Talk:Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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."

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)

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)

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)

No objections, but a revert from one user who did not find the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Did you read WP:FRINGE? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ArsenalAtletico2017, please read the policies Hob and I cited above. The article should accurately summarize third-party reliable sources' analysis (see WP:SOURCETYPES for good sources), not the primary material. Llll5032 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, please use an inline citation after each claim. See this page or some of the references I added. Llll5032 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

This amount of unchallenged recounting of racism and antisemitsm looks UNDUE and is becoming disproportionate to the book's descriptions by RS. Does anyone disagree? Llll5032 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, me ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

References

Which content is exactly "disputed" and by who? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You lack WP:CONSENSUS to include the longer content. The other policies are above. Llll5032 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

ArsenalAtletico2017, you have cited Reilly twice in the Summary section, but you also twice deleted [1][2] Reilly's assessment that Imperium's immigration theory, which you summarized, was a crank idea. Have you read WP:EVALFRINGE? Llll5032 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Lacking an answer, I propose we restore the assessment, unless anyone has a policy-based reason to leave it out. Llll5032 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

ArsenalAtletico2017, I restored some descriptions that are in numerous reliable sources about the subject, including the sources you cited, and are therefore WP:DUE. We need to follow the emphasis of RS and not WP:CHERRYPICK. Llll5032 (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Generalrelative:: Adding any criticism of Jews is WP:PROFRINGE? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? Of course criticism of individual Jews is commonplace. But criticism of "the Jews" is very obviously WP:PROFRINGE. On what planet would that not be obvious? Generalrelative (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

My reply was intended to illustrate Yockey's views, not my personal opinions.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Enemy of Europe

If no one is objecting, I will redirect The Enemy of Europe to this page (it is currently redirected to Francis Parker Yockey), creating separate section for that book since Imperium and The Enemy of Europe are closely related.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The recent WP:CONSENSUS was to redirect to Yockey's page. A line about its German publication may be WP:DUE at his page, but I doubt another book summary is due there or here. Llll5032 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References to Nazism

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)

I think it is redundant in part of the text where the holocaust is discussed since it is already clear.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, why did you describe Nazism as National Socialism, when it is called Nazism at its Wikipedia page and "the party line of Hitler's Reich" in its source? Llll5032 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

These references to Nazism are clearly WP:DUE and should be restored. Generalrelative (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Llll5032 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If reference to National Socialism is added, it should be specifically written in what way Yockey diverged from National Socialism.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Privately praised the Holocaust

Third-party sources say that Yockey praised the Holocaust in private, despite denying the Holocaust in Imperium. ArsenalAtletico2017 deleted a parenthetical statement about this. Does anyone else disagree that it should be restored? Llll5032 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

I think it is is relevant if he knew he was lying in the book. Holocaust denial is one of the book's legacies. Llll5032 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

The source must specifically indicate how his supposed "private praise of Holocaust" is related to the book. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

The old article language doesn't imply that Yockey was lying/misleading/inconsistent any more than the reliable source does. I favor restoring the content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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?

ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

June 2023

I reverted most of some WP:BOLD edits. Per WP:FRIND and WP:PRIMARY #2-6, claims for this article should carefully cite third-party reliable sources. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE claims should be proportionate to descriptions by third-party reliable sources regarding the subject. Llll5032 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)