purposes of this article, it is WP:UNDUE and the user persisted in reintroducing essentially the same content (that is, edit-warring) in a WP:POINTy manner. No other entries on the use of variants of fascist symbols provide lengthy summaries as they are wikilinked to the relevant articles. Per WP:BALASPS, the scope of this article applies to the use, not obvious attempts to indict an entire nation-state based on spurious use of finding the most slanted and creative use of a personal POV on which to hinge your crap. Note that the second 'representation' here was a blatant attempt to apportion culpability.

Please do not use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX, and bear in mind that it is an encyclopaedic resource and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. If readers wish to follow links to groups referenced here, they will find the salient information in the wikilinked article rather than a chunk of cut and paste WP:WINARS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I will take the high road here and simply ignore that you two use expressions like "bullshit" and "hinge your *crap*" which do not belong in civil conversations. I will also add that to think that just because a few thousand Ukrainians show neo-Nazis tendencies and sport neo-Nazi symbols, then the whole Ukrainian nation is made up of a whole bunch of neo-nazis is just ridiculous. I doubt anybody really believes that.

That being said, I don't understand what the problem is with clarifying who these Azov people are... They are Ukrainian, they fight the Russian Separatists, they report to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine... Those are all truths... What is y'all's problem then? That saying that "they report to the M of IA of Ukraine" might lead readers to believe that the Ukrainian Government happily hires and works with Neo-Nazis? IN retrospect I can see where y'all are coming from but I simply took that sentence straight from the Wiki page about Azov. If that is too much, how about we put at least something along the lines of "the Azov Battalion/Regiment that is currently fighting Pro-Russia Separatists in Eastern Ukraine"? At least the reader will know who they are and where they are located... Everything else can be found out at the Azov Battalion article. I am tryijg to work with y'all, I hope I will be reciprocated in a civil manner, --Mondschein English (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Azov, other Ministry of Interior units use Nazi symbols, for example Aidar unit-which has been reported by the western media. Symbols have not been limited to Wolfsangel, but also include SS runes and insygnia of Waffen SS units involved in genocide of Polish people. As to presence of Nazis in government, they are neo-Nazis in current Ukrainian administration, including ones with Nazi tattoos but I don't know if that would go beyond scope of this article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a giant difference between an individual having an SS tattoo or something (there are idiots with such tattoos everywhere in the world, not just in the Ukraine) and an entire Battalion or Regiment choosing a Nazi symbol and the government it reports to condoning it (and *my* government using *my* money to finance/aid it). See what I mean? --Mondschein English (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The "Azov" itself (and certain sources) deny that they use it as a Neo-Nazi symbol. therefore, inclusion of this material is contentious and requires consensus. I do not think we have it now. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that with *even* the US congress now calling it a Neo Nazi group, the Azov folks are grasping at straws to try and save face, but the Wolfsengel is indeed a very scary Nazi symbol and it is hard to believe that they are using it "as something else". Do you have any sources supporting what you stated that I can look at? Maybe there is something to your story, everything is possible. --Mondschein English (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Azov does use this Neo-nazi symbol and this has been confirmed by numerous mainstream sources like BBC, The Guardian, Foreign Policy and others.If you have sources disputing this you are free to add them, but statements from a neo-Nazi militia are not reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mondschein English. Even according to Russian sources I read, for example here (specifically about the Wolfsangel): "The emblem of Ukrainian battalion "Azov" also reminds Wolfsangel in mirror form, although its authors deny the connection with runic symbol.". Hence this not really the Wolfsangel, and they never agreed that their symbolics was neo-Nazi. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you've pulling up op-ed pieces - and those dating back to early 2014 - not followed through via WP:RS since that time. The majority of the opinion pieces were written by essentially unknowns trying to create a journalistic profile for themselves and, in the majority, writing for the yellow press... or anyone will have them so long as the piece is attributed to that journalist (thereby avoiding any embarrassment should the article encounter any backlash for lack of cite-checking). You've also introduced WP:SYNTH where the bulk of the information surrounded interviews, some of the interviewees admitting 'sort of nazi like sympathies, but not actually Nazi sympathies') and reports from the authors that they did see Nazi tats, etc. (as noted by Mondschein English).

My favourite pieces of bias is op-ed reporters drawing on the 'expert' Anton Shekhovtsov. No, he has made himself a high-profile 'known' by writing extremist blogs (nothing like building up an academic career by being an extremist). The only time I've seen him referenced in the sorts of op-ed articles where he is 'quoted' but never actually interviewed by the author of the article. Oh, yes, that's most definitely catering to bums on seats and establishing yourself as a well respected academic. Please note that I objected to the use of Shekhovtsov for the same reasons as not being short of a biased source, therefore inappropriate for the article's content in the Donbass general elections, 2014 here, on the talkpage. My position as to anyone using him without attribution, and only where his opinions are seen to be WP:DUE has not changed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Unfortunately I cannot read that (everybody saw my best Russian!!), but I have no reason to doubt what you are saying.

Well, then, if we find reliable sources that state that the Azov folks officially deny using the Wolfsengel as a Nazi Symbol (maybe they see it as some ancestral Ukrainian symbol of some sort or something) let's make sure that gets mentioned, as well. I, for one, would of course steer clear of anything that is even remotely Nazi like, or that could allude at racism, white supremacy and the like, but I am not the Azov folks so it does not really matter what I'd do. --Mondschein English (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither The Guardian or The Telegraph are "yellow press", I have seen no discussion that would claim they are not RS-if there is one feel free to correct me. If you believe these are not reliable sources-put it in RS noticeboard first for discussion but do not remove them, the general opinion of these newspapers is that they can be quoted on Wikipedia.Your personal views on experts are noted but until discussed on RSN not a guideline. Finally claiming that it "just resembles" is just nitpicking.The fact that it looks like it has been picked up by mainstream media and resembles is the perfect word to use.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Also the BBC article was not a "op piece" nor was the information about Wolfsangel attributed to the expert you don't like IH.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

the Telegraph article that was removed here [2] under the claim " Removing op-ed piece by unknown brand "Dina Newman" (also quotes Shekhovtsov who is 'expert' only in extreme views))". This does not apply to the article in question as it is written by completely different author and is not an opinion piece, and seems to be in regards to BBC news article. Why was then The Telegraph removed? I will assume this was a mistake, correct?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What they use is not Wolfsangel, but a mirror image of it. This mirror image was originally used by Social-National Assembly, not by Azov. If you want to include it, this should be described as a mirror image of Wolfsengel introduced by the "Social-National Assembly". The attributing it exclusively to Azov (as it is right now) only makes sense if someone wants to blame Ukrainian army of "fascism". My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Checked again. Obviously, these guys (I mean Social-National Assembly who introduced the symbol, not Azov) can be right-wing nationalists, but here they officially claimed that their symbol came as a combination of two letters that had nothing to do with Nazi symbols. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Apologies, the Telegraph article was removed in mistake (although Tom Parfitt's expertise is not in that region but Georgia and the North Caucasus's, and is an op-ed). No one is disputing that the battalion was/is rife with neo-Nazi's, but you are attributing the use of the 'Wolfsangel' based on a few spurious reports. If you care to read the press release for the 3 amendments passed by the US House of Representatives, you'll see that it was not based on investigation, but on quotes from exactly the sources you're quoting: specifically the Parfitt alone for the purported identification of the Wolfsangel. The lack of sourcing doesn't exactly smack of credibility. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

on a few spurious reports-they are literally dozens of sources on this, coming from highly respectable mainstream news sources that are considered extremely reliable-BBC, The Telegraph(which btw I have already asked about on RS:NB and it was confirmed to be ok supporting this information), ZDF, Die Welt and others. We don't base Wikipedia on views of users, but on sources. And this case it is clear-the neo-Nazi Azov militia uses Wolfsangel symbol. In addition they use SS runes, swastikas and other nazi symbols-again sourced by mainstream news media.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Authors deny that it was Wolfsangel. How notable was the usage of the alleged mirror image of the symbol by one of Ukrainian battalions in the context of this general subject (Fascist symbolism)? I think this is probably undue. Perhaps this local controversy seems notable at the moment, but please remember about WP:Recentism...My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as being a problem that the Wolfsangel issue is addressed on the Azov battalion article per RS, but I do see it as being highly problematic for this article and the Wolfsangel article precisely as being WP:UNDUE as a matter of WP:RECENTISM. While the press is having a field day and US reps may enjoy a chance to be seen to be representing goodness and niceness, this has all been riding on the crest of dated reports that haven't been properly investigated (as evidenced by Conyers' press release). Wikipedia is definitely WP:NOTNEWS for articles of this calibre. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove this well sourced information, covered by wide number of reliable mainstream sources throughout this conflict.As to denial by neo-Nazis that their symbol is Nazi, neo-Nazi statements are hardly a reliable source of information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors Casualed and Beyond My Ken. Beyond My Ken, I agreed with Casualed's removal of Anarchist symbolism and Communist symbolism from the "See also" section of the article, and am curious why it was reverted. Those two link to each other in their own See also sections, which makes sense since their subject matter overlaps, but isn't linking fascist symbolism to either of them a bit like putting Orange (fruit) in the See also section of Apple? Sure, they're both tree fruits, but I think grouping things like that is more the job of categories than See also links (which might make people think they're more related than they actually are).

Apologies for the bad analogy, but I hope my point is clear. I don't think Anarchist symbolism and Communist symbolism should be included in this page's See also. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The "See also" section is for links to related articles which the reader might be interested in. Although the anarchist and communist symbolism articles are not about fascist symbolism, they are about symbolism for other radical political ideologies, and therefore would presumably be interesting to the reader of this article. Please see WP:SEEALSO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken What do you mean by "radical" political ideologies? Could you please tell us which political ideologies are "radical" and which of them are not? List of political ideologies. For example, do Religious Zionism, Christian nationalism and Pan-Islamism seem "radical" to you? Because in that case we could add links to zionist symbols to the See also section of this page, which is something I find completely absurd. Casualed (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)