Wikipedia talk:No Nazis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconEssays Highโ€‘impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
HighThis page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Endorsers[edit]

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:

  1. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tsumikiriaโงธ ๐ŸŒน๐ŸŒ‰ 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jorm (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hijiri 88 (่–ใ‚„ใ‚„) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Nazi ideology is an ongoing contemporary problem worth recognizing and addressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. โ€•Susmuffinย Talk 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. โ€“dlthewave โ˜Ž 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. RolandR (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. pythoncoder (talk | contribs)
  21. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Davide King (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Orangemike --Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Ckoerner (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Isabelle ๐Ÿ”” 16:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. lovkal (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. P-K3 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Noformation Talk 05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Miniapolis 02:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No Nazis, and also no QAnons. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No Xenophobes on WP. Bingobro (Chat) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Firestar464 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. aeschyIus (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 04:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No racism, no pseudoscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oh hell ya HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Loki (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Like the Dead Kennedys said. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. A more universal essay there could never be. I will not suffer hate on our Wiki. โ€”ย Shibbolethink (โ™” โ™•) 20:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. FormalDude (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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 Shushugahย (he/himย โ€ขย talk) 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. โŒ˜ 18:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. ASUKITE 18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. โ€“ย Muboshguย (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Seconding the Dead Kennedys' statement. - Sumanuil 22:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Theknightwho (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Fuck Nazis. X-Editor (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Quid Est Squid (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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. ๐•ธ๐–— ๐•ฝ๐–Š๐–†๐–‰๐–Ž๐–“๐–Œ ๐•ฟ๐–š๐–—๐–™๐–‘๐–Š ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. casualdejekyll 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Galobtter (pingรณ miรณ) 04:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Googleguy007 (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Thought Iโ€™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 Zerotalk 06:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. HurricaneEdgar 11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Hate is not welcome here Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. No pasarรกn. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Take a walk, Hitler lovers. No room for your BS. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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 โ€” TheresNoTime (talk โ€ข she/her) 11:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Unequivocally. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  69. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  73. XtraJovial (talk โ€ข contribs) 16:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I am inspired by the courage of these words. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Nazis are aptly named. We should "not see" their writings in our encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Andre๐Ÿš 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. โ€”VersaceSpace ๐ŸŒƒ 18:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. โ€” Bilorv (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  79. โ€” Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 05:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. ๐ŸŒˆWaltCip-(talk) 15:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. WPscatter t/c 06:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  84. The glorification of racist, murderous war criminals does not belong on Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 pasarรกn. TheTranarchist โšง โ’ถ (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
  87. DFlhb (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  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. โ€” Prodraxis {talk โ€ข contribs} (she/her) 23:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  90. OutsideNormality (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 ~2016โ€“17, we still should be on the look out for this and other dog whistles. Isthmus55 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Nazis from reading Wikipedia?[edit]

Should Nazis also be blocked from reading Wikipedia? If e.g. reliable tips were made available (e.g. by anti-fascists) that a certain IP address belongs to a Nazi or Fascist organization or individual then that IP could be blocked from not only editing but also reading Wikipedia. Analogous to a bartender telling a Nazi to leave the establishment and not giving them any space in the world. Oompje (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any way to do this and there is no point anyway. Wikipedia is mirrored in many places and they could read it there. Besides, why do we even want to stop them reading? They might eventually learn something and that could be a first step away from them being Nazis. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not likely that they will come here to get educated (they don't have the braincells to get educated in the first place or they would not be Nazis). Rather to collect imagery and quotes to be used in their vile propaganda. Nazis, unlike ordinary criminals, can't be rehabilited, there is a saying where I live: "once a fascist always a fascist". Nazis may go dormant, sometimes for decades, but they always need to be monitored and excluded from regular life as much as possible. They will never stop thinking their way even if society doesn't give them an inch. I concur this may be technical infeasable, it's a thought on matter of principle. Oompje (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oompje (they don't have the braincells to get educated in the first place or they would not be Nazis) Are you proud of this comment? Are you? ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Exit (group). Some of them do learn. We should not hinder them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a grotesque suggestion โ€“ the whole point about Wikipedia is that it is freely available to anyone to read. (Iโ€™m not sure if the suggestion is serious?)
As for Nazis may go dormant, sometimes for decades, but they always need to be monitored and excluded from regular life as much as possible.: the postwar history of Germany negates this.
Sweet6970 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was never a Nazi/fascist, for the rest I shared in all major Western political ideologies. So, yes, sometimes being a fascist is due to mental illness, and through healing the mental illness, one will eventually leave fascism. I took the Bible literally, so I believed for some years in theocracy, which is just as creepy (but it gets much less attention). It's a matter of perspective: if you situate the Bible below the Constitution, then the Bible is compatible with liberal democracy; if you situate the Constitution below the Bible, then the Bible is incompatible with liberal democracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, but anyone with common sense knows that @Oompje made no effort to describe Nazis in a respectful light. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 00:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are here to defend Nazis, I think you have missed the point of this essay, and perhaps should take a look at paradox of tolerance. At any rate, no, we cannot prevent anyone from reading Wikipedia, it is part of the core philosophy of this project that it is for everyone. We can only block or ban users from editing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to defend their rights to read Wikipedia (just like you are), not their ideologies or themselves, silly goose. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, watch the personal attacks. Everyone knows I'm a delightful squirrel. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry! (gosh I love Wikipedia:Humor) ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 01:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the obvious point is that removing their right to read Wikipedia is not practically achievable, even if it enjoyed the consensus of admins. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per @tgeorgescu ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 01:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you believe[edit]

@Cleter: This essay is not about what you believe or about what I believe. I agree that as long as nobody knows they're Nazis, nobody knows there is a problem, so there is nothing to do about them. But as soon as they make Nazi statements, many admins are willing to block them on the spot. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it wasn't my intention to convey personal beliefs. It's just that as long as no one makes disruptive edits, anyone can contribute to the free encyclopedia. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu I never sait it was about my beliefs, you're miswording and making it seem like I edited the entire essay to reflect my opinions. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 23:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have literally stated your beliefs: I firmly believe they can edit Wikipedia but not for ideology expression as it says. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I didn't state they took priority. Technically speaking, you agree with them anyways. I agree that as long as nobody knows they're Nazis, nobody knows there is a problem, so there is nothing to do about them. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 23:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not discussing my own opinion (although I did endorse the essay with my signature). I'm discussing the fact that when we know they're Nazis, many admins will block them on the spot. I'm not an admin, so I can block no one. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it was not my intention to discuss mine. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Besides if I did something wrong what did I say? I apologize ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How else to parse I firmly believe they can edit Wikipedia but not for ideology expression as it says otherwise than meaning it is your own belief? But indeed, some admins think just like you but they won't wheel-war with the admins who think just like me. So, even if not all admins endorse this essay, the bottom line is that Nazis get blocked ASAP they make it known they are Nazis.
Morals: even if you don't endorse this essay, you should agree to disagree, and respect it like someone else's opinion, which is allowed to be voiced inside this essay, just as you may voice your opinion in another essay. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I signed the essay to show my support, but I want to make it clear that I'm not just sharing my own beliefs here. My goal is to talk about what the essay says and how people with controversial ideas can be involved in editing Wikipedia. I think it's important that everyone can contribute to Wikipedia as long as they're not causing problems, but I don't think we should focus too much on expressing our personal beliefs. I agree with you that it's good to respect different opinions and have positive discussions. Even though I might not personally agree with everything in the essay, I think it's important to let everyone share their thoughts. That's what makes Wikipedia such a great place for learning from different perspectives. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 00:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read some essays with which I disagree, but I did not try to hijack those essays into becoming closer to my own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sick, me neither! No hijack gang is lit. Dap me up. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gist: according to WP:FREE, expressing certain opinions directly leads to blocking. We do not believe that editors should have free speech, same as K12 teachers have no free speech, but they may only teach the curriculum. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the valuable information, but please remind me why you are showing this to me. ๐Ÿ…ฒ๐Ÿ…ป๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ†ƒ๐Ÿ…ด๐Ÿ† (a word) 01:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if they are outed by others, as being Nazis, instead of exposing themselves? 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:1D29:5DB2:AEC5:FAC6 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how it happens. Everyone does have the basic protections of WP:OUTING, so digging into someone to try and link their account to a real-world person using a chain of inference would be unacceptable and would get redacted. However, if they've deliberately linked their account to eg. their real-world social media by putting it on their user page, and their statements there are full of Nazi propaganda and calls to exterminate people, that could probably still get them blocked per WP:CIVIL if someone points it out because by linking the channel they're bringing that stuff here and editors shouldn't have to edit alongside people who are calling to exterminate them or declaring them genetically inferior or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded, controversial wording[edit]

"That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent."

This links to Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany#Debate on whether comparisons are antisemitic. The relationship between Jews- as an ethnoreligious group- and the State of Israel is already controversial, and these kinds of biases are really unneeded and counterproductive.

Another point of contention for me is:

"That the wrong side won in World War II (or, the wrong side won the Great Patriotic War)."

The universally accepted and neutral term "Eastern Front" should suffice, and again, this brings unneeded controversy because it immediately brings up the question of moral equivalence between the Soviets and Nazis and the black-and-white characterization of the Soviets as the "good guys". Evaporation123 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are talking points Nazis do use, so they belong here. Yes, there are non-Nazis who also use them (other anti-Zionists and other anti-communists besides Nazis). By doing so, those non-Nazis are playing down Nazi atrocities though. They could criticize Netanyahu or Stalin in a more effective and more honest way without doing that, but they chose to copy-paste Nazi reasoning, weakening their own credibility. That is not this essay's fault. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is the essay's fault to imply that strongly criticising Israel or making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany will get you blocked on en-wiki, because I don't think that's true. (I notice in this comment, and on your userpage, you allude to a belief about there being an equivalence between Nazism and anti-Zionism in general, which is a far stronger claim that I doubt would be generally accepted as reasoning for blocking users.) Endwise (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in all things on Wikipedia context matters. This is the case regardless of what things might be said on this or that user page. If Wikipedia were ever so non-neutral as to begin banning editors for supporting Palestinian liberation notwithstanding the usual politics-related problems of WP:BATTLEGROUND, edit warring, incivility, etc. then we would have bigger problems than the content of this essay. Simonm223 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that "Palestinian liberation" is different from "anti-Zionism", which means wanting to destroy the state of Israel. (Which would very likely eventually lead to the area being made judenrein, but most anti-Zionists may not want to think that far.) Also, equating anti-Zionist boycotts of Jews with Nazi boycotts of Jews is not the same as equating anti-Zionism with Nazism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting rather off-topic. Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If was off-topic starting from I notice in this comment, and on your userpage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an update to include hateful Zionist ideology[edit]

Now that racist extremist elements in the Israeli government have emulated many of the crimes of the former Nazi regime, is it time to extend this no Nazi rule to Jewish Nationalists, aka Zionists?

Considering the numerous crimes against humanity conducted in the ongoing liquidation of the Gaza ghetto, and the language used by Israeli leaders like Ben-Gvir and Smotrych which draw horrifying parallels to the dehumanizing official language and policies of the Third Reich, I believe it's high time to extend the definitions against state-enforced hate.

The United States is not an arbiter of what is and what isn't a racist, extremist government. Podlesok86 (talk) Podlesok86 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect here, and as someone who is very much an anti-Zionist: the distance between Zionists and Nazis is pretty big and I'd like to keep it that way.
Most Americans are Zionists, and almost all American Jews are Zionists. And my guess is that it's similar in most English-speaking countries. Furthermore, Israel is a country that does bad things, but many if not most countries do bad things. That's not the same as Nazi Germany perpetuating the worst genocide in the history of the world and having the time to do several other genocides on the side. Loki (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that disruptive editing for the purpose of engaging in genocide denial is within the remit of this essay regardless of the specifics of the genocide denial. With that being said I think it's important to remember that this is an essay that provides guidance on the appropriate handling of a specifically vexatious type of disruptive editing but is not a policy. As such nothing in this essay stops anyone at all from editing if they not being disruptive per the appropriate Wikipedia policies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_Nazis&oldid=1220550257"