Wikipedia talk:No Nazis

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:

1. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
3. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
6. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
8. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
9. Jorm (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
10. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
11. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
12. Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
13. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
14. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
15. Nazi ideology is an ongoing contemporary problem worth recognizing and addressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
16. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
17. –dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
18. RolandR (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
19. oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
20. pythoncoder (talk | contribs)
21. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
22. Davide King (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
23. Orangemike --Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
24. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
25. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
26. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
27. Ckoerner (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
28. Isabelle ^🔔 16:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
29. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
30. lovkal (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
31. P-K3 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
32. N^oformation ^Talk 05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
33. Miniapolis 02:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
34. No Nazis, and also no QAnons. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
35. No Xenophobes on WP. Bingobro (Chat) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
36. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
37. Firestar464 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
38. aeschyIus (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
39. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
40. No racism, no pseudoscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
41. Oh hell ya HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
42. Loki (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
43. Like the Dead Kennedys said. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
44. Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
45. A more universal essay there could never be. I will not suffer hate on our Wiki. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
46. FormalDude (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
47. The problems of Nazi revisionism is not limited to enWP only unfortunately. That also means proactively reviewing and ensuring high quality sources and information on Articles documenting contemporary and modern Nazism. Proudly antifascist and endorse making this policy in Wikipedia:No Nazis namespace Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
48. ⌘ 18:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
49. ASUKITE 18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
50. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
51. Seconding the Dead Kennedys' statement. - Sumanuil 22:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
52. Theknightwho (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
53. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
54. Fuck Nazis. X-Editor (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
55. Quid Est Squid (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
56. As a Jewish Wikipedian I feel so happy that we have this essay here and that Nazis are almost always almost immediately blocked, but so sad that there are Nazis and that we need this essay. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
57. casualdejekyll 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
58. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
59. Googleguy007 (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
60. Thought I’d already signed this; it appears I have not. As an editor of Jewish descent and somebody who believes racist, antisemitic and pro-Nazi views are incompatible with both NPOV and Wikipedia as a whole, I fully endorse this essay. Patient Zero^talk 06:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
61. HurricaneEdgar 11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
62. Hate is not welcome here Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
63. No pasarán. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
64. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
65. Take a walk, Hitler lovers. No room for your BS. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
66. Obviously. What a world we live in where people oppose the idea of preventing those who support Nazi idealology from editing what is, at the end of the day, a privately run website — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 11:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
67. Unequivocally. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

    Nice! --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

68. Seriously, though. The optimum number of Nazis contributing to an encyclopaedia is zero. A visible Nazi will do a thousand times more to put off good editors than can ever be balanced by any good that they might theoretically do. Besides, it is not like we are going to notice that somebody is a Nazi unless they actually do some Nazi stuff. If some Nazi is editing pages about the insects of Bavaria then we will never know nor care that they are a Nazi so long as they keep their Nazism out of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
69. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
70. Per my comments below. A core tenet of Nazism is that many of the people who edit Wikipedia ought to be exterminated; supporting that view is incompatible with WP:CIVIL editing. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a debate society, which means you have to be able to work with other people in a collegial fashion - you cannot politely imply that your fellow editors should be murdered and expect to be able to contribute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
71. Those that would have me and my family murdered should never be tolerated in a community project. If that ever changes, please go ahead and delete every contribution I've ever made here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
72. If people are willing to believe racist, false ideas, then they are incompatible with a fact-based encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
73. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
74. I am inspired by the courage of these words. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
75. Nazis are aptly named. We should "not see" their writings in our encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
76. Andre🚐 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
77. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
78. — Bilorv (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
79. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
80. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
81. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
82. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
83. I support having no Nazis on Wikipedia. A fact website is no place for bigotry. 2601:600:9080:A4B0:7970:99A:495A:55E8 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
84. The glorification of racist, murderous war criminals does not belong on Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
85. One could make the "we shouldn't ban people for their beliefs argument", but that's not a position Wikipedia has had for a very long time. Wikipedia has been banning pedophiles and suspected pedophiles on the spot since around 2007 for the simple reason they cause more problems than they solve; this should be extended to include racists and other extremists who tend to not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit the Wikipedia in a neutral manner. There is also the entire Nazi bar problem: Places which do not kick out fascists soon become spaces dominated by fascists. Samboy (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
86. If nazis try promoting their views or existence in a public arena, the only acceptable response is to run them out of town by any means necessary. The digital commons is no different. No pasarán. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
87. DFlhb (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
88. Nazis (and for that matter, any other type of bigots) don't belong on Wikipedia because 1) they create a hostile, incivil editing environment and 2) they come in here to push an agenda and violate NPOV (extremists are virtually incapable of editing neutrally). Thus Nazis and such are against the fundamental nature of Wikipedia and don't belong here, period. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 23:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
89. Nazism and white supremacy are inherently hateful and exclusionary ideologies. The opposite qualities, civility and tolerance, are required for being a contributor here. Subscribing to these ideologies is disqualifying on its face. TitanAndromeda 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
90. OutsideNormality (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
91. Nazis are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, its openness to different ethnicities, and its philosophy of supporting access to the sum of all human knowledge for everyone. 22090912l (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
92. Agreed, but don't limit it to the classic boneheads, the Nazis of today wear suits and ties and oppose undocumented immigration, sanctuary cities, a minority-majority and want to erect border walls in the spirit of the 14 words, which summarizes Nazi ideology in a nutshell. Do not let them win in November! Oompje (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
93. In addition to endorsing this essay, editors should also be aware of alternate identities and words less commonly used than 'Nazi' or 'fascism' (such as identitarianism) that may be used as a mask on their belief system. Although we've thankfully surpassed the fascist wave of ~2016–17, we still should be on the look out for this and other dog whistles. Isthmus55 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
94. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
95. Pingy Pongy Yeah, no antisemitism, islamaphobia, or any other type of offensophobia is acceptable.
96. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
97. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    The more experience i gain on wiki, the more convinced I am this is a wise essay User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

98. All Nazis are inherently hostis humani generis. Incitement to genocide is a grave crime under international law. Just as Julius Streicher was hanged for publishing Der Stürmer, Nazis on Wikipedia must be blocked immediately, as they are no different. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
99. Wikipedia has a serious problem with tolerating bigotry -- see the discussion on whether the Daily Telegraph (anti-trans newspaper) was reliable for transgender topics, in which half the comments said "it's just an opinion". There needs to be a stance that "racism and naziism are unacceptable" separate from whether there is a consensus that something is untrue, because bigotry exists in Wikipedia editors as well. This is a step towards that Additionally, because you have to take it onto a noticeboard it's very time-consuming to take action on, as far as I can tell, random bigoted comments -- there should be a clear rule. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
100. Hate is disruptive, and racism (and especially Nazism as history shows) is a particularly destructive strand of hatred. A project that purports to avoid personal attacks as one of its basic pillars is incompatible with those who display bigotry, and thus naturally attack other editors for their identity. I proudly endorse as the 100th signatory (assuming no one changes their mind). NewBorders (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
101. Anyone who claims to be a nazi on this platform is up to no good. ^EF⁵ 15:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
102.  Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 18:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
103. This shouldn't even be a debate. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 10:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
104. Iluzalsipal (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
105. From old-style Nazis to new-style Nazis, their putridity should never be tolerated. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 4:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
106. this should be policy. the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 14:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Non endorsers

The following editors do not endorse the contents of this essay.

1. Tradedia^talk 22:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

   Moved to subsection below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

   Moved to subsection below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

2. What an editor believes, posts, etc off Wikipedia, should have no effect on whether or not they should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia. As long as such an editor isn't pushing their PoV on the project, beyond the editor's userpage & user-talkpage? Then there's no problem. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   If I look at a user's user page and notice that the user thinks it would be a great idea to murder some of my friends, there is no problem?

   The only way a Nazi is no problem is if they give no indication of it in Wikipedia at all. And then the essay does not apply. If they have an off-Wiki page with their view, there is no way we can positively connect the user with the off-wiki page, unless they make the connection themselves in both sites. And that would be the "indication of it". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   We'd be better off, worrying less about what's on an editor's userpage & more about whether they're pushing their personal PoV outside their userpage. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   This might be true for some ideologies (although I personally oppose issue-based userboxen, at a minimum), but something like "This user supports turning the U.S. into a white ethnostate" actively damages our collaborative editing atmosphere. Editors don't want to work with editors who want them killed, enslaved, deported, or raped. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   Eventually, all userboxes will be barred from userpages. Give it about another decade. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   To be fair, there are many communist userboxen out there and some editors have friends who are middle or upper class. Hell, my parents are landlords, and yet I take no issue with people who place Maoist userboxen on their userpage. I don't take it as "I want to shoot your parents because they're rich", I take it as "I have different political beliefs". A user with a nazi userbox won't receive any sympathy from me, but I will not see their userbox as a personal statement of "I want to gas your mom because she's black", I simply take it as "I have terrible political beliefs".

   That being said, I still support the policy because it helps keep the encyclopedia running smoothly. Absurd and obscene conspiracy theories and beliefs so poorly structured they make a Hooverville look like the Burj Khalifa make up the foundation of Nazism. Where communism acknowledges facts, Nazism does shit like deny the existence of atomic energy because "hurr durr jewish science" and actively denies that certain ethnic groups are even capable of reason. A communist will not hurt Wikipedia. A Nazi will throw a wrench into the works and create more work for others by allowing their beliefs to take precedence over actual facts.

   Nazism is simply bad for the encyclopedia to an extent no other extreme ideology is. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

3. This an encyclopedia, not a safe space. The whole point of NPOV is to remain neutral, especially, specifically, in the face of points of views one detests. It is very easy to remain “neutral” if points of view you do not agree with are squelched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.22.21 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
4. With reservations, I add my name to this list. I agree with Jr8825 that NPOV doesn't come with a caveat of "... as long as we approve of the politics involved." Beyond that, I'm troubled by the increase in the following syndrome: people pick out something like a Confederate flag infobox on a user page, conclude thereby that the editor is a racist, scream NONAZIS! at ANI as if this were a policy and not an essay, and lo! the lynch mob gathers. For my part, I strongly feel that display of the Confederate flag is disgusting and an emblem of treason, but I somehow missed the part where loyalty to the United States government is a defining policy of Wikipedia. We should all stoutly oppose thought police. The best way to convince people that Wikipedia isn't the dominion of extremist left-wing lynch mobs is for it not to be one. Ravenswing 23:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I don't think that proudly displaying the confederate flag is a problem because of its relationship to the US government. The issue is that the flag itself represents a hateful ideology which included (at the very least a lack of opposition to) enslavement of people based on the color of their skin. I would also support a guideline against displaying celtic cross flags on one's userpage for similar reasons. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

   The problem with that is basic: we all have our private definitions of symbols or statements which we not only firmly believe represent hateful, divisive and/or oppressive ideologies, but also believe they must be suppressed so that no one sees them. Quite a few people number rainbow flags and BLM displays among them. Would you, therefore, support a guideline banning display of rainbow flag infoboxes (which until quite recently I had on my talk page)? Surely that is a sentiment deeply offensive to wide segments of the worldwide population, especially in the many countries which criminalize homosexuality? Where exactly do you propose to draw the line? Ravenswing 03:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   Ah yes, the false equivalence between the confederate and rainbow flags. If I can't waive a symbol attached to white supremacy in my page, should others be able to show their support for oppressed minorities? Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   Pfft: potato, po-TAH-toe. Yes, of course you think that your way of thinking is morally and ethically right, and that the other guys' way of thinking is immoral and evil by definition. And they think the same way about you. Is it that you don't get it, or that you just don't give a damn? Ravenswing 08:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

   And they think the same way about you No, no. They think the other guys' very existence is immoral and evil by definition, not their thinking. Big difference. A Nazi can stop being a Nazi and get accepted by anti-Nazis, but a Jew (for example) cannot stop being a Jew in a way that will get them accepted by Nazis. Potato, hand grenade. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

   excellently reasoned and I emphatically agree with my friend the Wandering Jew. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

   we all have our private definitions of symbols or statements Sure, and that's why we rely on the consensus of wikpedia editors (and outside scholars) to determine which symbols/statements would qualify. This is the English wikipedia, not the Russian, Turkish, or Israeli wikipedia. We draw the line at ideologies which seek to deprive others of rights, or systematically murder, rape, or enslave those who are different. Rainbow flags advocate no such thing, and as Isabelle has said, this argument is a false equivalency. It also reminds me of this billboard — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

5. This essay is a violation of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, which explicitly states that comparing editors to Nazis or criticizing them on the basis of their political affiliations is unacceptable. Existing conduct policy is sufficient to keep most ideologically motivated editors off the project. I also oppose expression of one's own political leanings on Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
6. American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
7. I frankly find the entire existence of this page ridiculous; banning nationalists exclusively of one race. Mårtensås (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   ... what? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   It is mentioned in the essay that all kinds of racists fall in the category of racists we are trying to remove. In the sense, even if you see a user supporting the domination of some other race over whites, that user should be removed Sketpick (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

   That's such a weak statement though. The essay has a few dozen bullets of exemplary white supremacist beliefs and multiple paragraphs condemning white supremacy. And then it has only two sentences saying that all this applies to other racists too. Most people could easily overlook that part and may not even read it. WP:No racists is a better essay because it makes a stronger statement from the get-go. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

8. ""That Islam or Muslims are the overwhelming source of terrorism."" of course muslims are not the source of terrorism. but saying this SHOULD NOT be punishable, if it is about wikipedia articles, "islam is the source of terrorism"(im not gonna discuss about this with you). so, im not OK with that page, just because of that. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

   p.s.: anti-islamism is not just islamophobia. you can hate islam, while dont hate muslims. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

9. Do not endorse. This essay is superfluous – if someone is editing with a racist bias, that is already grounds for blocking/banning. The essay is saying that it is acceptable to ban an editor from Wikipedia for their views, rather than their editing. The essay also wrongly implies (a) that non-Nazi forms of racism are acceptable, and (b) that non-racist forms of bias are acceptable. The only function this essay serves is as an opportunity for virtue signalling. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2023
10. Do not endorse. It's hard for me to imagine an essay more antithetical to wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone is allowed edit. I don't care if you are a Nazi or the head of the JDL, if you can contribute constructively to the project, you are welcome here. That goes for axe murderers, girl scouts, priests, pornographers, members of the Mexican Mafia, librarians, crossing guards, and any other group you can mention. We have policies and procedures in place. If you are unable to contribute without running afoul of those policies, then you are not welcome at the project. On the other hand, if you are able to contribute within the bounds of our policies and procedures, then it matters not one whit whether or not you are a "Nazi". It's a shame such an essay is allowed to exist, as it goes against the very philosophy of the project. Of course one wonders whether an essay entitled YES NAZIS would be allowed to exist in kind. An essay that basically explains no one cares what you do in your personal life, as long as it doesn't interfere with your contributions here. (UTC)

A good example of the correlation between white supremacist ideologies and disruptive editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The problems with this essay are deeper than objecting editors identify. The problem isn't so much banning off-wiki Nazis, who would have a problem with banning people who advocate gassing six million Jews, although if their on-wiki behavior is good why bother. The problem is conflating a bunch of things with this, even apparently statistical facts, then pulling the "Nazi" card whenever anyone suggests such views be included in Wikipedia. There's a Motte-and-bailey fallacy going on. The real aim of this essay is suppression of material on group differences, immigration, and nationalism amongst whites and only whites: the bailey. Then when this essay is questioned the response is "we should allow Nazism?": the motte. Frank Braithwaite (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

"the real aim of this essay is suppression of material on group differences, immigration, and nationalism amongst whites and only whites" no it isn't. It's about the method we use to prevent people who think this from wasting our time, making others feel unwelcome and pushing intolerant pseudoscience. The disagreement is between those who think possessing certain hateful ideologies makes someone inherently unwelcome here, and those who think we should only exclude people based on actions that violate and/or demonstrate an inability to follow our principles. Jr8825 • Talk 13:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that a position on group differences outside equality is intolerant pseudoscience, but would you agree that such a position has no necessary connection to Nazism? Frank Braithwaite (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand. White Nationalism is also not a viewpoint that we accept on this encyclopedia as compatible with reasonable discourse. It doesn't matter if its Nazism or regular White Nationalism. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

11. The above statement by Frank Braithwaite is absolutely correct, and I don't know why it was hatted: this essay is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy. An even simpler description is just bait-and-switch: the essay is called "No Nazis", but actually it seems to call for banning basically anyone who thinks there are any differences between any demographic groups. It's the same message as WP:NORACISTS, but written in a way that's 100 times more incendiary. In theory, there could be a reasonable essay arguing for banning those who believe in the tenets of National Socialism (I would disagree with that too, but at least it would be logically consistent); this is not it, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We do not need ideologically-loaded policies. What comes next? No Falangists, no Confedarates, no nationalists, no conservatives... What about non-Western ideological movements which are difficult to classify but are wrongly assumed to be "fascists" in popular conception? We shall tear down this essay.--Madame Necker (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC) - User blocked for "antisemitic fringe trolling". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC) Although I appreciate the effort that was put into this essay, I would have to agree with the former statements about calling someone a Nazi over a disagreement. With that, I do not endorse this essay. StephenBryant7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC) - User blocked as a sockpuppet. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

12. Giving the admins the option to ban people for a PoV pushing they might hypothetically do at some unspecified point in the future is just asking for abuse--Trade (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

HATting statement made by a sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Every user is enitiled to edit wikipedia regarless of ther political opinion, as long as they retain a neutral POV. All of us make biased edit, none are free from biases. This article is an insult to history, not all nazis are white, such as the Turkish Gay Wolves who hold nazi beliefs. But Nazism and Fascism aren't based on race, they're based on ethnicty, which is a very basic concept that this essay fails to understand, German nazis would've killed poles even thoguh the poles are white. And if we're banning nazis then we suld also ban communists, then every other political ideology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crainsaw (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

HATting statement made by a sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. This essay is a creeping violation of what has originally been described as WP's core policy, namely NPOV.
   If it ever becomes policy, I will personally see to writing an equivalent essay/proposal entitled "WP:NOTANKIES" and to collecting a comparable list of atrocities to support it in turn. This is not in the spirit of WP:POINT, but rather would serve as a way to restore at least some of that ideal.
   Furthermore, until that time, I demand that definitive sanctions be imposed against those that knowingly wield this essay in discussions as if it were established policy! Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   @Biohistorian15 Did you notice it says “ It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. “. So that seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   I am well aware. There are multiple such cases. One I personally stumbled over only recently is that of two experienced users that, I think, you may want to actively warn about making any more such misleading appeals (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive322#Statement by TrangaBellam) and later comments by Generalrelative - the latter, by virtue of their contributions here, absolutely knowing about this not being an official policy - to a similar (implicit) effect (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive322#Statement by Generalrelative). Biohistorian15. These undue appeals may have, indeed, been partly what led to Trakking being unduly sanctioned instead. (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   Then file a report about those users, instead of just complaining about it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   Agreed. I look forward to seeing Biohistorian15 explain how my statement defending Trakking was somehow a "misleading appeal" that "may have, indeed, been partly what led to Trakking being unduly sanctioned". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generalrelative (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   Yeah, I took the time to read your post and saw it was clearly against applying NONAZIS. I have a feeling someone was not paying enough attention & just searching to see how many times the essay was mentioned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   Where would one do that? And btw.: I was mostly referring to the former not the latter user. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   If you believe this is something that requires immediate admin intervention, WP:ANI is thataway. If it's not, then you need to take a step back and reevaluate whether your "demands" are actually reasonable here.

   And it doesn't matter that you were "mostly" referring to Trangabellam, you included Generalrelative in your accusations, implying he had misused the essay. That is just flatly wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   Doug Weller, another example of the essay masquerading as policy, is this template here (one of its redirects being aptly named: "Uw-nonazis"):

   Do not add slurs, images, symbols, or other content meant to attack, harass, threaten, or disparage certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors. Such content is not tolerated by Wikipedia and as such may be hidden from public view at any time by an administrator (or in extreme cases, suppressed). Articles or files of which the only purpose is to attack, harass, threaten or disparage certain people or groups are speedily deleted. If you add hateful, derogatory, or bigoted content again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

   Again, it looks reasonable at first, but policy against personal attacks etc. already exists, and the template is arguably misleading when expanding it. Somebody might want to look into a speedy deletion or a massive overhaul along the aforementioned lines.Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   @Biohistorian15 But that template is general, not just about personal attacks. Do you really disagree with it? Do what you want, I’m dubious about your getting very far. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   @Biohistorian15 - please stop continuing to revert changes without discussing them after a user has reverted you once - that is what WP:BRD is about.

   You did not appropriate explain why a relevantly linked template should be removed. Editing on Wikipedia is about consensus and it appears you have been engaged in multiple edit wars on multiple pages over the past week alone. Raladic (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

   What, exactly, is unreasonable or misleading about this template? Please be precise. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

13. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
14. This would make Wikipedia tread in to waters that it should stay out of. Banning those with unacceptable beliefs implies those we don't ban have acceptable beliefs. Are communists at least as bad as Nazis because they killed more people? Is Zionism, an ethnonationalist movement that has been accused of genocide, as bad as Nazism? Or is believing "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" endorsing genocide of Jews? Is MAGA a fascist movement? The Wikipedia community would have to have an official answer to these questions, first implicitly, by not banning them along with the Nazis. And then when someone says "This guy is an IDF solider. We should ban him under NONAZI", we'll need to have an explicit official position. Repeat ad infinitum for all controversial ideologies including ones most English Wikipedia editors have never heard of. Wikipedia should stay out of politics and focus on building a encyclopedia. Squidroot2 (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
15. ♦ JAGUAR  18:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
16. Violates WP:PA, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP in an attempt to discriminate and create a chilling effect among people holding certain political views, scope of which is not well defined. --Ur frnd (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
17. No. See Squidroot2's comment. We all know full well that what this article calls "Nazis" are primarily not people who self-identify as Nazis. "No white supremacists" or "No racists" would be more accurate, even based solely on the text of the essay, since they at least are terms with a more agreed-upon meaning (especially white supremacist), but would still have the same problem - if you declare X ideology verboten, then there is an incentive to try to get ideologies one opposes labelled as X ideology. Trying to determine an acceptable level of racism, and furthermore creating an official definition of racism, would generate vast amounts of negative press, wreck the public's trust in Wikipedia, and almost certainly calcify many contemporary hot-button issues into something that Wikipedia has an official, subjective opinion on. Do you really want to get into a situation where 50% of the US population is labelled block-on-sight?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
18. Do not endorse. This essay must never become an official Wikipedia policy. This essay exclusively focuses on white supremacism, as if that's the only form of racism in the entire world. WP:No racists is a better policy proposal. But neither proposal is necessary because the WP:Civility and WP:NPA policies already ban racism and discrimination against other editors.

If this essay were an official policy, it would probably be abused as a motte-and-bailey justification for targeting and attacking editors who point out or try to resolve clear anti-white biases on Wikipedia, like the following example. Compare these articles:

• Black Pride.
• Asian Pride.
• LGBT Pride.
• Straight Pride.
• Disability Pride.
• White Pride

Notice how the last article is the only article that portrays racial pride negatively. Why are Black pride and Asian pride portrayed as positive, whereas White pride is wholly portrayed as negative, racist, and extremist?

Also consider how the Great Replacement is described as a conspiracy theory, even when the European percentage of the populations of most Western countries has undeniably been going down and is projected to keep going down for the rest of the century.

I could give many more examples, but the point should be evident. It's clearly indefensible to say that Wikipedia does not have an anti-white bias. I say this as a mixed-race person. An editor who tries to make the white pride article more neutral and balanced could feasibly be accused of being a white supremacist and blocked from Wikipedia if this essay were an official policy. Some Wikipedians are so obsessed with confronting white supremacy that they ignore anti-white POV problems on the encyclopedia.

"Nazi" is also defined quite ambiguously in this essay. Squidroot2 made a great point in his objection about how this essay could create a slippery slope for blocking or banning many other people from editing Wikipedia as well.

The first two bullets and the penultimate bullet under the Nazi core beliefs section are also problematic because they are truth judgments, not value judgments. A person could believe those statements to be true, and it would not necessarily imply that they hold hostility towards people of other races. We should be more concerned with editors who hold negative value judgments against other races, ethnicities, and peoples. But again, the existing policies are already sufficient for dealing with such editors.

Lastly, editors should be judged and treated based on their contributions and conduct, not their beliefs. What editors believe or write about outside of Wikipedia should have no effect on whether they are banned or blocked from Wikipedia. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)User blocked as an AE action in race and intelligence CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions: you know, you can still strike out this comment before someone less bemused finds it. ltbdl (cringe) 18:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

19. I agree with what Squidroot said. If we block people for simply having a belief, then we are suggesting that there are acceptable beliefs, which would not align well with policies like NPOV. And if this were to become policy, we would probably need to have a somewhat clear line on what is and isn't fascism, which would also be a big problem, we would need to have answers to whether things like MAGA, Hindutva, Zionism, or "Ruscism" are fascist. I would expect whatever answer Wikipedia gives would drive away far more editors and cause much more damage to the encyclopedia than fascists ever will. Plus, if a fascist tries to drive articles to support their viewpoints, that is already grounds for blocking, so I don't see what help this would do. --Map Enjoyer (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
20. Any reason that would be needed to block someone is already covered by existing policies and guidelines. This essay posits that fascists should be blocked because they are inherently disruptive, but if they are being disruptive then they can be blocked simply for their disruption. And alas, just as the term "Nazi" seems to have an ever-widening definition, one which becomes more muddy and vague over time, I have seen this essay used to call for the blocking of editors who, frankly, are not Nazis. Squidroot also very skillfully articulated why this conflicts with our core commitment to NPOV. — Czello ^(music) 17:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
21. I have concerns with how this essay expands the boundary of "hate speech" from genuine violent extremists to everyone with, quote, "somewhat-less-than-complimentary views", which is a slippery slope that I take exception to. It is deliberately clouded to be weaponized against any movement that dares challenge the status quo and gets declared the next boogeyman by the center-left parties of the West. The commenters above have called out this essay as being built on the motte-and-bailey fallacy and I second this. Шахматист2025 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Do not endorse, but support blocking for hate speech/conduct/affiliation

1. [Moved from subsection above 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)] Espousing hateful views on-wiki, or linking to the off-wiki espousal of those views, is per se disruptive, and I have no problem blocking users who do so for disruptive editing. But I do not think that anyone is unwelcome to edit Wikipedia based on their ideology, as long as they are able to abide by our policies. I'm skeptical that there's very many Nazis who are able to abide by our policies, but to the extent they exist, they are... well, "welcome" is a strong word, but not unwelcome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I think the word you're looking for is "tolerated." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I've elaborated further on my thoughts at Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, an essay I'd started about a year ago after a previous discussion on this talk page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   This essay conveys perfectly why one does not need to be an endorser or non-endorser of this essay to agree that professed nazis should be blocked. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

   A few friends asked me to reconsider my non-endorsement, and I respectfully declined, because I hope that it's clear from what I've written that I have zero hesitation to block Nazis and similar, and rather disagree as to what philosophy should underly such blocks. Altanner1991, however, succeeds where said friends failed in convincing me to clarify more pointèdly. I don't think I could look myself in the mirror knowing that I'm grouped together with someone who thinks American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups. It's not personal offense, mind you. I'm not a liberal. But... Jesus. I'm not sure which interpretation of that comment is more alarming: "Liberals support genocide" or "Supporting genocide is no worse than cancelling people on Twitter [or whatever other scary thing liberals are doing]".

   This isn't a change in opinion. Just seeking to differentiate myself from those who make a mockery of the slaughter of my ancestors and my peers. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   I've requested Altanner1991, exclude American politics, liberalism & the genocide comparisons, from his 'unendorse' comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   Again, if editors aren't pushing their PoV outside their userpage? Then they shouldn't be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   @GoodDay: I'm not sure why you've signed in this section with a rationale that contradicts the point of this section. What you are describing is not "support blocking for hate speech/conduct/affiliation". Userpages are not exempt from the disruptive editing policy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   My apologies, as I misunderstood this 'new' subsection. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

2. I don't think I can recall an instance of an openly racist editor who did not end up getting blocked, usually quickly. That said, when I issue a block, I do so in response to behavior, not beliefs. Blocking solely on the basis of ideology, even when truly odious, is a dangerous and slippery slope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
3. On a fundamental level, I believe "that [a racist worldview is] inherently incompatible with Wikipedia". But I don't agree with the assertion that it's possible for a person to not be "welcome to edit Wikipedia ... so long as they stick to the letter of our policies". The letter of policies such as "assuming good faith", "be civil to others", "maintain a neutral point of view" is that a collaborative, open-minded spirit must be adhered to. If someone is capable of following these policies on-wiki, and their off-wiki conduct has no repercussions on or to the wiki, there's no basis for preventing them from participating here. When a bigot is unable to follow our principles, for example by expressing hatred of others in the user space, the basis for revoking their editing privileges would be their failure to adhere to policy, not their worldview itself. Jr8825 • Talk 16:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I think nobody who has endorsed this section has dealt with a civil POV pusher. It's very possible to stick to the letter of Wikipedia policy and still be WP:NOTHERE and/or making the encyclopedia worse. That's the reason one of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:IAR, and also why essays like this exist. Loki (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

4. This is probably a cancellable offence, and WP:NPA is a major policy which should be enforced, but, if someone is following NPA and constructively editing Wikipedia, there's no reason to not allow them. In my opinion, Nazis should be shunned, but Wikipedia is not a place to shun Nazis. It's a place to build an encyclopedia. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
   • The problem with all of the views above, which I respect, is that there is a fundamental difference between the soft racism of [insert every day example here], and actual Nazism. This essay was written when we had actual neo-Nazis arguing that Wikipedia's principles required that we allow them to edit, and was written in response to that. I disagree with blocking people within the political mainstream who people on the political left call Nazis but who are really just mainstream right-wing individuals. But I do fully believe in blocking people who are self-admitted neo-Nazis, and historically I was the admin who most argued for that, and I will continue arguing for that as a non-admin.
     Where I think I fundamentally disagree with Tamzin's essay is that I fully believe there is a core distinction between genocidal racism and your day-to-day 'people think that people who don't look like them are less than them' racism and that difference is based on ideology. Wikipedia as a self-regulating entity, has the right to show people the door based on ideology, and there is nothing in NPOV that contradicts that. We show actual Nazis the door (and by we, I mean Bishonen and the remaining admins who are willing to enforce thisde facto policy..) There is no problem with that, and those who oppose this on functionally semantical grounds are not aware of the historical context of it or the continuing importance of taking that stance. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

   Just because someone has a different opinion than yours, doesn't make them Nazis. A Proud Alabamian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

   True but irrelevant, since the essay is not about "having a different opinion". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

5. There is zero reason to block an editor who edits constructively and engages with the community, even if their userpage displays userboxes saying they're a proud member of the KKK or an admirer of Hitler and the 2020 election was rigged. To me, a user who wants to disclose a political ideology is no different from a user making a point about their sexuality or religion or belief in a flat earth. In fact, I appreciate the transparency, because I know who I'm dealing with. We recently had a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 109#Userboxes that promote FT. We block based on behavior, not based on identity. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed their opinion. That is the whole point of a democracy. If an editor is not POV pushing, blocking them will only further radicalize them and make them believe people are out to get them. Letting them interact with other editors with other opinions can however break the notion that people of X group are evil. ~2025-34140-84 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Nazi beliefs -> Nazi behaviors workshop

Note: Please edit the below subsection directly to make changes so that it can be copied & pasted over when we're done.

Nazi behaviors

• Overtly praising the Third Reich, Hitler, or Nazism. It's alright to note that Nazi Germany reduced unemployment, but acting as though that occurred in a vacuum is probably suspect.
• Posting symbols or statements which align one with known hate groups on one's user page.
• Making statements which create a hostile environment for minority groups, including but not limited to overt harassment on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or trans status.
• Espousing antisemitic tropes, Holocaust denial, or conspiracy theories positing Jewish world domination. The same goes for similar beliefs about other minority groups.
• Persistent POV-pushing to get Wikipedia to endorse Nazi-aligned conspiracy theories such as White genocide conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and similar, including the belief that Europeans are secretly responsible for the accomplishments of non-European civilizations.
• Persistent POV-pushing to get Wikipedia to endorse supremacist beliefs that have been discredited by mainstream science, such as the belief that some racial groups are inherently more intelligent than others.
• Misrepresenting crime statistics to paint minorities in a bad light. This includes misinformation claiming that Muslims or transgender people are the main perpetrators of terroristic violence.
• Claiming or implying that genocidal policies are justified in defense of the majority group or to prevent harms purportedly being caused by minority groups.
• Support for slavery and coercive eugenics.
• Drawing a false equivalence between hateful beliefs and opposition to those beliefs, such as by arguing that white power and black power are merely inverse sides of the same coin.
• Creating an illusion of doubt within the historical record by cherry-picking lower quality sources while ignoring scholarly secondary sources in ways that minimize or outright deny atrocities occurred, such as arguing for the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht.
• Otherwise expressing support for views which are unique to or distinctive of hate groups in a manner which is not easy to explain as good faith concerns.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and not everyone who engages in one or two these behaviors is necessarily a Nazi. But those who engage in them often enough, or make engaging in them the primary focus of their editing, should be handled according to the maxim "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

Discussion (Nazi behaviors)

One thing that springs to mind as I draft this is that there might still be cause to include some beliefs, just to give readers that foundation upon which to build their own metrics for identifying such behaviors. As such, I'm going to be keeping a shortened form of the expanded beliefs list for now, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this.

It may also be apparent to many that the language I've chosen is a bit more inclusive of those whose chosen out-group isn't defined by race. This is on purpose, per my comment above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. We can probably refine some of the items but I like where you're going. In particular, I think the race and IQ item could be stated more specifically to avoid the inevitable griping about censoring "legitimate scientific inquiry"; make it about persistent POV-pushing to get Wikipedia to endorse supremacist beliefs that have been discredited by mainstream science. Generalrelative (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Just saw your note about directly editing the above so I'll go ahead and do that. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It's always amusing to me that so many wikipedians will take anything posted to a talk page as owned and off limits to editing, when our whole purpose here is to collaboratively edit the same document in mainspace. That being said, I'm not immune to doing that, mostly because I'm aware that WP:TPG's admonition to not edit other's comments is broadly understood to refer to proposals as well as comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, now that we're writing small, I'll just note that I went ahead and did a pretty comprehensive and WP:BOLD rewrite. Please revert and re-rewrite as you see fit! Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I like to think people are reading this small text in a chipmunk voice.

As an aside, I don't really care for the removal of the list of beliefs, but I'm not overly upset about it. I do like the rephrasing of the note at the end, and I'm perfectly fine with the other changes to the list itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I appreciate your collaboration on this. Generalrelative (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Very much the same! This is much easier to get done with help.

Snow Rise suggested on their talk page that they will likely come join in when they have the time, which will also be nice, as they're an editor who's been more critical of this essay than most, while still appreciating it for what it is. I think that 'confrontational' POV will be useful in getting the wording just right.

There's a couple of other editors whose perspective would be very useful. But of the two who spring to mind, Guy hasn't indicated any willingness to help, and Tamzin (who wrote WP:NORACISTS in response to this) is an editor whose ability to engage with civility and maturity I (and several others) have serious questions about, and I have good reason to believe they harbor a significant grudge against me in particular, to the point that I'd request an IBAN if they were still active on the same articles as I. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Getting back to the list of beliefs, I'm starting to thing that it's fine without an explicit list, though I'd like to see something referencing it. My next edit will implement my current idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• I find myself wondering if the essay should also cover some edge case stuff. Like, for example, Richard Wagner and Arno Breker are artists whose work is often lauded outside of Nazi circles, but are often used as dogwhistles for Nazi beliefs. And of course, editors who find Nazism abhorrent might want to discuss the IQ gap, which is real, though almost certainly caused by test bias and environmental factors, not to mention all the problems equating IQ with intelligence.

This might also be a good place to link to a list of common dogwhistles which I've been thinking of writing up. I have a friend on social media (TikTok) whose whole shtick is pointing out dogwhistles. It might be hard to reliably source it, as dogwhistles change rapidly and are designed to be obscure, so it wouldn't work as an article, but it might be worth an essay or userspace list where one or two doesn't say anything about an editor, but an editor who displays a whole bunch of them is worth scrutinizing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think one thing that could be added is something about historical revisionism, like "Creating an illusion of doubt within the historical record by cherry-picking lower quality sources while ignoring scholarly secondary sources in ways that minimize or outright deny atrocities occurred, such as arguing for the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht." PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'm going to add that pretty much verbatim, unless someone beat me to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

[Lead]

Pursuant to the above exchange, I'm offering here a suggested rewrite to the lead:

Racial harassment and Nazi apologia anywhere on the project, including hate group symbols on user pages, should be reported on sight.

Wikipedia's claim of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit comes with reasonable limits. For instance, those who actively disrupt the project by vandalizing pages or harassing other users are routinely blocked. But sometimes disruption takes a more subtle form: a user might maintain a civil tone while promoting views which are inherently discriminatory or even genocidal. Such behavior creates a hostile environment which drives away good-faith editors.

In his 1945 book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, philosopher Karl Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote extreme forms of intolerance. This principle applies to Wikipedia as well.

Editors who engage in behavior that aligns them with hate groups are not welcome, and will be removed from the project. While these users often point to policies like neutral point of view to justify their behavior, this is based on a misreading of policy. Excluding Nazis from the project is entirely consistent with our fundamental principles. The same goes for anyone who seeks to exclude others from society on the basis of aspects of their identity which they cannot control.

Discussion (Lead rewrite)

Thoughts? This is of course just a draft, and I would love to get more feedback (including feedback like "Meh, the current version is way better.") Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. More understandable. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of opening with a reference to the paradox of tolerance, though I think it might be better to express the notion directly, rather than give information about it (at least right away). If it's all right by you, I'll edit the proposal directly. If you'd rather maintain it as your proposal, I'll add a new one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead an edit it directly! Generalrelative (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure the new opening paragraph is necessary. It's effectively just repeating what's already stated elsewhere. If you want to avoid starting with the intellectual history, maybe we just leap right into

A truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote extreme forms of intolerance. This principle –– known as the paradox of tolerance –– applies to Wikipedia as well.

Generalrelative (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Chewing that over a bit, I'm not sure I love my latest suggestion. Perhaps one too many iterations of the word "tolerance". And I actually do think it's helpful to the reader to ground this as the assertion of a particular person in history, whom we happen to be agreeing with. Generalrelative (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Instead of removing your new lead paragraph, MPants, I went ahead and radically streamlined it. Feel free to revert if you'd like! Generalrelative (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I like this. The edit to the now-second paragraph was just to connect the two, but the streamlined version looks better. I still think there's some room for improvement, but I'll have to chew on that a bit to have a specific suggestion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, how's this look to you? I'm not a hundred percent on it, but I do think it reads a bit more linearly this way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks great. I like how you reordered the paragraphs. The first sentence of the third paragraph now essentially just repeats the previous sentence (final sentence of the second paragraph) so I'll cut it for now. As always, happy to be reverted! Generalrelative (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that works well. I had noticed something off about that and tried to fix it by moving that sentence to the previous paragraph, but this is what actually fixed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Awesome. Happy to sit tight and wait for Snow Rise et al. to have a look before moving these over to the essay if you think that's best. We should also think about how to revise "Effects of white supremacist beliefs" to flow more seamlessly from the new "Nazi behaviors" section. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I might just copy the current section over to talk, as I think tweaking it to fit is a good approach, and it doesn't warrant a full re-write the way we're doing to the lead and beliefs->behaviors parts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sweet. Generalrelative (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "Important note" is necessary. It seems to be implied by everything else, and if anything gives folks a platform for the kind of endless quibbling we've seen. But if we do include it, I think it should be toward the end of the essay, not part of the lead. Your mileage may vary of course. Generalrelative (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it's obvious that "Nazi" is being used in that sense, but the number of people who have ignored that in order to raise objections such as "why are we only rejecting Nazis when neo-confederates are just as bad?" is sufficient to disabuse me of the notion that everyone will find that obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the additional clauses added to sentence 1 of paragraph 3: Blocking those whose behavior aligns them with hate groups doesn't follow from the fact that these editors *often* damage the accuracy of our articles. The point is that being a Nazi in and of itself is disruptive because it makes Wikipedia a shitty place for everyone else. I'm not sure we need the other clause which I've left in place here – "because their behavior drives away good-faith editors" but that one is less problematic. It's just, in my view, redundant. Generalrelative (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Better language is always an option, but damaging the accuracy of our articles is, in general, a very good way to get yourself blocked.

Personally, I'm okay with keeping it as simple as "WP doesn't want Nazis because fuck Nazis, they suck." But I think we need to be more explicit and detailed in an essay, because, frankly, people are fucking stupid and need it laid out to them in very clear and specific terms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't like this change because I'm not a big fan of the paradox of tolerance in general. IMO that presumes the existence of Nazism or fascism as a perfectly peaceful and civil ideology, in order to make it seem like opposing them is some sort of break in the normal order of things. What's actually the break in the normal order of things is the acceptance of the sorts of people who form paramilitaries and beat up political opponents.

Tolerant societies tolerate intolerant groups all the time without contradiction. The Catholic Church is not a particularly tolerant group and nobody suggests that protecting democracy means suppressing Catholics (or if they did they'd be nuts). The thing that makes Nazis "special" is that they don't merely hold intolerant beliefs, they do intolerant things as a method for overthrow of the whole system of tolerance.

I think the formulation in the current nutshell that Racists (and other discriminatory groups) are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. is exactly right and getting rid of it in favor of the (false) paradox of tolerance is exactly backwards. It's not possible for a Nazi to follow Wikipedia policy and we don't need to make any sort of special exception to Wikipedia policies to throw them out. Promoting racist pseudoscience is disruptive. Expressing hateful opinions "politely" is still uncivil and therefore disruptive. There's no "paradox" here at all. Loki (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no "paradox" here at all. That was, in fact, Popper's point. Though perhaps this could be stated more clearly. Generalrelative (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No, Popper was (very directly) for making an exception to the general values of liberal society to defend against Nazis, while I'm saying that no exceptions need to be made because Nazis were already covered by general taboos against things like violence (in the case of real life) or direct insults (in the case of Wikipedia). It's not a paradox for society to enforce neutral laws. Loki (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading but won't dispute the matter here. (If you'd like to discuss the actual text where Popper discusses the apparent paradox, versus the ways in which it has been represented by others, I'd be happy to do so on my talk page.) Suffice it to say, my intention here was to focus the essay more squarely on the point you're making –– that we don't need to make any sort of special exception to Wikipedia policies to throw them out, that Nazis are intolerable because they do intolerant things and not that they merely hold intolerant beliefs. If I haven't succeeded in that task, so be it, but that was the intent. Generalrelative (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the paradox is often understood as related to the freedom of speech/expression of Nazi ideology Katzrockso (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The paradox of tolerance is widely understood and easy to research, which makes it a useful vehicle for communicating otherwise complex ideas to the reader.

And as GR has already pointed out, there's no exception being carved out here. Indeed, this essay explains why advocacy for such beliefs is already a violation of our policies. And yes, that is an explanation that is needed, for the same reason that Popper (whom you rightfully point out understood that it's not actually a paradox on any fundamental level) composed this relatively simple idea and titled it a paradox. Because many people do not have the understanding necessary to understand the underlying truth that Nazism and fascism are inherently opposed to broadly accepted ideals of civility and rationality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately for GR, I have to quote Popper directly to explain why his understanding of the paradox both actually is a paradox and is not what this essay is about. Here's a direct quote from him:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

I am saying we do not need to make such an exception, that "incitement to intolerance" is not particularly unique to Nazis and is perfectly capable of being tolerated, and the thing Nazis do that is in fact uniquely bad is that they directly persecute minorities, often violently, even when they are out of power.

In a Wikipedia context, since uncivility and BS are against our policies directly, we're operating at a step back: Nazi ideology is inherently uncivil and pseudoscientific even if phrased politely. It's not "incitement to intolerance", it's just intolerance. Loki (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately for GR... Why is this unfortunate for me? I've already said I’d be happy to discuss the text with you over on my talk page. Interested parties can follow the discussion there. Generalrelative (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Because you wanted to avoid a discussion here, while I had to continue the discussion here to answer MP. Loki (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. As I said up top, "Meh, the current version is way better" is a fine response, and kind of what I expected. Trying to change a policy, guideline, or widely-cited essay is a tall order. If there looks to be a consensus forming to adopt something like the changes I've suggested I'll pop back into the discussion, but for the time being will let my suggestions speak for themselves. Generalrelative (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that either GR or I have said anything that demonstrates an ignorance of Popper's framing. Indeed, I explicitly agreed with this framing above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree with me that we should not mention the paradox of tolerance, because it contradicts the current better framing, then? Loki (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I already explained why your objections do not address the reason it should be mentioned. It's the first sentence of my highest-level response to you above, and the overall point of the comment as a whole (see the last sentence). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps adding some more detail about the paradox into the section below, #Effects of the presence of Nazi editors, would be worthwhile. Explaining that it's not actually a paradox, because the beliefs of Nazis and other genocidal bigots remain outside the bounds of civil society, regardless of the language in which they are couched. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Note, I've just done this, at the end of the section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I went and BOLDly added the remaining essential point from your note to the third paragraph. I think it reads more smoothly that way and lessens the scope for misreading. As always, no hard feelings if you'd like to revert. Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I will also say, in response to Loki's comments, that I would be fine removing the paragraph on the paradox of tolerance from the proposed lead rewrite. The two remaining paragraphs work just fine on their own. Regardless of whether I find Loki's argument wholly persuasive, it does demonstrate that there is room for reasonable disagreement. The goals of this rewrite, as I see it, are 1) to focus on the points with the broadest possible buy-in from the community, and 2) to state those points in a maximally comprehensible way for the lay reader. If discussing the paradox of tolerance gets in the way of either of those goals, I'm happy to toss it (or possibly relegate it to a section of the body). Generalrelative (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I still think the paradox is a really good reference for this, because it's a very popular idea that's widely understood. I think it really helps to communicate the idea behind this essay to readers. That being said, this essay has been around this long and become useful (though nowhere near as useful as one could hope it would be) without hammering home that it's just a specific application of the idea to WP. If you two can come up with some wording that works without mention of it, I won't oppose that.

I will, however, oppose any attempt to change that nutshell hat note (referencing the Nazi bar). That's perfect the way it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

While it's definitely quippy, if we're going for clarity, I don't think we're gonna do better than the current: Racists (and other discriminatory groups) are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. (Though I do agree we could cut the rest significantly.)

The "Nazi bar" line is about how allowing Nazis in a space attracts Nazis to that space. That's not really the point of this essay: we kick out Nazis because every individual Nazi is disruptive even if they don't bring friends. If I had the rewrite the nutshell, it'd be:

Nazis are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. Expressed hatred of minority groups violates WP:CIVILITY even if phrased "politely", and attempting to sneak Nazi apologia or Nazi ideology into article text violates WP:NPOV and WP:V because it's verifiably false.

Loki (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't read the "Nazi bar" line that way; I read it more as "You are either a no-Nazi bar, or you're a Nazi bar; there is no in between"; i.e. the act of tolerating any amount of shittery indelibly marks you with that shittery, a sentiment that is much more in line with the rest of the essay. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I definitely get why you'd think that. My reading of it is based on the original context where it's pretty explicitly about how allowing Nazis in a space attracts Nazis to that space. Loki (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Tolerant societies tolerate intolerant groups all the time without contradiction.

I'm not looking for an argument or a reply, but I wanted to respond this as it caught my eye. Societies by their very organization are intolerant of many things. Societies are in general intolerant of groups that wish to overturn them, and have various laws about that. You speak of "tolerant societies" but this is somewhat of a misnomer. While it is true that liberal democratic societies strive for a form of tolerance in their public discourse, the reality is that they have very sordid, intolerant histories. I don't think I need to go into that now as most of us are aware of this. In the US, the culture has not historically been intolerant to white supremacists because that is part of our historical legacy. Up until the 20th century, white supremacists controlled the very levers of government, and some would argue that they still do. There's also the history of political intolerance in the US. There is no active left-wing movement in the US that has any power at all because US society was captured by corporate interests a century ago. Democratic and Republican parties, while pretending to want very different things, have essentially pushed the same center-right, neoliberal policies for the last 50 years. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)