Jump to content

Talk:Black Sun (symbol)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StarTigerJLN (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 5 April 2021 (→Requested move 21 March 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Central Sun

re theosophy, de:Schwarze Sonne has:

Es gibt Vermutungen, daß der Begriff auf die russische Okkultistin und Begründerin der Theosophie Helena Blavatsky zurückgeht, die in ihrem Werk "Die Geheimlehre" von einer Zentralsonne spricht.

i.e. Blavatsky doesn't use the term, but her 'Central Sun' is thought to have inspired the concept.

Karl Wiligut spoke of three suns. One related to the 'seated one', Sânðär; maybe related to a god like Vidar; some speculated Saturday was not taken from the roman god at all but was also a Germanic god; Sânðär.
"(Sanður-Sanðär) Anglo-Saxon Sætere, as Old High German Sâzari, means "one who sits in wait". 'Seater'. perhaps Saðr or Sâðr as Wodens aspect with Baldur & Forseti. The 'Blacksun' (also Sadær or Santur) is burnt out / long frozen and exists parallel to the active sun (SOL) and the passive/invisible sun (SUN)."
Thus the proto-Germanic names for the three suns;
Sôwilôn, Sunniôn & Sânðäri
Also note that the Wewelsburg schwarze-sonne design is made up of three 'swastikas' or sunwheels; One rising, one setting & one "static" or at zenith. All of which are superimposed over the other as 'one' Something akin to all time 'happening at once', possibility a depiction of eternity.
Also found in Gotland, the same place the surviving depictions of the Valknut were found as we now know it. Here are these as having some "black sun" symbology due to the morphology:
Some have 12 swirling lines in total, black & white, while others have 12 black lines, 24 in total. (In much the same way, some Valknuts are unicursal, while others are tricursal).
Stone found at Vaskinde;
[img]http://www.gotmus.i.se/1engelska/bildstenar/bilder/vaskinde_a1.jpg[/img]
Stone found in Martebo;
[img]http://www.arild-hauge.com/arild-hauge/go-rune-martebo1.jpg[/img]
Stone found at Bro;
[img]http://www.bibleufo.com/uasweden.jpg[/img]
Stone found in Sanda;
[img]http://atlantisinireland.com/GC/paleogeografi_files/image175.gif[/img] 4.255.55.35 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alemannic brooches

We could also mention that the Wewelsburg design has loose parallels in Migration Age Alemannic brooches such as [1]. The exact design however has no precedent, and its use is unequivocally extreme-right or Neo-Nazi. dab (ᛏ) 12:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the article hints at, the symbol is not necessarily political and is also in esoteric and musical circles. This should be made clear. :bloodofox: 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dab, I hope this information (although I know not in the best format) is useful that I have recently added, I think this article is coming along better now. Also, the images I have added are similar. however, another one ihave found as 12 rays: http://www.museum-haag.de/museum/geschos1.htm and this one is similar with 9: http://www.jadu.de/mittelalter/germanen/gk/pages/zierscheiben_jpg.htm I hope these can be of some use.

Also, the much appreciated information you have added to this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SchwarzeSonneArtifacts.JPG - will you beadding it to the article as it is very interesting, especially hte daying and location of this artifacts FK0071a 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, added your excellent information into the references fo rthis image. FK0071a 12:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SS Occult meeting room / Hocus-pocus at the Wewelsburg?

"(...)in the room used by the SS for occult meetings." Really? I'm very uninformed on this... Vyr 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The shape of the symbol ... is based primarily on the design of a floor mosaic at the castle of Wewelsburg ... in the room used, in later years, by the SS for occult meetings." Can anybody give more information about those "occult meetings" or is it just one more fictiv statement about the Wewelsburg?

Re-written your comments but keept ALL of your information. Left you a message on your talk page. FK0071a 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reliability

You cannot just dump material from the James Twining site here. As likely as not, Twining got his information from Wikipedia earlier (it's not like he's into citing his sources). Regarding non-political use in modern Odinism, provide a reference for that. Odinic Rite is a neopagan organization that leans to the extreme right and has clear fascist overtones. It cannot be disputed that the symbol is in use in "Odinism", however, its use seems to be restricted to those factions that hold obvious sympathy for Nazi mysticism. Show us an example of use by a neopagan organization that clearly distances itself from racist or fascist currents. Otherwise, we'll just have to say that the symbol remains in use among the extreme right, both inside and outside of neopagan circles. dab (𒁳) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is in reference to my previous notions, I will state that I agree with you regarding the Odinic Rite, at least in imagery. However, usage of the symbol by artists I added to this is generally apolitical as these artists generally take no political stance. As for the James Twining thing, I assume you're referring to someone else. :bloodofox: 12:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I was addressing FK0071a (talk · contribs), check recent history. The symbol's use in popular culture is a consequence of its Nazi aura, that's what makes it interesting. The symbol has no signification for historical paganism, and while it is perfectly understandable that neopagan groups want to reclaim actual historical symbols from their Nazi connotations, such as the runes, this doesn't apply here at all. Neopagans that are just into historical polytheism and do not care about Nazi occultism and von Listian mysticism have no stakes here at all. dab (𒁳) 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. :bloodofox: 12:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FK, can you stop adding the geocities "Irminenschaft" link as "reference"? This is a confused writeup by confused mysticists, and nothing like a serious source. They do quote reasonable sources, and we can take such quotes from them, but it remains some random geocities page found on the internets. dab (𒁳) 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but I think you are wrong to basically call anyone that writes something on a subject like this that isn't a "scholer" and doesn't want to pay for a website a "confused mysticist". I think they are in a better position to understand the esoteric significance rather than a so called 'scholar'. You're too bright for that Dab. For example, that article is far better esoterically than anything Goodrick-Clarke has written. They are in a better position for this interpretation. Clarke, biographically, is better (not sure if that makes sense, I hope so). FK0071a 09:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the article may have some qualities, but any article concluded with "hail the völk!" leaves a shoddy impression (indicating the author not only doesn't know German, but was too lazy to consult a dictionary, and doesn't even try to hide his fascist affinities). We can treat the article as a "primary source", that is, a contemporary mysticist's outlook, but we cannot treat it as a WP:RS. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Hail the voelk' is obviously not pure German and I don't think it is an attempt to be. 4.255.55.35 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be surprised, but I agree fully with what you say on the article. However, I do not agree with calling someone facist simply because they are proud of their people and heritage. That's akin to calling someone a Nazi today simpley because they have an affinity for their own people. Seems that every other culture is allowed to do this, even encouraged to do this, other than Europeans.Shint - very open that it is for their own people and is a religion born of the blood but they are not referred to as Nazi's or Facists. Dab, I agree with what you say and think you are extremily intelligent with the way to redo think I enter, I greatly appreciate this and respect that you take opinions on board, it's great to see but remarks like that from you surprise me. FK0071a 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you may, likewise, be surprised, but I agree, too. being "proud of one's heritage" in the sense of patriotism is nothing bad per se. But there is a reason we have separate articles on patriotism and ethnic nationalism (in the German case, völkisch movement). Or, in the context of neopaganism (you don't need to be pagan to be a patriot), "militant racist" vs. "folkish" (nationalist or supremacist) vs. "tribalist" ("ethnic") vs. "eclectic" (syncretic), see also Germanic_neopaganism#Factions. There is no reason to even talk about Armanen runes or the Black Sun if you are merely proud of your Germanic or German heritage, because the concepts are a the creation of occultist authors and not part of any "heritage". Even from the pov of a "folkish" position verging on supremacism, there is no reason to even look at von List. Usage of the "Black Sun" is really the shibboleth that separates the militant racist and crackpot occultist currents from the merely "ethnic" or "tribalist" ones. Any Geramanic heathen that cares two cents about consciously distancing themselves from Nazi ideology need only dump von-Listian cruft like the Black Sun into the dustbin, without needing to compromise about honouring their actual historical heritage. Since there still are strong Neo-Nazi and fascist undercurrents in the Germanic neopagan scene, right now in AD 2006, it is not superfluous to do this, and a simple show of good faith. You do not need to hysterically declare your clean slate in every other paragraph, like some German gropus still feel compelled to do (the German scene is not healthy in this respect in my opinion, but they are at least in part growing out of it), but in my oponion any honourable neopagan group can put at least a short disclaimer "fascists not welcome" on their website. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expected more from you than to bandy around a word like fascist Dab. The OR constantly strives to keep politics out of the organisation and even expelled a group of people who were attempting to make it more political. We have members who have a wide range of political views which the OR will not interfere with. We work with many governmental and NGO's in many area. Do you think they would deal with a fascist group? You should take more care with your words and consider the consequences that such labels could have on a group. It may have escaped your notice that the OR uses the EGF, not Armanen runes, there is no mention of von List on the OR site, no Black Sun and in fact the symbol has only rarely been used as decoration for articles/books etc and not for many years afaik. Why should we state "fascists not welcome"? What about communists? How about liberals? They are all political viewpoints and the OR states that it is NOT a political group and a members political views are their own, in fact the political affiliations, if any, of our members is usually completely unknown. We believe in individual freedoms and the right for people to make their own choices and accept the consequences of those. Not a very fascist position.--Hengest 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun Rising company & Wikipedia article

I dropped user 198.53.90.47 a message on his IP address talk page about him vandalising this article by removing references to the image being used as a company logo] without leaving a note as to why. (see his edit here.) The message I left for his was "i assume you are Tim by your IP address. If you are going to remove information please discuss it in the articles talk page first." The below was his response. Please can this be discussed. FK0071a 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do appeciate myself or my business being mentioned in this article. I am requesting that this reference be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.90.47 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 December 2006.

Tim, is it because this article seems to link the image too closely with that of Nazi mysticism and you don't like your company, Black Sun Rising [2], being associated with it? If that is the reason I perfectly understand and agree why you have made this edit. However, maybe if this is the case you can contribute to the article providing information as to the fact that it "may also be used in occult currents of Odinism without necessarily implying involvement with Nazism." ? I found a Heathens against Hate website proclaiming the reclaimation of this symbol and the Swastika and Fylfot so I linked it to the article and have added a lot of information to try and give the viewpoint to that of disassociating the image from Nazism, including ancient articacts, a contemporary Armanist viewpoint link [3], scholerly references, information on the Bismark monument using the image, etc. You and your company are not Neo-Nazi's and nor are the Odinic Rite - maybe you can both contribute mayking this statement by adding information and your thoughts to even out the article? FK0071a 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tim, is it because this article seems to link the image too closely with that of Nazi mysticism and you don't like your company, Black Sun Rising [4], being associated with it?" This is exactly why I do not want myself or this company mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.90.47 (talk • contribs) 19:37, December 14, 2006.

Fair enough Tim, but like I say, rather than just remove the reference and if that is the reason I perfectly understand and agree why you have made this edit. However, maybe if this is the case you can contribute to the article providing information as to the fact that it "may also be used in occult currents of Odinism without necessarily implying involvement with Nazism." ? I found a Heathens against Hate website proclaiming the reclaimation of this symbol and the Swastika and Fylfot so I linked it to the article and have added a lot of information to try and give the viewpoint to that of disassociating the image from Nazism, including ancient articacts, a contemporary Armanist viewpoint link [5], scholerly references, information on the Bismark monument using the image, etc. You and your company are not Neo-Nazi's and nor are the Odinic Rite - maybe you can both contribute mayking this statement by adding information and your thoughts to even out the article? FK0071a 20:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been answered at all. So, in regard ot this and the fact that the article in general now is more balanced with archaeological findings and a more equal non-Nazi slant I have added it back in. FK0071a 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed name of company co-owner and his religious group affiliation as it is completely irrelevant. BSR is not owned by one person and is not an OR business. Also removed references to publications as they contain images of archaeological finds and not the black sun of this article, save for a couple of instances. Are you going to list every instance of the sunwheel or fylfot or individual runes in OR publications? Also seems a bit pointless to list publications as references which are not available to the public.--Hengest 18:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just thought it would be ok as I strongly pointed out these were not racist. I think your point above is valid and your corrections perfectly fine. FK0071a 09:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this article being on the "occult symbol" itself, and not just on its role in Nazi mysticism, it would be perfectly fair to mention any notable publication that features the symbol. What was removed was't that terribly notable however, and I do not have an opinion here. It will not do to repeat the "non-racist non political" mantra every time Odinic Rite is mentioned; the group is clearly folkish and as such far from politically neutral. It also stands to reason that by employing a symbol that is notable for the Nazis' interest in it, and not as a historical pagan symbol, they do put themselves in a Nazi mysticist context (that is, the authors of the individual publications; their affiliation to a larger group is, as Hengest notes, irrelevant as long as they do not appear as spokesperson for the group). dab (𒁳) 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defective symbol and Name

The symbol of the "black sun" that is shown in the article is not conform with the floor-mosaic in the north-tower of Wewelsburg castle:

- the proportions are wrong. In particular the distances of the circles towards each other;

- the disc in the middle of the foor-mosaic in which the twelve rays run together is completely missing in the shown symbols;

- at the original the middle-areas of the twelve rays (where they are 90° angled) are running on an thought circular arc. In the shown symbols those areas are straight-line;

- the colour of the original is green and not black;

- in the link-list at the end of the article I already added a photo of the original symbol. Here is the link once more.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.9.253 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

edited article now, I think it is coming along now with facts rather than fiction. FK0071a 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! Here is a possible explanation, why the ornament is called "black sun" at all: The room of the hall of pillars itself (where the ornament takes place) is normally closed for visitors but you can watch inside the room from outside through a gate. From the other side of the room lots of light shines through the windows and reflects on the marmoreal floor. On the photos I personally took from the ornament, it appears black, because of the bad visibility conditions. That COULD be an answer, why the ornament in general is called the "black sun". Greetings from Germany —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.21.98 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That is an interesting explanation. Also, I have today watched the Schwarze Sonne documentary by Rüdiger Sünner which states that the name 'Schwarze Sonne/Black Sun' was 'maybe possibly' given by Neo-Nazis. He admits that it is speculation. Just thought I would add this. In 1 day I will give DVD transcript of this commetns and his books comments on this. Robert C Prenic 11:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who placed the ornament in the Obergruppenführersaal?

The wikipedia-article says, that it is not known if the ornament was placed before or after 1934 in the Hall of pillars (a source is given).

But this german article gives the strong impression, that ornament was placed in the room during the general modification of the castle since 1934. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.5.230 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is likely that it was put in the castle by the Nazi's, but, whatever anyone says, their is NO definitive proof, only speculation. Even in the book sold by the Wewelsburg museum (Wewelsburg 1933 bis 1945. Kult-und-Terrorstätte der SS. Eine Dokumentation (Schriftenreihe des Kreismuseums Wewelsburg 1), 2nd Edition Paderborn 1987. by Karl Hüser and translated into English in 2000 by Robin Benson make no mention of who put it their because the plans for the North Tower by SS arcitect Hermann Bartels make NO mention of it. I have copies of the plans, I contacted the museum, I contacted Rüdiger Sünner and Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke and they agree that their is NO proof. In fact, scholers today are reluctant to say with any certainty who and why it was put their. Their is evidence (speculation) for both arguments but at the end of the day their is no fact. I have tried to add this into the article in an unbiased manner. FK0071a 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added more information and put the article into some sort of order so the "historical" and the "Nazi" related information follow each other, respectfully. FK0071a 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks now better than any lexikon you can buy! One more information this link provides: the Obergruppenführersaal wasn`t 100% finished until 1943 either. This can be seen at a uncarved stonequader over the door to the east-flank.

This link says the following about the creation of the hall of Obergruppenführer: "... the ceilings were casted in concrete and were encased with natural stone." Marmor is a natural stone. I guess that includes that the ornament was added during this period of time of creation of the hall (1934-1943). I think the information given further in the article stresses this: "The motif (of the ornament) is reproduced from bronze brooches (Zierfibeln) from the 7th century." Who else should have reproduced it than the SS?

Wrong pronounciation

The german pronounciation of Wewelsburg "Vay-Vuls-Burg" is wrong. The second "e" of the word "WewElsburg" is pronounced the same as the first "e" of the word "WEwelsburg". In common parlance the second "e" is swallowed so that a realistic pronounciation sounds more like "Vay-Vls-Burg".

Greetings from Germany —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.21.98 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Vay-Vls-Burg" is what we mean by "Vay-Vuls-Burg". But these "post-vowel-shift" Anglo pronunciation hints are useless in any case. We should give IPA or let it be. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further information about the "Black Sun" and the "Obergruppenführersaal" and Did the original sun wheel look like this?

The german DVD 'Schwarze Sonne (documentary) - Kultorte und Esoterik des III. Reichs' contains under "Extras" a TV-interview with the film-producer. The interview gives the following informations about the "Black Sun" and the "Obergruppenführersaal": - In the past a golden disc was placed in the middle of the dark-green marbled sun-wheel; (Remark from me: I guess it was an impressive effect with the light shining into the room through the surrounding windows.) - the complete tower in which the "Obergruppenführersaal" is, was called by the architects "Center of the world". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.2.149 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I created a photomontage with a golden disc placed in the middle of the ornamnet. The size of the disk is estimated: in the picture it fits with the inner disk of the mosaic:Photomontage Greetings from Germany —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.29.161 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, possibly as here you will find a replica of Zierscheiben with a gold disk. I have that Schwarze Sonne (documentary) and everything has English subtitles apart from the interview! Robert C Prenic 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interview at 4 minutes and 22 seconds playing time R. Sünner says "In der Mitte dieses dunkelgrün marmorierten Sonnenrades war früher eine goldene Scheibe" ("In the middle of this dark-green marbled sun wheel was former a golden disc.") This information seems reliable to me. So I added it to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.33.139 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Was this gold disk in a Zierscheiben brooch or at Wewelsburg? If it was a Wewelsburg (as toy shows here) then where is the evidence? In the Schwarze Sonne (documentary), Rüdiger Sünner does NOT give ANY evidence of this other than in his interview interview. Also, the Wewelsburg mseum does not give any evidence? If there was a gold disk like this then where is it now? Robert C Prenic 18:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the TV-interview he explicitly states that there was a golden disk in the middle of the Wewelsburg-ornament. He talks about the Wewelsburg-ornament and not about any brooch. I personally have doubts about all those postwar mystic theories about a black "anti-sun". (Why is the ornament green and not black?) The institute "Ancestral Heritage" (Ahnenerbe) was seeking for a germanic primordial religion and they had the opinion that - if such a religion really ever existed - in this religion a sun-cult was an important matter. When you see the Wewelsburg as the religious center of the SS (and what they did was trying to revive old pagan cults) in my opinion they simply placed a sun-symbolism as ornament at this central point of this building. A golden disc in its middle would affirm this. As far as I know the Wewelsburg was looted shortly before the end of the war. This could be an answer to your last question. I think the film of Sünner is good investigated and IS a reliable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.45.237 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The SS had no interest in reviving any so-called "old pagan cults".. :bloodofox: 18:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are You sure? What about the solstice-festivals and the rune-mysticism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.45.237 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please see here, Guido von List and Karl Maria Wiligut for detailed information regarding the form of Christianity dressed in vague Germanic pagan imagery and personal prophets the SS promoted. :bloodofox: 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't fully true, Himmler was friends with Wiligut but didn't follow him entirely, why else would Himmler speak ill of Charlemagne's murder of pagan saxons if he believed in a carbon copy of what Wiligut said? Himmler had many speech quotes which contradict the "Irmin Christianity" and are for pure Germanic paganism. 4.255.55.35 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the documentary is an ancellent source for information and he gives academic references for all of the stuff in it. But, he does NOT give any evidence for the gold disk theory, no matter how reasonable it may or may not seem, this is speculation. As for the SS, it was primarily Himmler and his closest comrades that wanted to revive (but also mix and match) cult worship - this is not exactly a revival of "old pagan cults" but "bits and bobs" (I do not know what that would be in German). Yes, the SS and Himmler did a deal for archaeology and interest in Germanic traditions but also a great deal of disaster. The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I was too fast in changing the article; indeed the DVD-interview is no proof. What about adding a sentence like this?:
Possibly in the middle of the mosaic was former a golden disc. Source: DVD Schwarze Sonne (documentary) - Kultorte und Esoterik des III. Reichs unter "Extras" - TV-interview with the film-producer (this source's reliability needs verification).

At the end of this article a "plate of pure gold in the axis of the sun wheel" is mentioned.

Speculative statements about the "vaul" should be removed in the article

The actual article says: "the cellars were to be converted into a consecration room for dead SS leaders after the model of Mycenaean domed tombs"

This link gives different informations:

1) there are no informations about former cellars in the north-tower but about a former cistern which was removed;

2) at the walls are twelve pedestals, over them were wall-niches. The use of theses niches can`t be clarified finally until today. So it stays speculation, if urns of deceased SS-leaders should be stored there. There is no proof for this.

3) Architecture, denomination as "vaul" and the special light-symbolic, e.g. the fall in of light and the fire-bowl, let draw the conclusion that the room should be used for some kind of commemoration of dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.48.222 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BlackOrderJamesRollins.jpg

Image:BlackOrderJamesRollins.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SchwarzeSonneDocumentary.jpg

Image:SchwarzeSonneDocumentary.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Geheimnis Schwarze Sun" seems to be unreliable

Two German words plus one English word??? The complete name in German would be: "Geheimnis Schwarze Sonne" - (Secret Black Sun) this sounds more like a book title. I found no more information about the name of the symbol in google. I guess the alledged name for the symbol bases on a misunderstanding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.89.252 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well think English is a Germanic language, maybe "Sun" is an archaic sounding old Saxon variant. Like how Varg sounds normal to Swedes but mystical to Norwegians and Ulf sounds normal to Norwegians but Mystical to Swedes. Maybe a little deeper, older and less known (and more mysitical) of a word, but any Germanic word is correct in this kind of 'mysiticism', it isn't usually 'German proper' but "Germanic" in basis. 4.255.55.35 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Mysticism??

Why does it say this symbol is "notable for its usage in Nazi mysticism."? When one clicks "Nazi Mysticism", one is lead to a page clearly stating that : "Nazi occultism is any of several highly speculative theories about Nazism, also called the Nazi Mysteries."

How can a symbol be "notable" only for it's use in a theoretical situation which may or may not have ever occured? It still has not been proven that Nazism itself had any direct connection to "occult" or "esoteric" practices, aside from appropriating some symbols of Runic origin which may or may not have had ancient religious meanings. Even this was more than likely just a psychological tool used to rile up ethnic Nationalism and a passion for Germanic history and heritage.

"Nazi Mysticism" has not been proven to be anything more than an idea possibly a few Nazis thought about some esoteric side to National Socialism. "Spence, Lewis: Occult Causes of the Present War; 1940, Rider and Co, London." appears to be the only book actually from the timeperiod in which the Third Reich was active, and that book itself may be nothing more than external speculation and sensationalism capitalizing on a current event.

The closest thing to a real "Nazi Mysticist" who can be even proven to have ever existed is Savitri Devi aka Maximiani Portaz, a non-German French writer whose ideas were made public post-Third Reich. Although close in the time frame to ww2, she can still only be called a "Neo-Nazi", who added her own ideas into Nazism after the fact.

The symbol is real--it has been seen, as shown in the articles photos, on various emblems over the years. It's meaning is apparently is "occult" in some way, as in meaning "hidden", but no one has proved yet any direct connection to either Nazism (aside from it being displayed at a location where Nazis gathered-which is like saying Runes and Skulls are Nazi symbols), nor any ancient or even WW2-era Spiritualism / Esotericism.

It's more notable* for its "mysterious" origins than anything. No one knows for sure or can prove where/how it was first used, and subsequently, it's used by many people who find "mysticism" within "mystery" or appropriated to mean whatever they want, because it has no set meaning.

It's almost like an esoteric Rorschach test. You can see Runes if you are looking for runes in it-or you can see Swastikas if you are looking for Swastikas, or you can see a Solar Eclipse, or Cthulhu, or an Anus, or a Map to Atlantis, or your mother's breast, etc.

The modern resurgence of use of this symbol isn't necessarily caused by it's "Nazi Mystical roots"-Bands use all sorts of imagery to be "different", "weird" or "shocking". It may be just because there is so much mystery around it, which makes it, at the very least--interesting.

--24.1.12.223 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being used in a central position as Wewelsburg is quite enough to make it important to the culturally minded Nazis in the SS for it to be associated with Nazi 'mysticism'. That the fact that the Nazis very likely inlaid the symbol into the castle itself. 4.255.55.35 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because "notability isn't truth". The "Nazi mysticism" meme is extremely widespread and notable regardless of its speculative nature. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of you two sort of grasp the original points they've made: in that Nazis weren't really spiritual so it seems odd for it to be important to a them exist as speculation, if the Nazis' did inlay the design into the castle, then that shouldn't be likely and should be cited accordingly. Then there's that the Nazi Mysticism wikipedia page cite it in a theortical context while this says it more of a matter of fact that it is. Which is a loaded assumption. I think this section requires a closer look, or a few edits in format and tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.165.104 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Landig Group being referred to here as the Vienna Circle?

The Vienna Circle is famous on their own, and older than the group described:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle

Note needs to be made about the difference if this term is used. Its like talking about a group of people who had tea parties in Boston many years after the revolution as "The Boston Tea Party people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridentblack (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing spill over from Ukrainian-Russian crisis

This edit is obvious POV pushing, with the text "The „Black Sun“ is also used by Ukrainian soldiers loyal to the government in Kiev who have been battling the separatists in Eastern Ukraine."

There is like one volunteer battalion (which might not even be part of government in any way) which may use this symbol, or maybe some of its members do. Yet, the editor puts in "is used by Ukrainian soldiers loyal to the government in Kiev". This is obvious POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources, more of this "junta" "fascists" etc. propaganda that's been popping up all over Ukraine related articles. And since it's promptly and correctly reverted there, now it's moved to more obscure articles like this one. Volunteer Marek  15:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, why

The symbol is not Nazi, so the source is wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We use sources, not editor's own opinions on the matter. Basic policy! --User:Звонок Путину - алё! 17:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So whose sock are you then? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of WP:AGF? --User:Звонок Путину - алё! 17:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be daft, you are so obviously a sock it is funny. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sock of User:Abdurrahman Muslim. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Black Sun (symbol)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Class: Well reffed, coherent arrticle. Could use some expansion, but possible GA assessment within WP:OCCULT project is warranted.

Imp: High due to historical aspect (Nazi image, etc.)

--Trippz (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Black Sun (occult symbol). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hole Sun - Soundgarden

Should reference soundgarden in popular section Soundgarden - Black Hole Sun - YouTube Music video by Soundgarden performing Black Hole Sun. (C) 1994 A&M Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A552:8200:48B9:FCD0:8AE9:C22A (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Black Sun (occult symbol). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entire section as uncited pop trivia (with some entries being self-cited). I'm preserving the material here by providing this link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite launched

I have now rewritten this article using WP:GA guidelines. All material now stems from sources that meet WP:RS. There's more to add here, and from this foundation we can continue building a quality article. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

While I believe the article could use more images, they all require context to make sense to the reader. For example, where were these symbols used? When? We require this data to present a readable article to readers. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair, for all we know that could be some kids snow flake cut outs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits: "Whether the symbol had a name or held any particular significance among the SS remains unknown"

I'm seeing a lot of confused edits lately: Without question, this symbol originated from the Wewelsburg remodel via Himmler. As the article lead states, "Whether the symbol had a name or held any particular significance among the SS remains unknown". :bloodofox: (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Satan use

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Poor references and contradictory text

I've just removed this mass of poorly referenced content that assumes that the symbol was based on these finds from the archaeological record, which is by no means certain, as the article makes clear when discussing the "symbol". Moving forward, please stick to university press or at least peer-reviewed material on this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russell McCloud

According to an early version of Stephan Mögle-Stadel they are one and the same person, but I am having trouble finding sources for that (well sources that are not wiki's).Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"Sunwheel" and "Sonnenrad"

Right now this article lists the name of the symbol as also "sunwheel" and "Sonnenrad" (German 'sunwheel'). These are general terms for swastikas or swastika-like symbols. Unfortunately, the ADL isn't a great site for research on these and related topics. These terms need to be removed without necessary context, especially since the term is far more commonly applied to the swastika, and this symbol, obscure as it is, is overwhelmingly referred to as the "black sun" in English material. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that the predominant meaning is the swastika – I mostly see the Black Sun symbol in Google image results for "sonnenrad", while "sunwheel" returns a mishmash of symbols. In any case, terms can refer to different things on Wikipedia – that's what disambiguation is for. Sonnenrad currently redirects to this article, while Swastika doesn't mention the term at all among several names in various languages.
The ADL is cited by mainstream news outlets such as The Washington Post on this and a good many other topics, so I'd say it's reliable enough. It really doesn't matter what the most common name is – the article should still present significant alternative names. What about moving the alternative names to the section on neo-Nazi usage, since that's what the sources are mainly about? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the ADL may receive a fair amount of citations in the press, it's generally not a reliable source for these topics. (I'm really not sure why the ADL doesn't have someone on staff to do a better job with this stuff.) Anyway, do a Google Books search and you'll find the terms "sun wheel"/Sonnenrad used very widely, including the term "Sonnenrad" occurring in books from the 19th century, etc., long before the SS designed this symbol (cf. Google Engram "sun wheel" , "sunwheel", and, while considering Google's comparatively limited and oddly unrepresentative German data set, "Sonnenrad"). Goodrick-Clarke refers to this symbols as a sunwheel—it's simply a type of 'sun wheel', not the sun wheel, of which there are many. Therein evidently lies the confusion by the ADL and some other sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I wouldn't use an advocacy group like the ADL as the sole source for information about a living person, for instance, I don't see a good reason to doubt its reliability here. We have other reliable sources citing it; the SPLC also says the symbol is "sometimes called the sonnerad" (possibly a typo). Where does Goodrick-Clarke specify that it's simply a type of "sun-wheel"? (Note that sunwheel/sun-wheel and Sonnenrad are different terms, even though they mean the same thing in English and German, respectively.) Or if you can present reliable German-language sources that explicitly distinguish the Black Sun from the Sonnenrad, that would also be helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thats obviously either a typo or simply typical of the confused and garbled explanations offered by the ADL or SPLC, both of whom are clearly not reliable sources for these topics. That’s unfortunately typical of their reporting of these topics. This is getting a little long in the tooth. We use specialist WP:RS for topics as appropriate: Please stick to Google Books, JSTOR, Google Scholar, or other resources for this stuff. Parroting confused and garbled reporting from these entities is yielding an increasingly confused and garbled article. (As for use of “Sonnenrad” use, for example: 1 + 2 + 3 ):bloodofox: (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your deletions, as there is no consensus here for thee deletions you made. Your personal opinion, and your person ebaluation of the sources is not sufficient. Please do not re-revert unstil you have a consensus to do so, per WP:BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, please leave the personal axe-grinding and pettiness at the door. I’ve provided several sources above and explained why the SPLC and ADL are not reliable sources for this data in turn, including the SPLC fabricating (or simply bungling) information about supposed Norse inspiration (“The symbol is based on the ancient sun wheel artifacts that were made and used by Norse and Germanic tribes as symbol of their pagan beliefs” is confused nonsense evidently derived from a poor reading of Goodrick-Clarke’s work on this topic). I’ll continue to do so until this article is accurate. Looks like next step may be the RS board. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea what you're talking about. Personally, I'm still evaluating the situation, and haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other - but you're certainly not making it any easier for me to agree with you by making a PA against me. I simply reverted a change that was still under discussion, but about which a consensus had not been formed. Again, your opinions about what is and isn't "nonsense" carry absolutely no weight with me, because I don;t know who you are and I don;t particularly care. I will look at your proffered sources and see what they say. In the meantime, please pull back and stop taking this so personally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I’ve been in a nearly identical situation with you before, where you attempted to push similar nonsense into another article. Seems like we might as well just go straight to the RS board. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the link you just posted, you appear to be prone to carry grudges. You also appear to call anything you disagree with "nonsense". I will try not to let either get in the way of a neutral evaluation of the sources you have presented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox: Thank you for those links, which I have taken the liberty of formatting for easier reading. However, I wonder if you've noticed the first is the German version of Goodrick-Clarke's book, already cited in the text, while the second is a historical novel, also mentioned in the text already. While I don't read German either, the third appears to say the Wewelsburg symbol is "a kind of sun wheel" (p. 207) and "a twelve-spoked sun wheel" (p. 218), and that "the Sonnenrad is a symbol used on numerous right-wing extremist websites" (p. 219). This doesn't seem to contradict Sonnenrad itself being used as a term for the symbol, at least among neo-Nazis themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, don’t edit my responses. Consider this your first and only warning. Enough.
Second, I have indeed “noticed” what these sources are, and you’d do well to pay closer attention: the “historical novel” in question is in fact the source of the namesake of the article. Please consult someone who does read German. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Novels are not reliable sources for facts apart from basic information about the novel itself, textual excerpts, etc. This is basic verifiability stuff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. And if the novel that provided the symbol with a name wasn’t directly relevant to this discussion, your comment wouldn’t be pedantic. In the meantime, I invite you to do a basic Google Scholar, JSTOR, or Google Books on this topic (so I don’t have to keep providing sources to you that you could have found yourself with a simple search). There are plenty more out there.. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even discussing the novel if you agrre it isn't reliable? As for sources that contradict the ADL et al., the burden is on you to present them, not on me or anyone else to go looking for them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ADL is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently in the German Wikipedia de:Sonnenrad serves as a disambiguation page. The Google Scholar links indeed give plenty of sources indicating the Sonnenrad is a general pre-Christian cross (such as Psychology of Religion journal). The "Black Sun" on the other hand is a modern symbol which is based on the Sonnenrad. Thus, I see no reason to equate the Black Sun with the sun wheel here. --Pudeo (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A disambig might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodoffox: The cites you provided above are in German. I do not read German. Do you have any citations in English to support your interpretation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox: Damn, screwed up the ping. Please see the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goodrick-Clarke (2001), p.125: "...Here, in the large circular upper hall surmounted by a domed cupola ... [the] marble floor was decorated with a large sun wheel composed of twelve zig-zag sig runes." (emphasis added) So, Goodrick-Clarke, who appears to be generally acknowledged by the editors here as the ur-source of information, says explicitly that the Black Sun symbol is "a sun wheel". Since there are clearly other types of sun wheels that aren't the Black Sun symbol, it seems to be that the lede simply needs to be adjusted to indicate that the Black Sun symbol is a kind or type of sun wheel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the question of whether the ADL and the SPLC are reliable sources for this article, I would say this: if the question was whether those organizations have general expertise on runes, German myths and folklore, the occult and so on, the answer would be "no". But one of the things those two organizations do specialize in is tracking and understanding neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist and neo-volkisch hate groups, including the symbols they use in their flags, banners and logos. Given that, I would say for that specific subject, both the ADL and the SPLC should be considered to be reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as you’re well aware. In this case they’re both wrong about details regarding the symbol’s name and history, as made clear by all specialist sources on this topic, all of which I’ve provided. This is the same stubborn strategy you attempted to use to get some misinformation about Loki on to the site’s Krampus article. You only succeeded in wasting our time. See you at the RS board. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your objection to them isn;t that they're not reliable, it's that you 'disagree with what they say, which is not the same thing. If you think they're wrong, find a source which contradicts them, because, as of this moment, the surces have been harmonized by my copy editing of the lead.
Also, as of this moment, considering my comment and Slatersteven's above, and Bacondrum's edit to remove your "unrelaible sources" tag, there is not consensus to support that tag, so I am removing it. Please do not edit against the consensus and restore the tag. It can go back on if enough other editors show up and agree with your take on ADL and SPLC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is, of course, the very definition of petty edit-warring and unfortunately par for the course for my experience with Beyond My Ken. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot have been "edit warring" because I had never removed the tag before: tt was previously removed by Bacondrum. Please take care that you do not WP:Cast aspersions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, context matters, and Beyond My Ken has in fact given credible reasons why the ADL and SPLC should generally be reliable in this specific context. I've yet to see any published source that specifically contradicts them on this issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source that proposes a Norse origin for the symbol that isn’t the SPLC. Good luck. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this thread is the name of the symbol. I haven't added any claims of any Norse origin to the article, so I don't see what you're getting at. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is about source reliability and claims made by dubious sources, thanks. The SPLC claims the symbol may have been influenced by Norse artifacts. They’re the only source that does. Anywhere. And yet the article presents this as a common theory in wiki voice. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ADL: "The sonnenrad appears in the traditional symbology of many countries and cultures, including Old Norse and Celtic cultures." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They’re evidently taking about sun wheels generally, but note that they make no mention of Wewelsburg and imply the Black Sun is some ancient symbol (which it isn’t). Again, not a reliable sources on ancient Germanic studies. Yikes. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was intentional, to show the reader that while the black sun symbol is a sun wheel, not all sun wheels are the black sun symbol. I'm not aware that any source calls the black sun symbol a "sun cross". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are all reliable

We should remove unreliable sources template. I went through the sources and they are rock solid. Prof. Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke was and is indisputably one of the most authoritative experts on the subject. The Anti-Defamation League is hardly a dubious source. The Washington Post is a widely respected news outlet. ABC, especially RN is top shelf stuff. Newsweek isn't amazing, but it's reliable. Foreign Policy, The independent and CBS, all quality outlets. None of them are dubious sources. There's simply nothing wrong with the sources. Bacondrum (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the primary author of this article and provided all the sources you’re talking about but the SPLC and ADL. The ADL and SPLC are demonstrably wrong about the symbol’s name and history, which is the problem, and why the tag is there. They directly contradict Goodrick-Clarke, and the SPLC even gets the German word “Sonnenrad” wrong. One claims potential Norse inspiration, which seems to be a misunderstanding of Goodrick-Clarke. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OWN. Your restoring of the unreliable tag has been reverted, as the current consensus on the talk page is clearly that the tag is not necessary. if that changes, you are free to restore the tag again without a consensus to do so. In the meantime, please stop trying to WP:OWN the article. If you restore the tag, I will take the issue to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with the edit-warring and threats, Ken. Contribute to the discussion or move along. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I've been doing all along, hence my posts on this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bloodofox So why did you add unreliable sources? Also, you're disputing content, the sources are reliable, the consensus at this point is to remove the template. Please feel free to debate the content, but the sources are reliable. Bacondrum (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from WP:RS/N what are the sources used to contradict the SPLC/ADL claims? As I mentioned at the board, I do consider them to be WP:RS for white supremacist and fascist iconography, so the question hangs on WP:DUE - if there are other reliable sources about the origin of the symbol that contradict the SPLC/ADL claim, and if those originate from within history or archaeology, then they may be due more significance. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article cites the SPLC—and only the SPLC—for the claim that the symbol may derive from "the sun wheels used by Germanic tribes as pagan symbol". This isn't accurate: Reliable sources, like Goodrick-Clarke, specifically state that the inspiration behind the symbol may be ornamental discs (German Zierscheibe), in part because there exists Nazi era discourse on the subject. This is presented as an alternate theory as to what Goodrick-Clarke says. The SPLC's generalist statement is not only misleading but also far too nebulous to be accurate. It needs to simply be struck from the article, and we need to stick to stuff like Goodrick-Clarke and other specialists for this information rather than the SPLC or the ADL. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the citation and page reference for the Goodrick-Clarke statement? Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure:
  • Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. 2003. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, p. 148. NYU Press.
Quote: "However, it has been suggested that this twelve-spoke sunwheel derives from decorative disks from the Merovingians of the early medieval period and are supposed to represent the visible sun or its passage through the year. These disks were discussed in scholarly publications during the Third Reich and may well have served the Wewelsburg designer as a model."
He's talking specifically about Alemannic discs (Alemanni), some of which you can see at our Zierscheibe (which itself needs major work), not general symbols among the ancient Germanic peoples as a whole (and that includes the Old Norse speakers of the North Germanic peoples). I think we should introduce this quote from Goodrick-Clarke and remove the "the sun wheels used by Germanic tribes as pagan symbol" sentence attributed to the SPLC (the SPLC's full quote is less accurate yet). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from other editors about their objections to this course of action. I don't see anything on the surface of this statement that sets off my WP:FRINGE senses. Please note that WP:DUE is contextual and where SPLC and ALD clash with a known expert on the history of this iconography, I'm inclined to give the weight to the expert (while retaining them for statements about modern usage, which is within their area of expertise). Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to introducing the G-C quote -- which, incidentally, he's obviously not subscribing to himself, simply reporting someone else's suggestion. Given that, I see no reason why the SPLC's suggestion can;t remain as well, with language such as "It has also been suggested that..." Again, when reliable sources disagree, we generally don't pick one over the other, but report both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept G-C describes the origin of this object as (merovingian origin) while the ADL and SPLC tie it to (pagan germanic tribes). Although considering the founder of the Merovingian dynasty was a late-life convert to Christianity I'm not entirely convinced these two descriptions of the origin are entirely at odds. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the ADL & SPLC don't cite any historical scholarship, I have no objection to Simonm223's proposal to give greater weight to Goodrick-Clarke on the history, while keeping the ADL & SPLC statements on modern usage and naming. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with giving due weight to Goodrick-Clarke, go with him over SPLC or ADL. I just don't think any of them are not RS. Obviously if there is a contradiction between sources, go with the one with greater and more specific expertise on the subject, which is clearly Goodrick-Clarke in this case. I believe this is all about content and due weight/expertise not the quality or reliability of the sources. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox I've taken the time to look at the arguments and the sources now. I believe you are correct about ADL and SPLC getting it wrong, while I think they are reliable sources, the academic source is far better informed and contradicts the ADL and SPLC assertions. Seeing as you appear to be knowledgeable on the subject and your claims are fair and reasonable, I would support you rewording the section for better accuracy. No need for a RS template, just improve the article. Bacondrum (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ([6]. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Uh-huh. I’ll be glad to correct the article once discussion concludes, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This discussion has been had above [8]. I suggest you self revert, an ANI report has been started. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And your bold edit was reverted, so you admit to edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. [9] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • No for the reasons I expressed in the recent discussion, namely, that the images are primarily propaganda. The 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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))[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

The reason I'm specifically asking this article to be renamed "Nazi Symbol" is because it only addresses the black sun as a nazi symbol. Its primary use (and where the nazis appropriated it) is the solar niger in alchemy, which is a neutral positive symbol which also appears in Christian mysticism, kaballah, Hermeticism, etc. The article needs to be moved or edited to a more neutral stance -- it's currently spreading the idea that it is exclusively used by Nazis. StarTigerJLN (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Sun_(symbol)&oldid=1016197763"