Talk:Patriot Front

The Patriot Front is a Faction in the hoi4 mod The Fire Rises

I Recently Updated the Atomwaffen Division's page with a sentence relating to The Fire Rises (in which someone should cite it) and now im requesting that somebody should add a section about pop culture so that someone could add the Patriot Front as shown in The Fire Rises 216.213.0.203 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a hoi4 mod is of encyclopedic note. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Which is why he said to add a pop culture section ~2026-43232-20 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding a new section for something that may or may not have WP:WEIGHT is not how that works usually. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

"neo-fascist" as opposed to "neo-nazi"?

The group seems like your run of the mill neo-nazi group, and clearly descends organizationally and ideologically from that tradition, so I don't see the reason why it should be labeled "neo-fascist" over neo-nazi besides their emphasis of the fasces symbol (which obviously does not inherently mean they are fascist) It is much more accurate to just label their ideology as neo-nazism. ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

We say what the sources say — Czello ^(music) 12:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources already on this article which call it a neo-nazi organization and confirm it is descended from a neo-nazi tradition. ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Plenty? We don't generally apply value-laden labels based on WP:SPLC - at least not on that alone. The Guardian is pretty loose with their labels. That leaves San Antonio Current. I'd prefer to see a more academic source rather than that of a random journalist. Look for something from someone with some sociology or poly-sci creds like Michael Barkun, Jeffrey Kaplan, Mattias Gardell, or Steven Atkins. Or find something more academic from JSTOR or EBSCO. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"value-laden labels" is "neo-fascist" also a "value-laden label", does Vanguard America (the predecessor to Patriot Front) have such rigorous sourcing to prove that they are, in fact, a neonazi organization? ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Everything here should have such rigorous sourcing. Academic sources are always preferred. "Whataboutism" is not a valid argument (just because other stuff is poorly sourced doesn't mean it's OK to poorly source something else). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Does the claim that Patriot Front is a neo-fascist organization have better sourcing than that it is neo-nazi? ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

That's debatable, but again, you're drifting into "whataboutism". One discussion at a time. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is "whataboutist" about setting a consistent standard. ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The SPLC has a tendency to be very broad/generalizing in their labeling, where scholarly sources and news sources are more specific with their terminology. For really any white supremacist groups you can surely find an individual source calling them neo-Nazi, but that isn't a good way to find what the best or majority of sources call them when it comes to the major identifications we describe. The predominant and most accurate label for Patriot Front in high quality sources is neo-fascist, which is a distinct movement. They are related but not synonymous. We shouldn't be using the SPLC unattributed for labels in most cases anyway per WP:SPLC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

In related news: can we trim the list of ideologies in the infobox a little bit? White supremacy and neo-fascism, sure, but the rest of these are pretty redundant with those first two/not defining aspects outside of the overarching white supremacy and neofascism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it accurate at all, neo-nazi is a much more accurate term than neo-fascist for what Patriot Front is. ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

How? In terms of symbology, ideology, unless we're totally conflating the terms Nazi and fascist they are distinctly "fascist". And your opinions are not reflected by the sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What about their ideology is distinctly fascist? They are a neo-nazi group with more moderate messaging, in fact thats the whole raison d'être of the group, their program is centred around white supremacy not any commitment to corporatist economics or anything actually classically fascist. ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't support article content based on what you consider to be accurate/inaccurate. We use what is in reliable sources. If there is disagreement, we discuss it, but no consensus will ever be supported simply on personal opinion. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems like you support article content based on what you consider to be accurate/inaccurate. ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What I support is sticking to what reliable sources say. We do not do original research. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

All of it? What about it is more Nazi than fascist?

"Classically fascist"... do you think the Italian fascists weren't racist, and that racial supremacy and antisemitism wasn't a part of their program? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

No? Mussolini rejected nazi racial theories and many jews were active and accepted participants in the early fascist movement. ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Playing "no true fascist" because you don't like the reality that fascism is a bigoted ideology is not a reason to make the labeling here inaccurate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You asked what about it is more Nazi than fascist, I provided evidence, now you're saying I am "playing no true fascist"? I merely answered your questions lol ~2026-36739-19 (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

You responded by denying that Mussolini's fascism was racist or antisemitic, which is untrue. That they had different racial views than the Nazis does not mean they weren't racists, race and antisemitism were key elements of Italian fascism - Patriot Front also has different racial views than the Nazis, they aren't Aryanists or Nordicists. Still white supremacists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe educate yourself on what Mussolini actually stood for, he did not support “racism” in the traditional sense or antisemitism in any sense, prior to 1938. This is even what the wikipedia says lol. Neo-nazis have different racial views than the Nazis, and ones that are most in line with Patriot Front. ~2026-38183-72 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Mussolini changed his opinion on that when it convenienced him.

And then neo-fascists might have different racial views than fascists by the same token, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and neo-fascists do have different racial views than fascists, although their views are more similar to classical fascists than they are neo-nazis and nazis. With all this taken into account, Patriot Front still holds racial views most similar to the American neo-nazi tradition as opposed to pan-European neo-fascists, traditional nazi nordicism, or classical Fascists at any point in the development of their views. Patriot Front is a splinter group from a neo-nazi organization, the article already admits such, and no fundamental changes to that groups doctrine were made to think it not part of that tradition anymore. The only thing that changed was an attempt to moderate the groups aesthetic sensibilities, or optics, as to distance itself from the American neo-nazi tradition, a change that has been incredibly successful based on the fact that they are now considered the much less harsh sounding "neo-fascist" as opposed to "neo-nazi" in this article, despite, again, not changing doctrinally AT ALL. ~2026-43162-98 (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2026

Please insert a citation on their 4th of July rally, regarding the member size of those who took part in it. https://t.me/PatriotFrontSightings/1520 Clantonium (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA; there is reasonable doubt about this claim. Please provide secondary or independent sources if you can find them. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/masked-patriot-front-white-nationalists-stage-july-4-march-through-dc-2026-07-04/

Will this one work for y'all? Clantonium (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Added in preference to existing cite (also from Reuters), as the one above actually mentions "hundreds" of marchers, which previous one did not. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn’t because of the paywall jolielover♥talk 18:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

higher membership

membership has risen to 540+, even includes an interactable map with the # of members in each state https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/06/03/exclusive-patriot-front-leaked-documents/90351663007/ Prismariner (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The prior edits kept the old source with the old numbers so I reverted. I'll update. MartinezMD (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

In a recent interview, on the rumble channel "Frojax", Thomas said that after the July 4th Protest, "We have received thousands, capital T thousands of applications since the action". I suppose this should not be added to the member count as these are applications not full-members, and it is only the word of Thomas, but it should probably be something to consider. ~2026-38844-16 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It could just be exaggeration or media hype. The membership numbers are actual internal documents and not public relations. I'd leave it as is unless we get something more credible. MartinezMD (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree - it's a self-claim without anything supportable. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

"antisemitism"?

"The group has been accused of antisemitism" Being against Zionism (Terrorizing Palestine for the greater good of a Jewish State), and not wanting foreign nations to have a big influence on the USA is not antisemitism! Anon15311 (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Take it up with the sources. — Czello ^(music) 08:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Czello, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is quite controversial. Per the main article: "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with some academics and organizations rejecting the linkage as unfounded and a form of weaponization of antisemitism used to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip" Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I am an unverified account, but I'm just letting you know that you have the total right to change antisemitism to anti-Zionism via WP:ADLPIA. The only source Axios cites is the ADL, which Wikipedia policy states is a "generally unreliable source" on "the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." If Czello has an issue with that, he should take it up with Wikipedia. ~2026-39758-22 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've edited the article to say "Anti-Zionism" under the belief tab which used that specific article Axios article. It will most likely be reverted to say "antisemitism" whenever a better source for the claim is found by someone. Jukitaa (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The source is quite clear about anti-Semitism, please don't substitute your own interpretation. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The only example of Patriot Front's antisemitism in the source is the quote of "No Zionists in government, we serve one Nation." which is weak proof for the claim when considering the ADL's reliability issues with conflating Anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Wikipedia:ADLPIA

I believe a better source for this specific claim (even one from the ADL showing a clearly antisemitic slogan, poster, quote, etc) is necessary. I believe Patriot Front is an antisemitic group, but the specific source used is weak. Jukitaa (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not a reason to water it down to "anti-Zionist." the source is quite clear about it. In any event I addedd a direct cite to the ADL, which is unequivocal. In an apparent coincidence, my talk page was shortly after vandalized with anti-Semitic abuse, so someone's paying attention to this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The one source on this article links to a 2023 Axios report, which itself only mentions one direct quote from PF: "no Zionists in government." Given that the Axios report cites solely content from the ADL to make that claim, WP:RSPADL on Israel and Zionism applies. Going by just this source, the antisemitism tag should be removed from PF's page and replaced with anti-Zionism.

As an aside, at their 2025 party conference, the DSA adopted the following anti-Zionist resolution: https://elbertcounty.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/For-a-Fighting-Anti-Zionist-DSA-Google-Docs.pdf, which endorses the expulsion of all "consistent and public" Zionists from the party. Of course, they are not listed as antisemitic on their Wikipedia page. ~2026-39758-22 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

lets be honest even if you support Patriot Front we can all agree 90-100% of the members are anti-semitic Prismariner (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Prismariner then the proof/reasons cited in that paragraph are wrong and need elaborating if they are. Because based solely on what is written in the wikipedia page as a person who knows nothing about Patriot Front and came here to find information, they are not antisemitic. Anon15311 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The linked source also includes quotes about Rousseau "During a speech, Rousseau referred to “Jewish cabals” as among the “enemies of our people.” So we could adjust the article. MartinezMD (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be prudent to asertain consensus, clearly there's some disagreement as to how it's applied. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)