Highly Recommended that a true Nordreich Member get over here and edit this article. I know Nordreich is calling most of this article vandalism, but they don't present any alternate text yet. J Andres 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nordreich officials explitly deny that NoR is a fascist. Thank you, this is the end of that argument. Vain 02:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You, are wrong. Don't act unilaterally without going through discussion. You have not addressed any of the reasons for the tag. Until I see another statement that says the opposite from nordreich itself "officially" like this statement, the tag will stand. If you have a problem with that, go to the thread I linked to and question nordreich about what they are stating their "official" position is. If you provide a source where Nordreich officials have "explicitly deny that NoR is fascist", then the tag should very well be removed. As it is, I can only take what I've been told as official, and shown as official, which according to the post by "Magnus Nordir" on the NoR forums, the official statement is not what you are saying. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 08:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I am in NoR and will be watching this article. I even think it should be protected. Vain 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If anything it should be protected from your blanking, don't blank pages! Solidusspriggan 06:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Pages will not be protected for these reasons. This page is to provide an unbiased page of ALL information regarding NoR (just as all other nations and alliance pages are). That means that even if there is negative, verifiable, information about NoR, then it would be in the best interest of the wiki, and the cyber nations community, if it was listed here (if it was notable enough of course). -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Until you get a source for the wartides comment on the fake video, I will treat it as vandalism, thanks. 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if the wartides comment is removed, a link to the video, should not be. Also, if you are Vain, your ban has ended and you may log in again. J Andres 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You have absolutely zero proof that the video has anything to do with Nordreich, other than being black propaganda used by Nordreich's detractors. Post it or the "facism" category tag again and I will tell an admin. 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It is labeled as an alleged video. Where else would it be categorized under? It belongs under Nordreich. I won't edit it yet because I want the input of the toher admins here, but I see nothing wrong with having the link. J Andres 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)\
Because your puttings something that is obviously anti-Nordreich propaganda video in our article? It says NoR eats jewish babies, is that seriously not enough for you to realize it is meant to slander and defame NoR? Even saying that it is allegedly an official video is ridiculous.
First off, glad this is in discussion. Now, possibilities that show a POV could be included if they are verifiable. The more POV it is, the more reliable the source should be. If someone simply posted on the forums that this was a NoR video, and NoR says it was not. I really don't see why it is worth mentioning at all. Because it wouldn't be notable. Now I'm not familiar with the intricacies (if any) of this issue, but if I have pretty much summarized it, then I really don't see why the video needs to be shown. Even if it is a possibility the best course of action (in order to be NPOV), in my opinion would be to mention that a video exists, but not link to it. The video itself isn't notable if it is possibly unreliable. Although the controversy of an alleged video may be worth mentioning if it is possibly true, but that's to be discussed. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to start by saying that I have been watching the Nordreich page since the October Massacre and have saved it many times. So I am not Anti-NoR. This video crated quite a stir on the forums and is worth mentioning somerwhere. J Andres 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if it actually had nothing to do with NoR, I don't see why the video itself has to be linked to. One of your defenses against the RI stuff earlier was that it wouldn't be allowed on the forums, the video link was removed from the forums, yet you think it should be here? The situation is worth noting, but the video is not worth linking to. If NoR denies it, there is no actual verifiable source to suggest it is real is there? If there is no source I hardly think putting the video link here is a good idea. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually spoke with martens on this issue. The video was from a Nordreich member who has now quit the game (at least his old nation did), and I don't remember the name but it was something german like reighstaat or something, I blackmailed him for his tech after the put that video up. I still have his AIM name, but he isn't very friendly to me...LOL. Regardless this is an important event in the history of Nordreich PR, and covering it up would be nearly as atrocious as covering up the very atrocities it portrays. This is representative of a number of elements within the Nordreich that have yet to be ousted even though the nordreich is making (feeble) efforts to do so. Solidusspriggan 03:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
My words are coming back to haunt me now. I did say that if it coudln't be posted on the CN boards, it shouldn't be here, so therefore because it is offensive content only the video link will be removed, the article section should remain though. Preceding unsigned comment added by J Andres (talk • contribs)

So, would it be a stretch to suggest we are in agreement now? The video should be mentioned (in my opinion, it doesn't warrant a lot of text) but a link to the video or instructions to acquire a link to the video should not. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this would be a stretch. Since the video can no longer speak for itself, then I move a synopsis of the film be included, or an offsite link to the video.
Fair enough. I do not think a link would be a good idea. But mentioning the video seems to be neutral and it would be a bias towards the subject if the video was simply ignored, so put up a short synopsis, I'd suggest a section heading, with a few sentences describing the situation (who did it, where it happened, the recourse) and a sentence mentioning what the video was about. Be sure to mention the talk page in your edit summary. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 19:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask Solidus to do it, he's more informed about these things, he has the FLV downloaded and actually contacted the creator. Also, being outside of the Nordreich he is less likely to include a biased description.


The proper way to mark a dispute is with a factual accuracy tag, not a denouncement of the text that is already there. Please all read the wiki "how to edit" and "how to write an article" before editing anymroe articles.


I have been watching this article and do believe that the current "Consensus" version is the most accurate unbiased statement yet. I highly encourage Nordriech members to edit this article, but the leave out the bias. Also, Solidus, actually one SoL nation did attack a NoR nation about one or two weeks before the war. I dug this info up for them and could vouch. I would have to go to my sent PM's to find out who and the such, but there was one attack. Also, please try to post ideas here before just editing the article. It is the best way for a consensus to be reached. J Andres 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What member? who did they attack, do you have a screenshot? If this was the case why did NoR never mention this in any of their official announcements? I believe this is a total lie. No one has mentioned anything about this to any SoL or ICP member, nor on the general forums. sounds suspicious. Now I do know that some of the unaligned nations that Wattage attacked did BECOME NoR members, as NoR pointed out in their official statement of their genocidal actions.Solidusspriggan 01:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Siberian Socialist declared war on Skelland. The reason was "Unprovoked attack on alliance" and peace was declared, but there was an attack. I only mentioned it above because it did happen, but I am not including in the article (this or Octobe Massacre) because it wasn't brought up as a point, and NoR's justification was rouge attacks in general, not on themselves. J Andres 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Skelland, I recall aiding Siberian Socialists after this conflict (as my nation was peaceful and economy based with no wars on record) Turns out skelland is nordreich, but I have a strict policy of not aiding aggressive wars or wars against alliance members. However the reason is "unprovoked attack on alliance". which indicates this as a defensive strike. You surely don't consider the attacking of a natino that has attacked your alliance as a rogue attack do you?

- George Sears

Update; This is Wotan. Wotan actually was the first of the five NoR attackers to jump the gun. All your seeing in the battle log is a defensive action. Check you facts please.

- George Sears

Please disregard George Sears release of information from the archives of the SoL supreme soviet. He doesn't have complete acces and is releasing information that is out of context. Wotan had been threatening our nations for some time. Wotan attacked rifka in mid october, someone else form NoR was attacking even before this. All of this happened mid october between the 16th
Here is the first post of news of an action taken against NoR. This is after a report of attack on Rifka by Wotan. Neo Siberia was in range so he attacked (this is a defensive strike BTW). The next day Wotan realized he had bitten off more than he could chew:

kurugeta Posted: Oct 20 2006, 04:04 AM

"Honestly i don't know what exactly is going on, apparently we were marked as a threat for some reason or another, and some people were given orders to make attacks on us. They hit Solidus and Rifka. I attacked Wotan, who attacked Rifka and it prompted all of those discussions. I have no reason not to trust the guy, he seemed pretty mad, scared, and sincere. I don't really think we have to worry about them seeing as we were removed from their threat list according to the 1 guy. But he said he would tell me if they were going to do something."

Wotan attacked on the 19th, an unknown NoR member attacked on the 18th, Gold Skywalker attacked me on the 20th at update.

Police action on cybernations Edit

Complete Slander "Nordreich admittedly harbors many Nazis, nationalists, and fascists within their alliance." is also rather irrelevant.

I propose to remove this section entirely. This section is the reason that this article is frequently edited back and forth. I propose to remove this section and later, add a small paragraph about the october massacre at the bottom. J Andres 11:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is relevant informaiton, all of it. First of all that Nor harbors nazis was admitted by a number members on the CN boards during the october massacre. Furthermore their police actions need to be known. Should we erase Vietnam or Korea from the history books because they look bad on our nations record? These are important events in the history of Nordreich. Solidusspriggan 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You say "should we erase Vietnam or Korea?" No, but understand where I am going with this. Feel free to create pages for each of those conflicts, but you must understand that this page should focus on Nordreich, not those Nordreich destoyed. The most important thing on this page is the Charter, and other simple info. These police actions are not as important and shouldn't lead off the article. That is like saying that the United States Wiki article whould start off with "The American Settlers were rotten to the American Indians and still are rotten." Then go into constitution, economy, etc. On Sunday I will delete the police actions section and consider that the "consensus", however, new pages that you create on the conflicts will be added to the bottom where the link to the October Massacre currently resides. J Andres 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
First I must apologize for my release of classified info out of context. Solidus is right I don't have access to the actual record. Just what was copy pasted into my chat log. Anyway I for one will be creating an article pertaining to the destruction of the two alliances that I was in, in which nordreich hunted me, a peaceful jewish nation who had never attacked anyone, down. They destroyed Peace for the Jews, and followed it's most prosperous pacifist member to the Sons of Liberty. This is an obvious tracking down of a jewish state for the purpose of destruction.

- George Sears

It has become obvious that the Police Action section will be deleted and shall be replaced by various conflict pages when they are created. I will delete the Police Action section now. Restoring the Police Action section will result in a temp (24 hour) ban. Instead bring discussion here to this talk page. J Andres 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The ReformsEdit

Should be updated to include the reforms J Andres 11:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Facist tag Edit

Please don't readd the fascism tag to this article, I'm contemplating removing the whole category for bias... -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 05:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is fully needed, If you ask the Nordreich they will tell you they are fascist, if you read their charter it meets the characteristics of fascism set by most dictionary definitions. Namely they are cheuvenistically nationalistic and authoritarian. If you have ever been in the nordreich you would know that topics in their forums are often locked for a third defining charactistic, the suppression of dissent. Solidusspriggan 12:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Quote it from them. Your interpretation of their charter and actions constitutes your opinion on their position. Once you can show that their actual position is "fascism" by quoting respected members, or even better, supported leaders then you are no longer posting your interpretation, but fact. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that an opponent of NoR adds the tag saying he interprets the alliance as fascist and a member of the NoR removes it stating the NoR is officially not fascist makes me doubt this. Unless they either state they are fascist, or state they are supporting "the idea of seeking to establish a society in which individual interests would be subdued to the good of the nation" then they by placing this tag on their article you are pushing your opinion of them on the article, which doesn't belong here. Only actually documented facts belong here. If the members state the alliance is fascist, then quote that, and give links to those comments, interpretation of actions by a group towards a group that they clearly nationally opposed is always going to show the signs of bias. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Your answer will come from here. Then there is no bias at all. We are asking for what they officially stand for, Fascism is not an opinion and cannot be interpreted to probably be what they are doing. Fascism is a ideology, and if they support it, then the tag deserves to be in, if they do not, then there can be no claim that they are so. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read the response to your question by Kaiser Nordir, he says:

"I suppose in the sense that you have put it, yes, we are fascist." First i will cite a few definitions of fascism, then I will provide links to key nordreich members statements supporting those definitions. -a nationalistic and anti-Communist system of government....where all aspects of society are controlled by the state and all criticism or opposition is suppressed kernerman english multilingual dictionary -As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation. NoteToday, the term fascist can used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner. american heritage dictionary -A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. American Heritage Dictionary -a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) wordnet

Now some examples, first let me inform you that the Nordreich is not democratic in the least bit, on their forums there is no place for voting in anything but informal poles, the government is a nationalist dictatorship...exampls:

Concentration camps:

Brutal murderous Anti-communism by Nordreich defense minister wartides14:

Racist eugenics programs lead by the current Kaiser of the Nordreich, magnus nordir:

a proponent of "racial realsim" in the nordreich:

Murder of blacks and communists by Wartides14:

Notice the picture of hitler (a known fascist) in this mans avatar:

Radical Racist Cheuvenistic Nationalism can be seen here, details are squbbled over but Martens confirms, nordreich is nationalism:

Anti-communist legislation in an influential nordreich nation:

Use of nuclear weapony on his own citizens to quell dissent:

the use of the brutal Einharjer (those which i cite in my nations page) to murder communists:

Execution of communists by a nationalistic dictator:

This is only a small percentage that I could find manually, since the CN forum search function doesn't really work well. But these combined with Kaiser Magnus Nordir's confirmation that they are fascist according to your definition should be enough to reinstate the tag on this article as well as the october massacre article. Personally I believe that putting this tag on is a much less abrasive way to cite the alliance as being generally fascist than to put it in the introduction to their article. Solidusspriggan 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly as asked for. I fully support the tag now. If someone wishes to remove it, I support putting it back and, and referring to this discussion section. Thanks :) -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 03:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Article revision Edit

I have written a complete history chronicle, replete with references to relevant announcements, and added an "Image and ideology" section. I've also moved the charter to a separate page (Nordreich Charter). Everything is NPOV and factual, so do be cautious when editing. Vinzent Zeppelin (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disbandment? Edit

There is no information on this alliances disbandment. Such information would be important to making the article more complete and accurate. Personally I do not know what happened but anyone who does should by all means edit it in.Sancus 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New Article? Edit

Is there perhaps reason to create a new article for the new Nordreich? ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.