The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents neo-Nazism in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's
Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:
In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See
Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.
Ongoing cleanup on this page
There are significant copyediting errors and rambling in this page, and I think concision is an important part of correcting it. There is additionally the issue of non-neutral language being used throughout, as the page lacks any info on how Yockey's views are contested. I removed some weaseling from the statements about the Holocaust as well, as denying the Holocaust is denying the Holocaust and not anything else.
Mewnst (
talk)
12:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst: If you want to add how his views are contested, you can make a section about criticism citing relevant sources. No need to delete important information, misrepresent ideas and make the whole article biased against the author. Especially if you have not read the book.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
07:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
ArsenalAtletico2017: What were the changes that I made that were biased against the author? What are my misrepresentations? The statements of Yockey are laid out in an authoritative voice throughout the page, and that is not a neutral way to present it. It is not "slander" to make reference to how the author's ideas are contested, and is is completely appropriate to include criticisms throughout the page (see
WP:CRITS). And what information that was cut out was "important"? I only edited out materials that were already stuffed away under "Other" in the page. Also, why weasel out of the fact that Yockey was an unpopular figure for his Holocaust denialism?
Mewnst (
talk)
09:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:You seem like you want to reduce whole book to "holocaust denial" and "antisemitism". There is no need to mention after every sentence that "Modern historians accept that Holocaust actually happened" or "Modern science thinks that race is not real", that's not the point of the article. Your edites removed large chunk periphrasing the content of the book because they were "antisemitic", that is not how it works, this article is about the book and everything mentioned in the book should be discussed. You also seem like you did not read the book since you misunderstand the ideas developed in it.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
How exactly should this work instead? It is completely in line with Wikipedia's editorial policies to remove antisemitic drivel that is written in an authoritative voice. I do not misunderstand the subject material, there is plenty of racial pseudoscience, antisemitism, and Holocaust denial in the work, and it is not a mistake to describe those contents as those things. You still have not elaborated on how I am misrepresenting the contents of the work, unless your only claim for misrepresentation is on the antisemitic contents.
Mewnst (
talk)
11:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:No, it is not in line with Wikipedia's editorial policies to remove the content of the book. The article is about the book and ideas developed in it are supposed to be discussed here. You seem like you don't like the ideas, that does not gives you right to remove and censor them. The article is not written in an authoritative voice. Almost every sentence begins with "Yockey thinks", "Yockey believes", it is clearly shown that the ideas discussed are those of Yockey and they are up to discussion. It does not says that what Yockey thinks is right or wrong. You try to reduce Yockey's racial views to biological determinism which is not correct since Yockey views race as primarily defined by culture. Biology is not essential to his theory of race, he says that everyone can be assimilated if they are loyal to Western culture (this was discussed in previous version of the article which you removed for some unknown reason).
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:The part which you deleted is essential to the book. His views on Jews is very important and he pays much attention to it in his book. You can read the book and see. Deleting that part is inadequate. The article loses important content by deleting that part and it must be restored. If you have concerns over neutrality, you can discuss and propose edit. But deleting that part entirely does not makes sense.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Again, the issue with the contents aren't that Yockey's antisemitic ideas exist in the book, it's that they are not summarized neutrally in the wiki page. A neutral summary for Yockey's contested pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific ramblings isn't a mere mention of what those ideas are as "Yockey thinks" and "Yockey argued", it necessitates some mention of how his ideas, as determined by scientific and historical consensus, are wholesale bunk.
Mewnst (
talk)
11:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:Do you have sources "debunking" those views? Or you are going to debunk them personally without even reading book? You can propose edit, but don't delete that part entirely, it is important part of the article and without it article does not even makes sense.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I have no need to "debunk" anything, the antisemitic and racial positions that are put forward by Yockey are already countered by the historical consensus seen in
Holocaust denial and
Jewish Bolshevism, as well as the scientific consensus seen in the page on
race. It's not my job to try to turn Yockey into someone who made sense or had reasonable ideas.
Mewnst (
talk)
12:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keeping in line with fringe and NPOV policies
The subject material is a fringe work that engages in
Holocaust denial, various other antisemitic conspiracy theories, and
race pseudoscience. Neutrally summarizing the contents to be in line with
WP:NPOV would require a rewrite to explicitly describe the contents as
WP:FRINGE ideas with little to no historical or scientific backing. Labeling these ongoing efforts as "slander" or "biased" is itself undue weight in favor of the fringe positions of Yockey (see
WP:FALSEBALANCE).
Mewnst (
talk)
04:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
ArsenalAtletico2017: What was the rationale for removing the following passages from the text?
The racial views of Yockey are extensively covered in Imperium. Yockey denied the scientific consensus of
race being socially constructed, and instead claimed it was determinable by
phrenology and
anthropometry. He claimed that ultimately culture defines race by widening the limits of race-determinacy according to its historical needs. Yockey argued that in the Age of Absolute Politics the Western race is superior to other races due to its will to power being supplemented by the superior spiritual element of high culture in the phase of fulfillment of its destiny. He rejected
scientific racialism of 19th century as materialistic, favoring assimilation of those loyal to the Western cause instead of seeking biological purity. He furthered that difficulties around the assimilation of Jewish people and African-Americans ultimately come from an innate incompatibility with the destiny of the "Western race."
Yockey claimed that Jewish people were parasites, and frequently
labeled them as "distorters" and "aliens."[1]
Do you contest these details? I can find the relevant pages in Imperium if you think that is necessary (already have done that for the antisemitism).
Mewnst (
talk)
04:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
See
WP:PRIMARY and
WP:FRINGE. The article is a long, long, long recount of what Yockey wrote, with a short appendix about his fans. No critical reception at all. This is not what Wikipedia is for - spreading people's right-wing propaganda for them. The article seriously needs to be cut down. If someone wants to know that amount of detail about Yockey's views, they should read his book. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
04:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I think the long "Philosophy", "Politics" and "Other Views" sections need to be deleted, per
WP:PRIMARY (#1, 2, 4, and 5) and
WP:FRIND. If any summary of the work is made, it should paraphrase credible secondary sources; it can't be an original interpretation of the primary source by a Wikipedia editor. (
WP:FRIND: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.") Any objections?
Llll5032 (
talk)
01:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Hob Gadling: @
Llll5032: The article is about the book so it should contain information about its content. Deleting entire sections (philosophy, politics, other views) about content of the book does not makes sense. They can be reworked however, but without deleting essential information. I will add sources as well.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
ArsenalAtletico2017, you are adding and deleting text without responding to questions marked in the article about your current text. Please use refquotes (the quote field within a citation) exactly quoting third-party RS to support any future claims, and all current claims that are challenged.
Llll5032 (
talk)
14:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The
ONUS is on you, as the editor adding content that has been disputed with cited policies, to persuade a consensus of editors that the disputed content is
DUE. Unless you do, we remove it. Have you read
WP:FRINGE?
Llll5032 (
talk)
19:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
References
^Yockey, Francis Parker (1948). Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics. Pseudonymously as Ulick Varange. p. 29.
I support that restoration and the lead version present in
this edit of Llll5032's. I object to the earlier removal of Holocaust denialism from the lead. It's a fact about the book with widespread coverage in reliable sources that can be succinctly summarized, making it well due for a lead mention. The length given to denialism in Imperium is not a reason to leave it out, as we're apportioning weight based on coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and not on the structure of the primary document itself.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
14:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Absolute majority of sources cited in the article don't mention views about Holocaust expressed in Imperium, or if they do, they don't stress on it. it absolutely should not be in the lede, the book is primarily about analysis of Western culture and destiny and yet there is no mention of this in the lede, yet such secondary topics are mentioned.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
14:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Do any RS say Imperium is primarily notable for its "analysis of Western culture and destiny", or do they all say it is primarily notable for being circulated by neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and white separatists?
Llll5032 (
talk)
02:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, Goodrick-Clarke in the Black Sun describes Imperium as "a voluminous account of Western heritage and destiny from a Spenglerian point of view". I am sure other sources do say that as well.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
23:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The subjects of Black Sun are (from its title) "Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity", so it analyzes Imperium because it affected those movements, does it not?
Llll5032 (
talk)
23:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Yet Hitler's criticism of Jews is included in the Mein Kampf article. And it does not makes sense just to delete that part, since Yockey considered America to be a Western colony, antagonizing it precisely because it was dominated by the Jews. He argued that was the reason why America fought against Germany in WW2, and it should be mentioned in the part about America siding with Russia to stop Germany.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
19:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The way you've phrased this reply makes it seem as though you take for granted Yockey's POV that the US was dominated by the Jews (which would be odd since at the time they suffered
widespread discrimination). Perhaps this was just an awkward choice of language on your part?
Generalrelative (
talk)
19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Yockey did acknowledge that Jews were historically discriminated in the West, although I am not sure if he'd agree that that did preclude them from ruling the country. He argued that the source of Jewish domination was their "anonymous money power", and that in order to maintain control they had to rule through the puppets, because the open rule would result in natural reaction of the Westerners against the alien rule. Although I don't think this is relevant for this discussion.
All people ask from you is to "illustrate Yockey's views" in the article in a way that does not make it look as if Wikipedia embraces those views. See
WP:NPOV. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)reply
To avoid edit warring: The "Summary" section should try to match the proportion and tone with which third-party reliable sources describe the book, per
WP:DUE. Does anyone disagree?
Llll5032 (
talk)
02:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Although
ArsenalAtletico2017 has deleted various references to Nazism, arguing that they are unneeded
[3][4], I think some repetition is
WP:DUE for clarity because this article and its sources cover Nazism and Holocaust denial. Does anyone besides ArsenalAtletico2017 disagree?
Llll5032 (
talk)
22:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)reply
That is actually the correct and usual name in the original German. "Nazi" is just sort of a nickname, like "Sozi" for socialists. Using "National Socialism" instead is no big deal, although probably confusing for people unfamiliar with the subject, and therefore to be avoided. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
What he supposedly said privately is not related to the book, and should not be added here, as many other topics which are mentioned in Yockey's page but not in this article
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
15:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The book says that "Yockey was one of the first to promote the idea that the Final Solution was a myth: "Gas chambers that did not exist were photographed, and a 'gas mobile' was invented to titillate the mechanically-minded.” Yet, in private conversations, Yockey praised how the Germans exterminated the Jews during World War II."
It does not says that Yockey was lying in Imperium, neither does it discuss in detail whether Yockey "praised how the Germans exterminated the Jews" after writing Imperium or before that, did he change his views, or something else.
Lee 2013, Page 96, says it while quoting Imperium: "Yockey was one of the first to promote that the Final Solution was a myth: "'Gaschambers' that did not exist were photographed, and a 'gasmobile' was invented to titillate the mechanically minded." Yet, in private conversations, Yockey praised how the Germans exterminated the Jews during World War II."
Llll5032 (
talk)
16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
It should be indicated more specifically what value does his supposed "private praise of Holocaust" has to the book. What does it change for the summary of the book presented in this article? Why is it important?
It is vague statement. Does the author implies that Yockey is lying in Imperium when he says that he thinks that Holocaust did not happen? It needs more \elaboration and other sources which describe the context in more details.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
16:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NOTPLOT: "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works."
Llll5032 (
talk)
16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello, I combined some new text (previously removed) in the lead with the already existing one to make it more descriptive. Sources are cited too and description is proportionate.
Zip18 (
talk)
18:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I reverted your edit, but then partially self-reverted to add Goodrick-Clarke's explanation regarding the dedication to Hitler. Coogan's book can be cited, but the
Journal of Historical Review cannot be treated as a RS. If it is proportionate to add the book's influences, then perhaps they could be included in another paragraph rather than rewriting the first paragraph.
Llll5032 (
talk)
18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents neo-Nazism in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's
Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:
In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See
Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.
Ongoing cleanup on this page
There are significant copyediting errors and rambling in this page, and I think concision is an important part of correcting it. There is additionally the issue of non-neutral language being used throughout, as the page lacks any info on how Yockey's views are contested. I removed some weaseling from the statements about the Holocaust as well, as denying the Holocaust is denying the Holocaust and not anything else.
Mewnst (
talk)
12:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst: If you want to add how his views are contested, you can make a section about criticism citing relevant sources. No need to delete important information, misrepresent ideas and make the whole article biased against the author. Especially if you have not read the book.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
07:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
ArsenalAtletico2017: What were the changes that I made that were biased against the author? What are my misrepresentations? The statements of Yockey are laid out in an authoritative voice throughout the page, and that is not a neutral way to present it. It is not "slander" to make reference to how the author's ideas are contested, and is is completely appropriate to include criticisms throughout the page (see
WP:CRITS). And what information that was cut out was "important"? I only edited out materials that were already stuffed away under "Other" in the page. Also, why weasel out of the fact that Yockey was an unpopular figure for his Holocaust denialism?
Mewnst (
talk)
09:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:You seem like you want to reduce whole book to "holocaust denial" and "antisemitism". There is no need to mention after every sentence that "Modern historians accept that Holocaust actually happened" or "Modern science thinks that race is not real", that's not the point of the article. Your edites removed large chunk periphrasing the content of the book because they were "antisemitic", that is not how it works, this article is about the book and everything mentioned in the book should be discussed. You also seem like you did not read the book since you misunderstand the ideas developed in it.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
How exactly should this work instead? It is completely in line with Wikipedia's editorial policies to remove antisemitic drivel that is written in an authoritative voice. I do not misunderstand the subject material, there is plenty of racial pseudoscience, antisemitism, and Holocaust denial in the work, and it is not a mistake to describe those contents as those things. You still have not elaborated on how I am misrepresenting the contents of the work, unless your only claim for misrepresentation is on the antisemitic contents.
Mewnst (
talk)
11:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:No, it is not in line with Wikipedia's editorial policies to remove the content of the book. The article is about the book and ideas developed in it are supposed to be discussed here. You seem like you don't like the ideas, that does not gives you right to remove and censor them. The article is not written in an authoritative voice. Almost every sentence begins with "Yockey thinks", "Yockey believes", it is clearly shown that the ideas discussed are those of Yockey and they are up to discussion. It does not says that what Yockey thinks is right or wrong. You try to reduce Yockey's racial views to biological determinism which is not correct since Yockey views race as primarily defined by culture. Biology is not essential to his theory of race, he says that everyone can be assimilated if they are loyal to Western culture (this was discussed in previous version of the article which you removed for some unknown reason).
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:The part which you deleted is essential to the book. His views on Jews is very important and he pays much attention to it in his book. You can read the book and see. Deleting that part is inadequate. The article loses important content by deleting that part and it must be restored. If you have concerns over neutrality, you can discuss and propose edit. But deleting that part entirely does not makes sense.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Again, the issue with the contents aren't that Yockey's antisemitic ideas exist in the book, it's that they are not summarized neutrally in the wiki page. A neutral summary for Yockey's contested pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific ramblings isn't a mere mention of what those ideas are as "Yockey thinks" and "Yockey argued", it necessitates some mention of how his ideas, as determined by scientific and historical consensus, are wholesale bunk.
Mewnst (
talk)
11:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mewnst:Do you have sources "debunking" those views? Or you are going to debunk them personally without even reading book? You can propose edit, but don't delete that part entirely, it is important part of the article and without it article does not even makes sense.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I have no need to "debunk" anything, the antisemitic and racial positions that are put forward by Yockey are already countered by the historical consensus seen in
Holocaust denial and
Jewish Bolshevism, as well as the scientific consensus seen in the page on
race. It's not my job to try to turn Yockey into someone who made sense or had reasonable ideas.
Mewnst (
talk)
12:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keeping in line with fringe and NPOV policies
The subject material is a fringe work that engages in
Holocaust denial, various other antisemitic conspiracy theories, and
race pseudoscience. Neutrally summarizing the contents to be in line with
WP:NPOV would require a rewrite to explicitly describe the contents as
WP:FRINGE ideas with little to no historical or scientific backing. Labeling these ongoing efforts as "slander" or "biased" is itself undue weight in favor of the fringe positions of Yockey (see
WP:FALSEBALANCE).
Mewnst (
talk)
04:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
ArsenalAtletico2017: What was the rationale for removing the following passages from the text?
The racial views of Yockey are extensively covered in Imperium. Yockey denied the scientific consensus of
race being socially constructed, and instead claimed it was determinable by
phrenology and
anthropometry. He claimed that ultimately culture defines race by widening the limits of race-determinacy according to its historical needs. Yockey argued that in the Age of Absolute Politics the Western race is superior to other races due to its will to power being supplemented by the superior spiritual element of high culture in the phase of fulfillment of its destiny. He rejected
scientific racialism of 19th century as materialistic, favoring assimilation of those loyal to the Western cause instead of seeking biological purity. He furthered that difficulties around the assimilation of Jewish people and African-Americans ultimately come from an innate incompatibility with the destiny of the "Western race."
Yockey claimed that Jewish people were parasites, and frequently
labeled them as "distorters" and "aliens."[1]
Do you contest these details? I can find the relevant pages in Imperium if you think that is necessary (already have done that for the antisemitism).
Mewnst (
talk)
04:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
See
WP:PRIMARY and
WP:FRINGE. The article is a long, long, long recount of what Yockey wrote, with a short appendix about his fans. No critical reception at all. This is not what Wikipedia is for - spreading people's right-wing propaganda for them. The article seriously needs to be cut down. If someone wants to know that amount of detail about Yockey's views, they should read his book. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
04:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I think the long "Philosophy", "Politics" and "Other Views" sections need to be deleted, per
WP:PRIMARY (#1, 2, 4, and 5) and
WP:FRIND. If any summary of the work is made, it should paraphrase credible secondary sources; it can't be an original interpretation of the primary source by a Wikipedia editor. (
WP:FRIND: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.") Any objections?
Llll5032 (
talk)
01:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Hob Gadling: @
Llll5032: The article is about the book so it should contain information about its content. Deleting entire sections (philosophy, politics, other views) about content of the book does not makes sense. They can be reworked however, but without deleting essential information. I will add sources as well.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
11:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
ArsenalAtletico2017, you are adding and deleting text without responding to questions marked in the article about your current text. Please use refquotes (the quote field within a citation) exactly quoting third-party RS to support any future claims, and all current claims that are challenged.
Llll5032 (
talk)
14:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The
ONUS is on you, as the editor adding content that has been disputed with cited policies, to persuade a consensus of editors that the disputed content is
DUE. Unless you do, we remove it. Have you read
WP:FRINGE?
Llll5032 (
talk)
19:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
References
^Yockey, Francis Parker (1948). Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics. Pseudonymously as Ulick Varange. p. 29.
I support that restoration and the lead version present in
this edit of Llll5032's. I object to the earlier removal of Holocaust denialism from the lead. It's a fact about the book with widespread coverage in reliable sources that can be succinctly summarized, making it well due for a lead mention. The length given to denialism in Imperium is not a reason to leave it out, as we're apportioning weight based on coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and not on the structure of the primary document itself.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
14:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Absolute majority of sources cited in the article don't mention views about Holocaust expressed in Imperium, or if they do, they don't stress on it. it absolutely should not be in the lede, the book is primarily about analysis of Western culture and destiny and yet there is no mention of this in the lede, yet such secondary topics are mentioned.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
14:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Do any RS say Imperium is primarily notable for its "analysis of Western culture and destiny", or do they all say it is primarily notable for being circulated by neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and white separatists?
Llll5032 (
talk)
02:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, Goodrick-Clarke in the Black Sun describes Imperium as "a voluminous account of Western heritage and destiny from a Spenglerian point of view". I am sure other sources do say that as well.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
23:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The subjects of Black Sun are (from its title) "Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity", so it analyzes Imperium because it affected those movements, does it not?
Llll5032 (
talk)
23:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Yet Hitler's criticism of Jews is included in the Mein Kampf article. And it does not makes sense just to delete that part, since Yockey considered America to be a Western colony, antagonizing it precisely because it was dominated by the Jews. He argued that was the reason why America fought against Germany in WW2, and it should be mentioned in the part about America siding with Russia to stop Germany.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
19:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The way you've phrased this reply makes it seem as though you take for granted Yockey's POV that the US was dominated by the Jews (which would be odd since at the time they suffered
widespread discrimination). Perhaps this was just an awkward choice of language on your part?
Generalrelative (
talk)
19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Yockey did acknowledge that Jews were historically discriminated in the West, although I am not sure if he'd agree that that did preclude them from ruling the country. He argued that the source of Jewish domination was their "anonymous money power", and that in order to maintain control they had to rule through the puppets, because the open rule would result in natural reaction of the Westerners against the alien rule. Although I don't think this is relevant for this discussion.
All people ask from you is to "illustrate Yockey's views" in the article in a way that does not make it look as if Wikipedia embraces those views. See
WP:NPOV. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)reply
To avoid edit warring: The "Summary" section should try to match the proportion and tone with which third-party reliable sources describe the book, per
WP:DUE. Does anyone disagree?
Llll5032 (
talk)
02:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Although
ArsenalAtletico2017 has deleted various references to Nazism, arguing that they are unneeded
[3][4], I think some repetition is
WP:DUE for clarity because this article and its sources cover Nazism and Holocaust denial. Does anyone besides ArsenalAtletico2017 disagree?
Llll5032 (
talk)
22:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)reply
That is actually the correct and usual name in the original German. "Nazi" is just sort of a nickname, like "Sozi" for socialists. Using "National Socialism" instead is no big deal, although probably confusing for people unfamiliar with the subject, and therefore to be avoided. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
What he supposedly said privately is not related to the book, and should not be added here, as many other topics which are mentioned in Yockey's page but not in this article
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
15:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The book says that "Yockey was one of the first to promote the idea that the Final Solution was a myth: "Gas chambers that did not exist were photographed, and a 'gas mobile' was invented to titillate the mechanically-minded.” Yet, in private conversations, Yockey praised how the Germans exterminated the Jews during World War II."
It does not says that Yockey was lying in Imperium, neither does it discuss in detail whether Yockey "praised how the Germans exterminated the Jews" after writing Imperium or before that, did he change his views, or something else.
Lee 2013, Page 96, says it while quoting Imperium: "Yockey was one of the first to promote that the Final Solution was a myth: "'Gaschambers' that did not exist were photographed, and a 'gasmobile' was invented to titillate the mechanically minded." Yet, in private conversations, Yockey praised how the Germans exterminated the Jews during World War II."
Llll5032 (
talk)
16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
It should be indicated more specifically what value does his supposed "private praise of Holocaust" has to the book. What does it change for the summary of the book presented in this article? Why is it important?
It is vague statement. Does the author implies that Yockey is lying in Imperium when he says that he thinks that Holocaust did not happen? It needs more \elaboration and other sources which describe the context in more details.
ArsenalAtletico2017 (
talk)
16:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NOTPLOT: "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works."
Llll5032 (
talk)
16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello, I combined some new text (previously removed) in the lead with the already existing one to make it more descriptive. Sources are cited too and description is proportionate.
Zip18 (
talk)
18:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I reverted your edit, but then partially self-reverted to add Goodrick-Clarke's explanation regarding the dedication to Hitler. Coogan's book can be cited, but the
Journal of Historical Review cannot be treated as a RS. If it is proportionate to add the book's influences, then perhaps they could be included in another paragraph rather than rewriting the first paragraph.
Llll5032 (
talk)
18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply