Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism

Neo-Nazism

view edit delete watch
Filed: 01:45, December 6 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Cberlet (talk · contribs)
• Vision Thing (talk · contribs)
• Intangible2.0 (talk · contribs)
• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
• Smerdyakoff (talk · contribs)
• Spylab (talk · contribs)
• Strothra (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Extensive Discussion
• Request for Comment

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1: What are the contemporary scholarly descriptions defining the current use of the term "Neo-Nazism"
• Issue 2: What constitutes a reputable published scholarly source cite of the term "Neo-Nazism"

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1: User:Spylab has failed to understand that neo-Nazism is a term for Nazi ideology post-WW2. Spylab, together with User:Cberlet, have constantly been trying to (in an extreme form of WP:OR not supported by their sources, and no primary or secondary sources supporting their claims) classify Neo-Nazism as a new ideology, and at times, several ideologies (it ranges from both an ideology to ideologies; they can't make up their minds). In their quest for original reasearch they have tried to broaden the definition of neo-Nazism by trying to include Ku Klux Klan, Skinheads, Hate groups, et cetera (see the Kathlen Blee discussion).[1][2] — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Additional issue 2: Is it appropriate of User:Cberlet to add an excessive list of book titles as a reference, without being specific and citing page numbers (example), and claim that he is backing up his POV with scholarly sources? I mean, there is a reason for why we have cite templates. This can lead to serious abuse and misuse of information, since we have no idea what he is referring to in the books (especially when they are so many) and you can basically insert whatever you want into the articles by using this method since you can claim anything you write is supported by the sources if you're not going to be specific and give page numbers. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Additional issue 3: Is it appropriate of User:Cberlet to cite himself as an authority on Nazism/far right-related articles when he is considered a left wing extremist? (source) It seems like NPOV warning. I also question how Chip Berlet is an academic scholar on issues like this, and what defines him as a WP:RS on these kind of topics. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Additional issue 4: Are the websites listed in this note by User:Spylab considered WP:RS enough to classify neo-Nazism as a unique and distinct ideology separate from the original Nazism? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Cberlet (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree. EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.