From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Occult    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Neopaganism    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


You will definitely have to differentiate between White heritage organizations and people advocating a socialist regime based on nationalism. EH

I'm a little confused as to what you are trying to achieve here... I wonder, are you trying to erect another monument to censorship here on wikipedia??

Your use of the unreferenced macro is completely beside the point for a talk page but using common sense and by the same token since you obviously disagree with the above you would then have to lump an organization like the Cambodian Heritage Inc. (CAHI) ( together with the Red Khmer. I guess you realize how silly that is.

The message you left me on the talk page is completely out of line.

Nevertheless here again once more (especially taking above example into account):

Just because they're white heritage does not mean they're nazi. You will have to somehow work around your kneejerk reflex here.


why is asking you to get an account out of line?
This Dieter is way out of line:
I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your
change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted
or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to
do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn
more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems you can't be bothered to follow links and read. EH

Why "kneejerk"? Here are references for you: [1] [2]

Die AG GGG wird - wie z.B. www. zeigt - der Neonaziszene zugerechnet.
Rassistische Ansätze findet man in der Nordischen Zeitung, Ausgabe 3/98.
Zusammenarbeit besteht mit der Gesellschaft für freie Publizistik, dem Nordischen Ring (Vorsitz: Jürgen Rieger), der Northern League, dem Bund der Goden und weiteren rechtsextremistischen Organisationen.
Im Dezember 1999 führte die Artgemeinschaft ihr alljährliches "Juleingangstreffen" durch. Neben "Volkstanz, Julklapp" und "artgemäßer Kleidung" wurden auch Referate geboten, darunter der Schweizer Holocaust-Leugner Bernhard Schaub.
Das niedersächsische Innenministerium hat am 11. Februar 1998 die ebenfalls von Rieger [AG's chairman] geleiteten rechtsextremistischen Vereine Heide-Heim e.V. (Hamburg), Heideheim e.V. (Buchholz) verboten. In der Verbotsbegründung heißt es, beide Vereine verfolgten das Ziel, mit ihrer Tätigkeit die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung fortlaufend zu untergraben und letztendlich zu beseitigen.

"Neonazi" seems thus a perfectly justified description. dab () 12:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess you lifted that straight from the German Wikipedia.
Out here in an international setting, M. Chatwin's "IDGR"
doesn't enjoy the cozy protection of German legislation against
historic revisionism. Far from the power and clout of an ADL
Chatwin fails miserably trying to live up to the viciousness
that has made the ADL infamous. I don't have to remind you
of one of her latest blunders when she attacked the Buergerrechtsbewegung Solidaritaet BueSo (Civil Rights Movement Solidarity) She had the gall to claim that the civil rights movement was a neonazi right extremist movement! Chatwin and her vigilantes at the so called "IDGR" were taken to court over this. You can read the organization's official response to Chatwin's libelous smear campaign here
Aside from that your citation from isn't worth much
either, I'm afraid. is funded and operated by the
Protestant Church of Switzerland and such you can't reasonably
expect them to sing Hosannas to most of the spiritual
alternatives to christianity with the exception of the 3 other
"great" religions like buddhism, islam and judaism which they
do not dare to attack.
I'm a little disappointed Dieter, try to come up with something ::new and interesting next time around.
Happy New Year, btw. EH
well, relinfo may be founded by the Protestant Church, but you will note that they do not wantonly label neopagans as neo-nazis. The AG is the only one that they do, actually, while some of the others get reasonably favourable reviews. So no, relinfo clearly doesn't rant agaist neopagans as satanist nazis on principle. They are critical, but their criticism is informed, and they are a notable source concerning new religious movements in German speaking areas. Anyway, I am waiting to come forward with a better critique that concludes they are unrelated to the neo nazi scene. dab () 15:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


We got plenty now :-)

There are no citations in the article, and only one external reference. Please do not remove template messages without good reasons, and also please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style before editing here at Wikipedia. A basic understanding of the rules of a community often reduces the number of mistakes that are made in ignorance of those rules, which is something that you are likely to understand since you have an apparent interest in heathen reconstructionism.
The message I left at your IP userpage is entirely appropriate. It is a template message that is used by many people at Wikipedia, particularly when anonymous editors are screwing up an article without apparently realising that they are doing so, and thereby encourages those people to educate themselves. One of the items covered by the rules is in leaving inappropriate messages at user Talk pages, which is something that you have also already done.
In sum- do not tell someone that they are acting inappropriately when you obviously do not understand the sets of rules being followed here at Wikipedia. It is mildly amusing to me, but it makes you look foolish. I have very little interest in this article, so if you have something productive to discuss with me, use my talk page or e-mail address found at my user page.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Phadraic, hardly anyone is going to take the time to really read this discussion top to bottom or even go through its history and marvel at your and your Bachmann's deletions, however if they did, they would realize that you and your colleague Bachmann are consistently trying to confuse the issue here. It is a good thing in Wikipedia that people do not have easy access to the article history, as it makes people like you accountable. Trying to divert the discussion away from the main issue by pointing out related Wikipedia procedure presuming that I am a newbie to Wikipedia while interpreting proper procedure however it might suit you merely reveals your contempt for the issue at hand even more so and destroys your credibility as a serious party to this discussion.

So that we don't lose track here again I will repeat the main issue:

You will definitely have to differentiate between White heritage organizations and people advocating a socialist regime based on nationalism.



who made up this word? I note it is spread all over the internet, but it's not English! The proper English adjective relating to "supremacism"

A shame, I know. Sometimes language doesn't evolve by the book. EH

The "discussion you didn't want to have"[edit]

Dieter, you posted and then "withdrew" the following statement: (one more hooray for Wikipedia not letting people manipulate the history after the fact)

I am familiar with the tounge-in-cheek "we cannot be Nazis, because we reject socialism", often heard from Neonazis. Nazism itself wasn't very "socialist" to begin with, and you do not have to subscribe to any tenets of Marxism in order to be a Neonazi. According to our Neonazi page, core tenets are "racial nationalism, antisemitism, and praise for Hitler". If any of this is lacking, we may talk about Neo-fascim then. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this another example of your special logic here? Whatever it says on the so called "Neonazi" page is officially the criteria for classifying people and organizations as "Neonazi"? Since the mere concept is so outlandish and preposterous, I'm not sure this is what you meant to say so I'm reserving my judgement on that until you clarify. Rest assured, that page is open to dispute just like any other page here on Wikipedia.

Just to humor you, applying these criteria to the Artgemeinschaft and after taking the time to read the ample amount of materials on their site you will find:

  1. They are not into nationalism, as they're open to anybody satisfying a certain ethnicity with complete disregard to citizenship
  2. They are not antisemite. They give little thought to semites, especially jews.
  3. They don't "praise" Hitler. People like them operating outside of the Ahnenerbe framework (which they are definitely not part of) were prosecuted under Hitler and thrown into concentration camps.

Your listing them as white supremacist however is acceptable. Each day that passes more and more people realize There is no shame in white supremacism. EH


On a side note: Nazism (National Socialism) is socialism with a bolus of nationalism and racism added for good measure. You should take the time to read the official "25 items" party program (25 Punkte) first. EH

what you are prepared to be ashamed of is of course your personal responsibility. You are free to be proud of anything you like. I have no particular interest in the AG. I summarized what I could find on the internet and do not claim first hand experience with them (unless this discussion counts as such). I ask you to let the mentioned sources stand as they are, while you are of course free to add additional testimonies. The AG is "counted as being close to the neo nazi movement" is the verdict of the sources discussed above. This doesn't directly allege that they are themselves neo nazis in any narrow sense. For this reason, I agree with the removal of the neo nazi categorization, as long as they continue to be categorized as "supremacist". Since you seem to agree with that, we have no dispute, and I would ask you not to vandalize my user page because you disagree with my views. dab () 15:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the article as it is but willing to let it stand for now. As you can see, this page is still on my radar. As far as the defacation of your talk page is concerned, oh well.. I suppose this is what concerns you. I regularily mail and even phone around and try to get people involved in Wikipedia and I have a hunch who did this. I wont congratulate them on this but I can understand the sentiment. I have faced much worse abuse for my convictions so I find it hard to comiserate with you. 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

that's fine, I think I've almost got over it and will stop whining about it any minute now. You can tell your friend that no amount of defecating on my talkpage will have any effect on this article; the most that will achieve is that I get annoyed or lose interest, but there are many other editors at Wikipedia who will take my place if necessary. dab () 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artgemeinschaft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)