Talk:Black Sun (symbol)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

AR logo

I don't agree that the logo of the recently formed neo-Nazi group Antipodean Resistance is very relevant to the text. The group is not mentioned in the article at all, and the only source for the logo is the group's own website, rather than any reliable, secondary source. As such, the use of the image is unduly weighted and seems purely decorative. The logo itself, presented as it is with no context, doesn't illustrate how it might be used; all it does is increase the visibility of the group using it, which is a form of promotion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an rganizationthat uses the symbol as part of their logo, so it's clearly relevant. Adding a mention of it to the text is a trvial matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur; should we include the logo of every organization that uses a symbol in their official propaganda? Wikipedia's purpose isn't to serve as free advertising for neo-Nazi groups. If there are reliable, secondary sources discussing AR's use of the symbol, I haven't seen them, so what would we even add to the text? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly we should, in which case a gallery would be best for presentation. The bottom line is that the use the symbol is put to is quite obviously a subject that the article should deal with, in order to be as complete as possible. This same argument was made regarding Dragon's Eye (symbol) and its use by Identity Evropa, and it was not successful there either. We have an obligation to present facts to our readers, whether or not we like or agree with them, and the use of the Black Sun by AR is a fact.

if you want to add other such uses, that's fine, I think it would improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Insofar as independent, reliable sources exist for a given piece of info (thank you for adding one here), then that info may be suitable for inclusion. However, Wikipedia is not just an indiscriminate collection of facts. To be "complete", Wikipedia would have to reproduce the entire Internet and every book, film, album, speech, etc. ever published, which is obviously neither practical nor desirable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact, since we don't have a gallery of various uses of the symbol, whether by neo-Nazis or otherwise, presenting this one image as representative of modern usage still unbalances the article as a whole. Should 1/3 of the images about a symbol with centuries of history (including use in Old Norse and Celtic art) really be represented by a group that didn't exist before 2016? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC))

I believe it may be the only use of the symbol by neo-Nazis for which we have an image available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That makes your comment about me adding others look like a taunt. Be careful there, please. In any case, a lack of other images doesn't make this image suitable by default; we don't have an image quota. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No, no taunt intended. I didn't realize that we didn't have any other uses of the symbol available until after I made the comment and went looking, with the idea of perhaps creating a gallery. Please [[WP:AGF}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. But I still think the image is given disproportionate emphasis here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

My mistake as well. For some reason I neglected to look at the Commons category, where I found the logo for the Azov Battalion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS Noticeboard

The reliability of the ADL and SPLC’s claims about the history and name of this symbol is the topic of a thread at Wikipedia’s reliable sources notice board ([1]. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your notification of the editors on this talk page of the report you opened at RSN. I'm sure if any of them have any thoughts they will go there and present them, and if there is anything amiss about your presentation of the facts as you see them, they will present the corrected information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I’ll be glad to correct the article once discussion concludes, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbols of neo-Nazi groups

I added logos of neo-Nazi groups that use the black sun in their logos, and an editor deleted them as "cruft." I'd like that editor to explain here how those symbols are any more cruft that the SS runes above. I'd rather do this informally. but I'll start an RfC if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been had above [2]. I suggest you self revert, an ANI report has been started. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That was a year atgo six weeks ago, and WP:Consensus can change. The new edits require a new discussion. If this informal discussion cannot come to a new consensus, or valid the old one, then an RfC will do the trick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus was from April this year, no further discussion on the subject has been had. Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That;s what this is here, a further discussion.

BTW, in case glorification is an issue -- and I think many of the people here know that I am dead set against glorfying Nazis, fascists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, etc. -- I've reduced the size of the images significantly, to the point that one can see the Back Suns in the background. Any smaller and they'd be useless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So you make changes against consensus, then start a discussion and claim consensus can change? If that's not disruptive I don't know what is. Bacondrum (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I made a WP:BOLD edit. what of it? We're encouraged to be bold -- and, frankly I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. I came to the article after a while away from it, and noticed that these things, which I deemed to be important, were missing, so I restored them.

BTW, it's been pointed out to me that the previous discussion was 6 weeks ago, not last year, so I've changed that in my previous comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And your bold edit was reverted, so you admit to edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf Grayfell Slatersteven I feel like we recently had a thorough and civil discussion about this and reached a consensus to remove. Care to share your thoughts on the subject with BMK? Bacondrum (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And you, Bacondrum, what is your opinion - since you began the above discussion complaining about the logos being removed, and now you are adamant about removing them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Take the time to read the discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, there's a brand new discussion right here, which, if you continue to dodge it, will be an RfC soon enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See above discussion. I oppose there inclusion as per above discussion. Stop making obnoxious threats, if you want to make it an RFC there's nothing stopping you. Bacondrum (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the logos of neo-Nazi groups which use the Black Sun symbol be shown in the article?

Should the logos of those neo-Nazi groups which integrate the Black Sun symbol be used in the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: this RfC and preceding discussion are specifically about the logos of Antipodean Resistance and the Azov Battalion that were re-added on May 30th, not any and all logos of neo-Nazi groups using the symbol. The Azov logo shown below seems to be the only one left on Wikipedia in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Here are the logos and the size I suggest they be presented at:

File:Antipodean Resistance Logo.png

Logo of the Australian neo-Nazi group Antipodean Resistance

Logo of the Azov Battalion

• Yes - The text in the article concerning the use of the Black Sun symbol by neo-Nazi groups is as follows:

  The Black Sun symbol is widely associated with neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.[8] It is utilized by far-right neo-Nazis, neo-volkisch movements, and white nationalists. The symbol often appears on extremist flags, t-shirts, posters, websites and in extremist publications associated with such groups. Modern far-right groups often refer to the symbol as the sun wheel or Sonnenrad.[5][9][10]

  A number of far-right groups and individuals have utilised the symbol in their propaganda, including the Christchurch mosque shooter, Australian neo-Nazi group Antipodean Resistance, and Ukrainian far-right National Guard regiment Azov Battalion.[11] The symbol was displayed by members of several extremist groups involved in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.[12]

  Given this, the explicit information that some neo-Nazi groups use the Black Sun symbol, it would seem odd not to show those logos to the reader, so that they can see exactly how those groups integrate the Black Sun into their logos. The two logos shown are -- as far as I am aware -- the only ones that are available on Commons which fit the criteria.
  For those concerned that showing the symbol somehow glorifies those groups, I had reduced the size of the logos to as small a size as possible and still see the Black Sun clearly. [3] For those concerned that we shouldn't encourage people to consider joining these groups, all I can say is that we do not say anything positive about them, and, besides, we do not act in loco parentis to our readers; in any case what they do with their lives is very unlikely to be swayed by seeing a logo in a Wikipedia article.
  Further, as WP:IMAGES says: Since Wikipedia is not censored, readers and editors may come across offensive images.
  There is, in fact, no real valid reason to exclude these logos, which is why the previous discussion (which involved only four people, several of whom I have great respect for) was so unpersuasive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The question of purpose is clear. We use images not to decorate our articles, but to illustrate them, and the images in question here quite obviously illustrate the words I've quoted above from the article. In fact, I've rarely seen a case where the illustrative purpose of the images is so clear cut and matches so tightly the words in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • With respect, the question of whether the images are offensive or not is a red herring. The logos could be pictures of puppies and rainbows and still be inappropriate if their nature was mainly promotional. The file page for the of the Azov Battalion.svg Azov logo links directly to a social-media account for the group. That seems rather promotional to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It's true that we don't say anything positive about either group. But even presented completely neutrally, images still have an emotional weight that makes them useful for propaganda. That's why logos like this exist. As they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• No - As per above discussion from April. I had previously supported their inclusion, but was convinced otherwise by three other editors. As Grayfell and Sangdeboeuf pointed out the inclusion of the images serves little purpose and "they are useful more as propaganda than to explain how the symbol itself fits into the ideology and aims of neo-Nazi movements" Bacondrum (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Weak no - as I feel the images are best included on the article pages of the groups themselves. Sufficient pointers to those pages are in the paragraph starting, "A number of far-right groups and individuals have utilised the symbol in their propaganda..." However, my opinion is based not on any particular policy but instead my own preference to avoid anything that might lead to a gallery. Meticulo (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, at one time in the past I was considering a gallery, but we just don't have any other logos to put in one. In any case, it's not like the two images are likely to grow into a gallery if they're overfed or something. As to your first point, I'm generally opposed to forcing our readers to go elsewhere to get information when we can easily present it where the reader is, in this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ehhh... I'm thinking that it's a better idea to list any notable organizations that use the Black Sun as a logo and then including it in those articles. If we are to have a gallery here, maybe one type of each usage (one neo-Nazi use, one non-Nazi military use, etc). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Yes(ish) Taking into account Ian's suggestion one or two examples of modern usage is a good idea, in a gallery.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• No to the "Antipodean Resistance" logo, as it appears to be nonfree. (I've requested deletion on Commons accordingly.) Yes to the Ukrainian police logo; it is public domain and could serve as a useful example of current use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Very interesting development. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Seraphimblade: the Azov battalion is not part of the Ukrainian police. The logo being in the public domain seems to be due to it falling under "symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations". This in itself seems odd. I would think that trademark protections would apply to logos of private groups, but haven't been able to find a clear explanation of the relevant legal issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• No per above discussions. Idealigic (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Yes: Maybe just one to demonstrate the symbol's connection with hate groups. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 01:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• That would be the purpose, yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes with caution. I appreciate the risks of inflating obscure fascist groups, so it is vital that any examples are carefully sourced, carefully verified and for a good reason, but it is useful and informative for a visual topic such as this to be illustrated visually, and for readers to be able to use this page to help recognise the symbols in use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Yes: One is necessary to indicate what this symbol is or the article is effectively useless FAISSALOO_(talk) 19:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Faissaloo: How does this follow? A diagram showing what the image is, unconconnected with any specific group, is shown at the very top of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Sangdeboeuf: Without a tangible example it's hard to envision how it might be used. Black suns are often given alternative colors such as white for example. FAISSALOO_(talk) 11:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's that hard to envision, and in any case being informative has to be balanced against undue weight and not being a vehicle for propaganda. As I mentioned earlier, the Azov logo comes from a social-media account for the group, not from a reliable secondary source. Including the image in this article sends a message beyond simply informing people, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Yes and alternative suggestion: This was going to be a very strong yes before reading the comments in the previous discussion. I'm sensitive to the fact that including certain pictures may have undesirable adverse effects, though I'd dispute that they actually contribute meaningfully to extremism, rather than such usage reflecting extremism already occurring. I still think that as an encyclopedia, it's important for wikipedia to record things as they are, good, bad, or ugly. In this particular case, I think wikipedia has a rather compelling interest in recording modern usage of the logo, as it's significant to understanding significant modern events both now and for posterity. That said, given the concerns, would it be better to find a logo used by a now-inarguably-defunct or even a fictional organization? This would serve to illustrate its modern usage without inadvertently promoting or providing exposure to an active group. Arathald (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We already record the Azov logo at Azov Battalion; the question is whether the logo is duly weighted in an article about the Sonnenrad. I maintain that it is not, since of the Azov Battalion.svg this specific image is sourced to a social-media account for the group themselves, not a reliable secondary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes (the one that has not been deleted at least). They illustrate points made in the text of the article and are thus relevant. We do not censor Wikipedia out of non-editorial concerns. As for image size, the default thumbnail size should be used per MOS:IMGSIZE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The logos can be seen at the respective groups' articles; no one is censoring anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yesm you are in favor of censoring it from this article, which is the only issue here, not whether it appears in some article or on Commons. It's also available on the INternet - that's nothing to do with us and this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• No - Not really needed, their symbol is not unique and if a reader wants to learn more about it then can click the link. Plus lets try and not promote neo-Nazi groups? PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• No for the reasons I expressed in the recent discussion, namely, that the images are primarily propaganda. The of the Azov Battalion.svg Azov logo is sourced to a social-media account for the group themselves, not a reliable secondary source, and can already be seen in fuller context at Azov Battalion § Neo-Nazism, by following the link from the relevant section of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If the symbol is reliably sourced enough for one article, it is reliably sourced enough for another. The appearances in the two article serve different purposes. There, it is showing a symbol of the organization, here is is showing the usage of the black sun symbol. There is no logical reason why both can;t happen, nor is there any version of "reliably sourced" which would accept it in one place and not in another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Further, if it's propgaanada, then we should say it is propaganda. We don't not have an article on Triumph of the Will simply because we know it's propaganda. In fact, knowing that it is propaganda helps to put it in context and to counter its propagandistic purposes. More generally, we do not stand in loco parentis towards our readers that we have to protect them from unpleasant things. In fact, quite the contrary, WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I already responded to your earlier "not censored" comment, which is not in itself an argument for including this specific image. Likewise, we can more easily put the image in its full context in a dedicated article on the group itself. Perhaps more importantly, the logo is devoid of any visual context. It's one thing to show a logo being displayed in a real-world situation, and another to brand a page with the naked logo itself, so to speak.
      Sources are actually considered more reliable when focused on the topic at hand, and less reliable when not. I haven't seem a source specifically about the Black Sun symbol that contains the Azov logo or any other contemporary logo. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC) (edited 18:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC))
• Yes, with a caveat: Can be included if covered by reliable sources, as in: Azov Battalion logo incorporates the Black Sun symbol. [citation]. This would allay potential concerns about original research. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • My concern isn't so much original research as undue weight and (unwittingly) helping to promote a specific group. We do have sources that say the logo contains the Black Sun, but none of them actually show an image, and certainly not this image. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: many months since, but for the record. I support Beyond My Ken's arguments. See also the WP not censored policy, with its caveats:

 On Wikipedia, the general concept is that concepts should not be censored, and that media which illustrates such concepts should likewise not be censored, if it has encyclopedic value. Determining whether something has encyclopedic value is subjective and debated....

Zezen (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• • @Zezen: the "encyclopedic value" of the images is precisely what's being disputed; specifically, they seem to run afoul of WP:PROMO and WP:WEIGHT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but in a limited way. It is worthwhile to demonstrate that the symbol has an ongoing usage in neo-Nazi circles. One or two images would be sufficient. We definitely don't want a big gallery of them. The logos we use should be for large and already notorious groups so that we do not unwittingly boost the profile of smaller groups who might be flattered to be included here. Possibly it is better to use images of the logos being worn as badges or waved as flags at a neo-Nazi event. That would provide visual context for their use and also avoid showing the logos in a flat way that almost makes them look as legitimate as any other logo. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @DanielRigal: the RfC is specifically about the images shown at the top of this section. To my knowledge we don't have any images of the logos being worn as badges or waved as flags etc. By saying we should avoid showing the logos in a flat way you seem to be arguing against these specific images. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I'm just saying that images of the logos in use would be preferable if we have any. If not, we should use what we have. One of the two suggested images seems to have been deleted, or not been linked correctly, but the other one can be used. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying. Are you then saying the Azov logo belongs to a large and already notorious group? Do we really want to boost the profile of a militia that has only existed since 2014, especially since the academic works describing the symbol's use by far-right groups date from the early 2000s? That seems like a WP:RECENTISM issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson seems to mention it

The Arch-absurd: According to the assertion of Beelzebub, our Sun neither lights or heats...

https://gurdjieff-heritage-society.org/beelzebub/chapter-xvii-the-arch-absurd-according-to-the-assertion-of-beelzebub-our-sun-neither-lights-nor-heats/

Hm? Zezen (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Article title

The black sun is an alchemical symbol and a neo-pagan symbol more generally -- I'm not sure that the Nazi symbol should be called "black sun" but rather I think it should be named "Nazi Black Sun". Their version is very specific. Not all black sun motifs are Nazi. StarTigerJLN (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a published, reliable source for this. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a strong consensus against the proposed target, since "Nazi" is not part of the name, and no consensus whether it should be moved to Black Sun (Nazi symbol), default to remaining at the current location. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Black Sun (symbol) → Nazi Black Sun (symbol) – Nazi Black Sun is more appropriate name; the "black sun" is a common Jungian and neo-pagan symbol not directly associated with Nazis and the Nazi symbol is very specific and does not look like the general black sun symbol in alchemy and neo-paganism. The current location is very unfair to alchemists and neo-pagans, who are not generally Nazi. header = Rename this? StarTigerJLN (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Nazi Black Sun" + "symbol" returns a grand total of 3 results on Google Scholar, while "Black Sun" + "Nazi" + "symbol" yields 1,250 results. The latter is clearly the more commonly recognized name. No sources have been put forward for any significant Jungian and/or neo-pagan connections that aren't directly related to the (neo-)Nazi usage. Any perceived unfairness is a PR matter for those groups, not an encyclopedic concern. (A case could be made for Black Sun (Nazi symbol), assuming any other types of black sun symbol are notable enough for their own article; otherwise the present title is sufficiently precise.) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to Black Sun (Nazi symbol): looking at the topics under Black Sun § Other uses, I'm not sure we have a primary topic between this and Sol niger, the alchemical symbol also called the "black sun". Although it's debatable whether the latter is more a metaphor than a symbol per se. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It was and is mainly a nazi symbol, yes. But the fact other use it (and lets be generous here) without knowing that is why we should not move it, so they know what it is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is moved, then Black Sun (Nazi symbol) would be more appropriate, as it wasn't called the Nazi Black Sun. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sangdeboeuf's original comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary over-disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but I would be in favor of a move to Black Sun (Nazi symbol). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 21 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Black Sun (symbol) → Black Sun (Nazi symbol) – Following up on the above discussion. There was no consensus for this more specific title. But just regarding symbols, I'm not sure we have a primary topic (that is, the present title insufficiently disambiguates) between this and Sol niger, the alchemical symbol also called "black sun". The latter certainly has had more enduring notability. Although it's debatable whether the Sol niger is more a metaphor than a symbol per se. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) edited 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging users StarTigerJLN, Slatersteven, Necrothesp, Beyond My Ken, Rreagan007, and Bloodofox from the earlier discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support the move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support this should deal with the issues that led the original proposal to be opposed.--67.70.100.30 (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support the move—very reasonable suggestion. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Sol niger is not (as far as I am aware) that wildly known, Alchgamey not really being a thing most people practice anymore). Most of the time I see Balck Sun uses in connection with the Nazi's (as a symbol, and it is the symbol we are talking about, not an alchemical process).Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that's true, but personal experience, i.e. "what first comes to mind", isn't how we determine primary topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • So do you have any evidence that enough people are coming here looking for Sol niger to make this an issue? It seems to me the only issue is Satansits and neo-pagans who are trying to insist this is not a Nazi symbol, when in fact the symbol (not the black round disk of the Sol niger) is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was never used as a symbol by the NSDAP, so I think the proposed title is both misleading and jarring, given what the article states. It is a Neo-Nazi symbol. Srnec (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Would you be OK with Black Sun (neo-Nazi symbol) then? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I do not know if it is needed, but I have no objection. Srnec (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • It was used as a Nazi symbol, it's on a mosaic at Wewelsburg Castle, Himmler's SS center - see article. In fact, it the best known use of the symbol. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I read the article. A single mosaic does not make a symbol. As the article states, "whether the design had a name or held any particular significance among the SS remains unknown." The design in the floor has been taken up as a symbol, but that does not mean it was a symbol when it was laid down. Are you sure you read the article? Srnec (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
          • The mosaic certainly does make it a symbol used by the Nazis. And yes, I read the article. I even wrote 10.6% of it. [4], [5]. Did you? [6] Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• I just happened upon the term Sonnenrad in reading the introduction of Interrogating the ‘Germanic’: A Category and its Use in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. The term "black sun" does not appear, but Sonnenrad is used three times in that work. Srnec (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• You might note from the fact that Sonnenrad is a disambiguation page, that "Sonnenrad" ("sun gear") does not necessarily refer to a specific symbol, but more to a number of related symbols. If you're suggesting that this article should be moved to "Sonnenrad" (1) It's not clear at all that this particular symbol is the proper primary target for that word, (2) It would be a mistake to move it to a term as ambiguous as "Sonnenrad" appears to be, and (3) I don't think "Sonnenrad" passes the WP:COMMONNAME test. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's a symbol, not just a metaphor in alchemy. We need to rework this page to address that it is not just a Nazi symbol if we do not move it to a page explicitly about Nazi symbols. It's a mystical symbol commonly used by alchemists, pagans, and mystical Christians. While the Nazis appropriated it, it's sad to see the entire page dedicated to its use by Nazis, and hurtful to alchemy enthusiasts etc who use it in a neutral way. StarTigerJLN (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is already a page on suns in alchemy. This page is explicitly about the Nazi symbol, which is a notable topic in its own right. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment 'Fascist symbol' or 'Neo-nazi symbol' is more accurate than just 'nazi symbol'—blindlynx (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• A Nazi symbol used by neo-Nazis would still be a Nazi symbol -- the swastika doesn't become a "neo-Nazi symbol" because they use it. As for "fascist", I don;t thin any non-Nazis or non-neo-Nazis use it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's notability comes from its current use not it's historic use, 'fascist' is probably best as it doesn't tie it to the historic party—blindlynx (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. per WP:CONCISE. Unnecessary over-disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is that a tacit argument that the Sol niger is not a symbol? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That topic doesn't even have its own article and there is already a hatnote at the top of this article that takes care of that. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not Sig Runes

I disagree in this page that the spokes of the sun are sig runes. This should be removed. When you look historically at the shape of the rune, every rune shape has the horizontal portion on an angle with both the vertical portions of equal length. What is portrayed in the mosaic contains neither. This should be removed from this article unless otherwise proven as fact.

You may disagree, but please read wp:or, we need RS to disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. So an article can be written without a RS but yet need an RS to disagree? I want to have a discussion on where is the proof or there is such

an underlying amount of circumstantial evidence that the spokes are sig runes. I see no proof or citations that they are in fact runes. Afatefulpast (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now added a specific source solely for the claim, but I am going to suggest it was already in some of the other sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Church of Satan use

Only anti-Satanic views here. Thobold (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The section on Satanism is well-referenced. It's hardly controversial to highlight that the Church of Satan, for example, employs these symbols. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree, its well sourced if you have a source saying it is not the black sun symbol please provide it and we can discus adding the denial.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well-referenced? From where? I only see one citation and it's just some book by some guy with a lot of bad reviews for being biased. I can't find a single image of the Church of Satan using the Sonnenrad anywhere online. Somebody simply saying that something happened isn't proof, even if they put it in text. 7:48, 28 February 2021 (EST)

We do not say the church of satan does, we say satanism. But I can see the confusion, as we mention them in connection with other Nazi symbols.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Boyd Rice, a prominent ex-spokesperson for the CoS, references the Black Sun a lot, maybe whoever first referenced it as being used by the CoS was conflating the two? He also uses the Wolfsangel. The CoS does use a lightning bolt logo reminiscent of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. LaVey embraced Social Darwinism in The Satanic Bible. So there is some crossover between satanic and fascist symbolism in the CoS and individual satanists. Somewhat off-topic but maybe it could prove useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:8D57:9E00:D58:7A23:E8CD:465A (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Schlegelmilch 2018

• Schlegelmilch, Dana (2018). "Ein produktiver SS-Mythos: Die Deutung der Wewelsburg in der extremen Rechten nach 1945" [A productive SS myth: the interpretation of Wewelsburg in the extreme right after 1945]. In Schulte, Jan Erik; Wildt, Michael (eds.). Die SS nach 1945: Entschuldungsnarrative, populäre Mythen, europäische Erinnerungsdiskurse (in German). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 327–342. ISBN 978-3-84-700820-0.

This source seems to have a lot to say about the symbolism of the Schwarze Sonne ('black sun'), but it's a bit much for me to go through sentence-by-sentence with a machine translator. I'm parking it here in case anyone fluent in German feels like summarizing it for the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of images that demonstrate contemporary use by neo-fascist groups

File:Antipodean Resistance Logo.png

Logo of the Australian neo-Nazi group Antipodean Resistance

Logo of the Azov Battalion

Why do these keep getting removed? No real explanation has been given other than one editor not liking it. They seem to me to be useful, self evident examples of its use by neo-fascists/neo-Nazis - I can't see how they could possibly be seen as undue. This kind of example is a great way to inform readers as to how it is used by such groups. Its use by fascists is the reason I first came to this page, I saw a member of Antipodean Resistance at a Cosmic Psychos gig wearing one, he was confronted and removed from the venue as a result - I wondered what this strange esoteric Nazi symbol actually meant, so I came here. I think its safe to say most people will encounter it for the first time via neo-Nazi groups, why not give an example or two of its use by them. Bacondrum (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't include things because they're "self-evident", but because they've been commented on by published sources. When including the logo of a specific group, we have to be wary that we don't simply end up promoting said group. The use of the symbol by both of these groups (but not these specific images of the symbols) have been given at least a passing mention by reliable sources, so I'm fine with keeping them. Nonetheless it would be ideal to more thoroughly contextualize the images themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC) (edited 20:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC); see comment below)

Hi Sangdeboeuf, thanks for the explanation. I don't think publishing them as described in accompanying text; "associated with Nazi occult circles...used by neo-Nazi, neo-völkisch, and white nationalist groups...Australian neo-Nazi group...widely associated with neo-fascism and neo-Nazism...used on the cover of the Christchurch mosque shooter's manifesto...engraved on the guns used in the attack" promotes the groups or presents them in anything but a negative light. We shouldn't censor Wikipedia based on the very slight risk that some minute number of sad boneheads think Nazi's are cool, at least I don't think so. Isn't the context the use of this articles subject by contemporary neo-Nazi groups? Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a useful demonstration of the symbols contemporary usage, but I also think extreme caution is called for here. Anecdotally, I can think of at least one sock puppet who has methodically tweaked and inflated various Nazi symbols on relevant pages and templates to make them more prominent. This editor knew how to use wiki-jargon and sources to make it appear neutral, also. From that and other incidents, I don't think the risk is as minute as a reasonable person might think it is. After all, looking cool and being edgy is kind of all these boneheads can aspire to, so we need to make sure we're not added to that without a very good reason. Every image needs a very good reason, and plenty of context. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never would have thunk it...I guess it never occurred to me that there really are some sad people out there that think this stuff is cool, I'm used to them hiding, lurking in the shadows, in chat rooms and behind esoteric symbols etc. Bacondrum (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it may be similar to the way some used the Confederate flag as late as the 80's as a symbol of rebellion (and that alone) without really getting the historical connotations. So I think we should only use symbols that have been linked by RS to the black sun explicitly. We are dealing with a BLP, so they must also be pretty top draw sources.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed since the ABC Religion and Ethics source was added that it only gives a verbal description of the Antipodean Resistance logo. We can only infer that it's the same as the above image, which incidentally comes from the group's own website, which is not an independent RS (and is now apparently defunct as well). Ditto for the Azov Battalion, although at least there's a different image in an independent source that seems to match. Frankly, I think the article would be fine if we omitted these images. They are useful more as propaganda for making the groups in question seem "cool" and "edgy", as Grayfell said, than to explain how the symbol itself fits into the ideology and aims of neo-Nazi movements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: by "context", I mean what the symbol signifies for the groups in question, how it's used as a recruitment tool, etc., according to reliable sources. Actually, your anecdote about the AR member wearing the logo in public would be just the sort of context we could use (if it came from a published source). It also suggests that some people think neo-Nazi symbols are "cool", doesn't it? Why else would this person have deliberately advertised his membership at a punk show? That's where the cool kids are likely to be, I'm told. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I see now, thanks for the thorough explanation. The last thing I would want to do is help promote these vile groups. Indeed, I've noticed Nazi's attending gigs and using more obscure nazi symbols in their attempts to recruit...years ago they essentially took over a live music venue where I grew up by kind of infiltrating the punk and metal scene. It definitely seems to be a tactic. Our own Nazi exposing legend Andy Flemming (an alias) has documented such tactic at his blog https://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=22224 - I know its self published, and not really a RS as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it is a thorough and accurate documentation of neo-fascists here in Australia. Worth a read. [7] Bacondrum (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The images are somewhat useful, but removing them was probably the right call. There is a cottage industry of people making and selling these images as patches, flags, etc. and I suspect they are using Wikimedia Commons as a resource. Thinking about it further, these images are useful to neo-Nazis specifically because they walk the line between known and obscure. They want these things to be recognized, but still rare enough to be shocking. Using them them on a Wikipedia page fits their purposes, but we should still inform people who need to know what they are looking at.

I find it mildly reassuring how insulated these bands are. It is such a crap genre that nobody else wants to play with them. Unfortunately it's still a tactic, for sure, but there is a healthy backlash. "Sonnenrad" is, of course, the name of at least one NSBM band, although one that's obscure enough that it doesn't have an article. Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Readers can of course still see the images at the groups' respective Wikipedia articles, where it's much easier to place them in their full context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf thanks, I'll be more mindful of the fact that there are some sad, misled people out there that actually think this vile stuff is cool. I always assume this stuff will repulse people, as it does me. Grayfell I find it so strange that Nazis want to make art and music, that requires a lot of thought and effort...I would have thought being creative was too much work for the average bonehead...I guess that's why their music is so crap. Bacondrum (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps pages should be as neutral as possible, and not propaganda, no matter where you fall under on the political spectrum? Weagesdf (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we are, what do you think is propaganda?Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Satanism section

The Satanism section seems to be getting a fair amount of attention, and probably places too much emphasis on a single source. Should we reduce this section down to a sentence or something? If so, where in the body would it go? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it needs that giant quote, but one paragraph can be sourced to a single scholar, that's not an issue necessarily. I reckon the size can be reduced, simply mentioning that it is used by satanists on occasion and how/why would suffice. The section that bothers me is Shakira, a pendant sold at a pop concert that a few people didn't like because it unintentionally resembled a fascist symbol is undue/cruft, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the Shakira thing is notable, in that it received some media attention, a rare occurence for the symbol. It'd receive mention in, say, a study on the transmission and use of the symbol, if only briefly.

The reduced section on Satanism looks good, btw. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it reads better now. I disagree about Shakira, a pop star selling a pendant that just happens to look like an obscure nazi symbol is cruft, IMO...but I could be convinced otherwise. Bacondrum (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We have had a few (presumably) Satanists trying to edit the article to disassociate Satanism from this symbol, which is fair enough as the quote specifically says that it is Neo-Nazi Satanists that use it and no decent, God fearing Satanist would want to be associated with them. ;-) Unfortunately, they didn't do a great job so I have reverted those changes and, instead, tweaked the section slightly to make it absolutely clear that we are only talking about Neo-Nazi Satanists and not Satanists in general. I hope that will keep everybody happy. (OK. I don't care if the Neo-Nazis are happy. I hope it will keep everybody else happy.) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This symbol is not used by "white nationalists"'

It is used by Nordicists, which is not the same since they also discriminate against people who are technically white, such as Arabs and other Mediterraneans. Dreadjonas (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't provide a proof for your assertion, which in any case would not erase the various sources saying it is used by white nationalists. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Are Aracs "technically" white, hell at one time even Spaniards and Italians were not white to some. We need RS saying this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Nordicists" would just be on sub-group of "White nationalists." Most White nationalists (and from my own anecdotal experience, most Europeans and Americans), do not consider Arabs or North Africans to be White. Being White is rooted in Europe. Southern Europeans are not seen as White by some, because of some significance of Turkic, Arab, Eurasian, and other admixture.Weagesdf (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

Where it says that some satanists use the symbol, the text is being too vague and broad, which has been causing some recurring misinterpretations where people [frequently on reddit] quote this article to say that "it is a satanic symbol" when it is not. There's no evidence of the Church Of Satan having used any germanic imagery [not even the wolfsangel, that is also unsourcedly mentioned on this article], nor of independent LaVeyans doing so. There is, however, some examples of members of a far-right, theistic satanist organization, called Order of Nine Angles, using it, not because they are satanists, but because they are nazi, which makes the whole thing redundant.

My suggestion is for the parts where it says just "satanism" to be replaced with either "theistic satanism groups" or "far-right satanist organizations" to make it clearer, or just "nazi occultism", as it would be more coherent with the rest of the text, since the quote from the source [12] already states that it is a "esoteric neo-nazi" thing. 2001:1284:F016:243F:593B:4073:1A15:5174 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

we need RS to support it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This should be updated to reflect that the Black Sun did not originate in Nazi Germany

The introduction of this article claims the Black Sun symbol originated in Nazi Germany - this is objectively false. Sources here and here. Even the ADL acknowledges it is an ancient Norse symbol, which has been found on Norse and Celtic artifacts throughout Europe and Britain. ClairelyClaire (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This is about "Schwarze Sonne", a type of Sonnenrad. This is why our article also links to here [[8]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It almost looks more like it is a copy of a Zierscheibe rather than a Sonnenrad. Weagesdf (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It is (most likely) just made up but inspired by a lot of things, all part of the Nazi's faked cultural heritage. That is why RS (and thus we) say they created this particular symbol.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

When I looked this up before on Wikipedia, I was under the assumption that it was a symbol created in Nazi Germany, as the article says "The book links the Wewelsburg mosaic with the neo-Nazi concept of the "Black Sun", invented by former SS officer Wilhelm Landig as a substitute for the Nazi swastika...." But the ADL page says it was appropriated by the Nazis, and I have read elsewhere (not from a reliable source) that it was used in the Merovingian dynasty. If this was indeed appropriated by the Nazis, I think that it would be important to have that written in the article to make it more clear. Weagesdf (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out this is about a specific design and not the Sonnenrad (as we say it is a "a type of sun wheel (German: Sonnenrad").Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Then this specific design was invented by the Nazis, and did not exist before. Weagesdf (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as part of Himmler's redesign of the Wewelsburg castle.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Villanovian Zierscheiben (example1 and example2). The Celtic and Villanovian cultures are almost contemporary, with commercial and cultural relations, but Villanovian Zierscheibe(n) have a design more similar to the Wiligut/Himmler's Zierscheibe(n). --Skyfall (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

why is this page about a single specific design, when sunwheel and sonnenrad both redirect to it? shouldn't this entire page be a subsection of a larger sunwheel article? it's very misleading to claim it was invented by the nazis without giving any greater context that it's an historic northern european symbol, even appearing in some german house heraldry. 170.203.220.41 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, as this is about a specific usage and corruption of it. As to the rest, see the talk page archive, as to why you are wrong (oddly you in fact make those very arguments above). Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

you seem to be missing my point; the article should not be about a specific usage, it should either detail the full history of the symbol or clarify itself as one offshoot, anything else is misleading. 170.203.221.18 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not? We have an article on the sun wheel. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is absolutely wrong.

This symbol can be traced back to the Norse, and is NOT a racist symbol. It is the sonnenrod, the black sun, representing events of ragnarok, when the wolf swallow the sun. The fact that this and many other norse symbols were stolen by the Nazis, does not make this a nazi symbol. 2601:280:4F81:1330:4516:62A4:74D4:4C63 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This assertion has been made, without any proof, hundreds of times before. If anybody has any genuine proof that this is true then we are happy to look at it. If not, you are just wasting everybody's time by pointlessly bringing this up again. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Or, please read all the prior talk page threads about this, we are not going to repeat ourselves. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

Hey SlaterSteven, we see you reverted sourced edits adding information about the symbol's widespread use by the Ukrainian National Guard. Quit trying to downplay this and face the facts. Quit the damn edit war and grow the fuck up. You support Nazis and you're taking advantage of your space on this website to promote a narrative and hide the truth.

No I reverted a series of edits that made that claim, with only one RS saying that one picture of one woman might have shown it (so no not "widespread use"). Also read wp:npa, and read wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, stalwart of impartiality! I see you toned down my addition to conform with Ukraine-friendly expectations.

First of all, there are tons of images of Ukrainian soldiers wearing the Black Sun, and other Nazi symbols too. There was was not only one, it wasn't an isolated case. How many would you like to see? I suggest putting it back that many Ukrainians are wearing it.

Second, it would be difficult to verify whether they're all Azovists, but it's true that Azovists would love these.

Third, the Azov Battalion did not become a Russian propaganda talking point after this photo. They always were. Well, mostly because they're openly flying Nazi flags, wear Nazi symbols, etc. Which offers the question: why would it be propaganda? The Russians are stating a fact when they claim they're Nazis. It's not a fabrication, a conspiracy theory or anything like it.

Fourth, you deleted the source, a Newsweek article. Why though? Not impartial enough? 45.44.227.120 (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to have this can it be properly cited? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References for the images in Ukraine

I'm having trouble adding references for the NATO tweet and other media outlets that show this symbol on soldiers in Ukraine. If anyone wants to add these references, here are the links: The (deleted) tweet by NATO: https://web.archive.org/web/20220308120102/https://twitter.com/NATO/status/1501146212938010628

GettyImagesNews tweet where the symbol in white can be clearly seen: https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/1500491702880153604 (archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20220307002123/https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/1500491702880153604)

The tweet by the MFA of Ukraine: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1501086279026552832 (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20220308064357/https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1501086279026552832) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.milivojevic (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure many of these past muster as RS as we have no provinance for them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

German "Sonnenrad", PMC Wagner, and New Lines's "The Wagner Group Files"

Those of you here who have been following the Wagner Group/PMC Wagner will be well aware that the group appears to be both at the very least closely connected to the Russian government and to forms of neo-Nazism. With that in mind, it would be no surprise to find Wagner (or a notable amount of its members) using this symbol. However, coverage of this has so far been lacking. In 2021, this source from New Lines Magazine (see Fairfax_University_of_America#Newlines_Institute_for_Strategy_and_Policy) connects PMC Wagner and the symbol, but confuses it with another type of Sonennrad, the Kolovrat:

His T-shirt has a “kolovrat” wheel — a folkloric, so-called neopagan symbol associated with the far right today in Russia and elsewhere, known as the Black Sun in Germany and famously commissioned by the SS head Heinrich Himmler as a mosaic in Wewelsburg Castle in Germany.

And:

The same symbol is also a favorite of one of Vorontsov’s social media friends, Mikhail Kashirsky, who, according to Myrotvorets, was a Wagner fighter and was killed in Syria in 2017. In his social media pictures, the shaven-headed and muscular Kashirsky stands proudly, baring his chest with a large Black Sun tattoo. In another photo he shows the same design on what appears to be a birthday cake, as he smiles to the camera in his camouflage, sleeveless T-shirt.

The symbol referred to so commonly today as the "Kolovrat" is a popular symbol in eastern Europe, where it is often (but not exclusively) associated with nationalist movements. The motif has a long history: It can be found on, for example, ancient Greek pottery. Meanwhile, an important aspect of the so-called Black Sun is that it is not just any Sonnenrad but that the image derives directly form Himmler's remodel of Wewelsburg, appearing to invoke SS imagery. The two are related but not the same. Additionally, some material from the ADL's entry for "Sonnenrad" was also recently reintroduced here, which I removed—for those of you who were not a part of that discussion, you can find it above. We need to keep the source threshold as high as possible on this and other articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Revisiting this topic, you made good points here. I think the issue of ambiguity with the sun wheel could be resolved with having the ADL quote in the body where other contexts are present. This would be less ambiguous than if it is in the lede, while the generic "identifying the symbol" description given by ADL is good to include as they are one of the most trusted sources on hate symbols categorizing. Could be in a "Comparison to sunwheel" subheader perhaps. As for the New Lines Magazine source, it looks like they are talking about the use of the kolovrat and the Black Sun, not confusing them together, the image given adjacent has the caption of kolovrat. ("A man wearing a T-shirt that has a “kolovrat” wheel, mentioned above) and then later mentions the Black Sun usage ("In his social media pictures, the shaven-headed and muscular Kashirsky stands proudly, baring his chest with a large Black Sun tattoo"). If attributed to the source New Lines Magazine as their interpretation, it doesn't seem problematic to describe it as in the context. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The issues I highlight remain: Statements like "His T-shirt has a “kolovrat” wheel — a folkloric, so-called neopagan symbol associated with the far right today in Russia and elsewhere, known as the Black Sun in Germany" make it very clear that this is not a reliable source and cannot be used in this article for the reasons I highlight. Please be more careful in the future. If you have an issue with the source, which is obviously not in compliance with WP:RS, take it to WP:RSN. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing coat rack tangent...

So I've removed the following text from the article per WP:CoatRack:

"The Azov Battalion in particular has since become a point of propaganda for the Russian government and Russian president Vladimir Putin during Russia's invasion of Ukraine, who have sought to frame the invasion as "denazification". Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, has responded by stating that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was comparable to those of Nazi Germany and that Putin exhibits "pure Nazi behavior"."

This is veering way too far off track for an article about the symbol. It should be sufficient to simply note in passing that Azov and some other far-right groups in Ukraine have used the symbol. Discussions about Russian government claims and Ukrainian government counter-claims don't fit with an article about the symbol. Such discourse would fit with articles about Azov, the war, etc., but not with the Black Sun article. People wanting more discussion specific to Azov and Russia/Ukraine can click on the relevant articles. -2003:CA:8724:7B45:B8E5:F28E:DB4D:4EE7 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much every up to date WP:RS that mentions this also mentions the Russian propaganda angle. Focusing on a tweet incident is more COATRACK. It should be about the usage of the symbol and the adjacent commentary that RS's provide. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree as the Azov was used in Russian propaganda, which has widely been called false. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, apparently in response to my removal of coatracking, so editors have now added even more coatracking....To be very clear, even if WP:RS say something, this does not outweigh WP:CoatRack. Go edit the relevant article, but discussions about Zelensky being Jewish are simply not relevant here, as this is an article about the symbol, NOT about Russia/Ukraine. An in-passing mention that Azov has used the symbol is sufficient. I get that some people want to push the whole "Ukraine good, Russia bad" narrative, but this article simply isn't the place, and the sort of extensive extremely tangential discussions that we've seen here are textbook examples of coatracking! -2003:CA:8724:7BAA:C05:9D20:33F5:E165 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Adjusted to a minimum length, cited version to address claims of WP:COATRACK, while including non-coatrack detail that relates to usage by a far-right group. Nonetheless I disagree that what was present in a larger paragraph was coatrack. It's context and commentary that RS's immediately provide, but this version should be unchallengeable. I would still consider reverting to the larger version with context. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Stick to the sources: WP:RS, WP:SYNTH. The source in question makes it clear that this is relevant and totally unrelated to WP:COATRACK. This isn't complicated and we're not here to pander to propaganists and nationalist. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I'm glad you're looking out for potentially propagandist edits but I think you may have misinterpreted what I said to be the exact opposite. I was disagreeing with the IPV6 user, but addressing the content to make it more direct, so that further argumentation along those lines ("extra context is coatrack") could not occur. Side note, I am skeptical that a deleted tweet with a mistaken image, is the main element to mention if we want to talk usage of the symbol. However, please keep that critical eye out for propagandist edits because we need as many people with that critical eye as possible. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Early 20th century cults, conspiracy theories and myths mention

So the article is a difficult topic, but knowing how crazy and cultish ideologies emerge is important which is the motivation behind adding that cited section. @Bloodofox: has reverted this content as "out of nowhere". I sort of see the concern as perhaps it could be placed in a different section from the Wewelsburg mosaic, but the cited source also indicated a direct connection, mentioned is the Wiligut to Himmler ideology in wiki-text and cited book pages, while others are discussed on other book pages. The content was referenced to Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke who is already used in this article as one of the key scholars on the topic, with the same book: Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity (2002 republished 2003) Google Books version to verify references for key statements. Goodrick-Clarke also covered just how strange the early-to-mid 20th century, far-right conspiracy theories and mysticism was as the Nazi ideology emerged. These bizarre ideas contributed in some way to the invention of the "Black Sun" symbol as the source shows is relevant. Goodrick-Clarke connected this to certain concepts in Theosophy of the late 1800s and the more ideological Ariosophy cult of the 1910s. If you can elaborate on exactly what sourcing or context problem you see, that would be appreciated. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This background is relevant for the pop culture reception of the motif as a symbol post-1991 but before we can readd a section like this, we need discussion connecting the symbol to the concept of the black sun. We also need to continue to be quite explicit about the fact that we don't know what significance the motif had to the SS or if they had any kind of name for it and that the popular culture association with the symbol and the earlier "black sun" concept only started in 1991: This was introduced by Stephan Mögle-Stadel's Die Schwarze Sonne von Tashi Lhunpo. Adding a section that dives into the earlier occult concept of the "Black Sun" to the Wewelsburg section without this context is not helpful is likely to confuse readers into thinking this was the intent of the SS. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, I understand now your point about how to contextualize the myth vs myths about myths there. There should be enough content in the Goodrick-Clarke book chapter "Wilhelm Landig and the Esoteric SS" (that the deleted section is sourced from) to get 80%-90% of the way to a revised section with discussion that provides enough context. It would be placed at the end of the article in a separate header. Will revisit this later. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous statment

"In may 2022, a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York occurred. The shooter, a white supremacist, wore the Black Sun symbol on his body armor and placed it on the front of his digital manifesto. Because the Azov Battalion also uses the symbol (the symbol is popular in white nationalist circles), pro-Kremlin Telegram channels and influencers subsequently spread misinformation linking the shooter with the Azov Batallion and the Ukrainian nation more broadly. However, the shooter makes no reference to the Azov Batallion in his manifesto, and Ukraine receives only a single mention in a section plagiarized from an earlier mass shooter's manifesto that predates the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[15] "

This statement is nonsensical ("there's no connection to Azov, they both just love nazi symbols".. ok? I guess?) contradictory (azov article, after having been scrubbed note, make no mention of them being nazis. ..But here it's said "the symbol is popular in white nationalist circles" as in confirming Azov to be nazis or sorry, "white nationalists") and it's clearly POV. "Misinformation"? According to who and why should that be said as a factual statement? "Linking" how? They seem clearly linked in choice of symbols, and so apparently, ideology - quote "the symbol is popular in white nationalist circles". Overall, this statement is just confused and should probably be removed. 2.249.140.219 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The provided source goes in depth. We report on what WP:RS say here. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed the statement is nonsense connecting to Azov as it appeared on Russian telegram channels… I though my proper sources were supposed to be used - Russian propaganda.. Conorag (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Z (military symbol) and Rashism from "see also" section

An editor has removed "see also" links to Z (military symbol) and Rashism, which I've reverted, but it doesn't end there. See discussion on this talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide your reason for putting those in "See Also". Just succinctly explain what you see as the connection as suggested in WP:SEEALSO "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent..." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, both are symbols that have received major coverage from media sources during the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Both have also played significant roles in Krelmin propaganda during this period. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There isn't major media coverage of Black Sun. This type of academic dot-connecting is normally benign, but in the context of labeling people Nazis it is inappropriate. Per WP:BRD it should be removed until consensus is established. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A simple search of media sources on "Black Sun" (German "Schwarze Sonne") combined with something like "Sonnenrad" will pull up a ton of recent media coverage in both English and German, specifically in the context of the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. We have just a few of these on the article. That's not in question. The real question here is: What are on earth are you going on about? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

See my edit here: [9]

I removed the part about Russian coverage of Azov Battalion that has nothing to do with Black Sun, and Zelensky's rebuttal that has nothing to do with Azov Battalion nor this Black Sun symbol.

Rashism should not be linked because Black Sun is not related to it. Otherwise adding a see also link to "Republicanism", "Communism", would make just as much sense. 117.99.104.99 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I get that you're keen on removing discussion about Russian propaganda as it relates to the symbol from the article, but it's not going anywhere: The article is about the symbol and its role in Russian propaganda, including attempts at portraying Ukraine (and its Jewish president) as somehow neo-Nazi in need of 'denazification'—all discussed in the source, "NATO Says It Didn't Notice Ukraine Soldier's Apparent Nazi Symbol in Tweet":

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to Newsweek's request for comment. But Kyiv has roundly rejected such allegations, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, has argued that it was Putin who was guilty of Nazi-style tactics on the ground and in the media.

"He is just destroying the citizens of Ukraine of different nationalities," the Ukrainian leader said Monday on a call with Jewish leaders. "This is just pure Nazi behavior. I can't even qualify this in any different manner."

:bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Those statements are a part of a larger discussion about the motives behind 2022 Russia-Ukraine war and has nothing to do with Black Sun symbol. Newsweek has become a gossip rag and promotes either fake news or poorly written articles, that's why it shouldn't be used here. Search for "Newsweek (2013–present)" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. @Slatersteven: can you also chime in? 117.99.104.99 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Those statements are about Russia's propaganda attempts to paint Ukraine as a modern Nazi state in need of "denizafication" as (one of Russia's notable propaganda pretexts for the Russian invasion). The Azov Battalion's use of neo-Nazi imagery is a component of this matter, as the article makes clear. The relevant Newsweek entry in Wikipedia's list of perennial sources says that "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". I don't see any issues in this report, and it is certainly not an example of "gossip". And why are you editing behind an IP instead of your user name? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I see no relationship of Black Sun with this: "Those statements are about Russia's propaganda attempts to paint Ukraine as a modern Nazi state in need of "denizafication" as (one of Russia's notable propaganda pretexts for the Russian invasion). The Azov Battalion's use of neo-Nazi imagery is a component of this matter, as the article makes clear."

Newsweek is unreliable source, and you need to accept it. If it had mentioned Elon Musk would you include his details to the article as well?

Which account are you talking about? I just saw an absurdly off topic distraction on the article and then saw the talk page that other editors including an editor on above section objecting it, that's why I went ahead to remove it. This confirms that you don't have consensus for the edit you made just today. 117.99.104.99 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Readers: This article is a prime article for pro-Kremlin editors, often IPs. They will, for example, attempt to blank sections of the article, try to sneak stuff into the body, or otherwise attempt to muddy discussion to get a source they don't like removed. We've seen examples of all of this in the last few hours alone. Can get the article protected from IPs? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad faith assumptions won't justify your off-topic content addition. 117.99.104.99 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's fully on topic, as anyone can see from the source. Try using your account next time. Next! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin and Zelensky are not talking about Black Sun symbol. So try to make an argument without assuming bad faith. Next! 117.99.104.99 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that this IP editor has made five reverts on this page over the past few hours: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]] :bloodofox: (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No. The first edit was a content removal backed with the message above. So it was not a revert. Last revert actually reverted vandalism so you should avoid counting it too. You made more than 3 reverts so you shouldn't be talking about edit warring.

If you have something to say on this topic then talk page it. This talk page should not be used for talking about edit wars. 117.99.104.99 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the first was you reverting my addition: Now would be a great time to review WP:3RR and to start self-reverting. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Zelensky and Putin are not talking about Black Sun. This is why you must avoid restoring the off-topic information I removed. 117.99.104.99 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I can understand Z being in the see also section for swastika as there is the pejorative term "zwastika" and other such comparisons, but not in this article. Mellk (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits Melik. However, I have since gone to the Swastika page and removed the Z Symbol "see also" from there. I give an exhaustive explanation on that page's talk. TLDR: are we explaining an already existing slanderous association or creating one? Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a symbol crate by the nazi's and used by neo-nazis (all according to RS). Do any RS link the Z symbol to the nazis? Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)