Talk:National Alliance (United States)

message: IMO it is innapropriate to refer to them as "neo" nazi, and rather more accurate to refer to them as just plain nazi. Just my opinion, the evidence seems to me to be pretty clear, but I suppose it depends on how you define "nazi" Sam Spade 18:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry for Neo-Nazi defines "neo-Nazi" as "any social or political movement that revive Nazism or Fascism, respectively, and postdating the Second World War."  That certainly seems to apply here. --Modemac 18:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, I donno if I agree w that tho. Are modern communists neo-communists? But whatever, its a subtlety, we all know what these fellers (unlike the neo-coms ;) are thinking. Sam Spade 18:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Again, I don't know that I agree w that, but I will say that what is most important is that this article gives a clear enough picture of who and what they are that the reader is left w little doubt, irregardless of what term we use. If I've learned anything about politics, its that the labels used to describe it are ment more for the purpose of confusing intent than describing it, particularly when you let the rascals name themselves ;) Sam Spade 18:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've ever read a nicer way of saying: "We're gonna tell you what to think, and you'll like it!" 70.78.209.117 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Whether or not you agree with the labeling is irrelevant, the fact is that it is the common usage in describing people/groups that hold nazi beliefs, but are/were not part of Hitler's movement. I agree that it is dangerous to just take at face-value self-descriptions, as they are often misleading. We can expand upon that in the articles. - snoyes 18:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Very curious.  According to the Georgia National Alliance, the article was written by William Pierce!  http://www.nageorgia.com/articles.html 61.11.26.142 18:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, labeling is done so as to compact a lot of information into a short space. Notice that the National alliance also engage in labeling, calling themselves "separationists". - snoyes 19:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "We're not racists, we're racialists.  We're not white supremacists,
we're white separatists!"  I suppose we can't really call these guys a hate group either.  They don't hate groups, they just hate individual folks.  Lots and lots of individuals. --Modemac 19:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: If you want to be true to current racialist rhetoric, they don't hate anybody. They just love themselves so much that they want to be seperate from other races, particularly when it comes to breeding. Even your average klan website condemns violence and hate against others, but rather focuses on what is more P.C., the defense of ones own cultural values. They essentially feel intimidated, and desire to band together for purposes of defense, rather than agression. That is the current rhetoric, I must make clear ;) Sam Spade 19:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  Not bad.  Almost a full day elapsed here before the silly term "Zionist" was dragged out.  Not that I'm accusing them of labelling or anything.  :)  --Modemac 19:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi or neo? 

message: The National Alliance may sometimes prefer white separatist, but their publications for many years have been openly white supremacist. Not just watchdog groups, but most scholalry texts on the group call it white supremacist and neonazi. --Cberlet 03:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If a "scholarly text" were to write something about how all they want is a nice, white community for people who want it - they're perfectly fine with letting liberals live with the diversity they so love but don't seem to live in currently - and defined the National Alliance as white separatist, then the writers of that text would be expelled for "hate speech" and would have to go to some other country to continue their education. So don't be surprised when no "scholarly texts" are that popular saying that the National Alliance is simply a white separatist organization. 70.78.209.117 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: white supremacist

message: I've removed the following chunks, some of it is incomprehensible and much of it contains POV or unsupportable statements. --Lee Hunter 20:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted material

message: I altered the White Supremacists to White Separatists, because that is what the National Alliance stands for, but then I read the Controversia sign wich says to read the discussion page before making any changes to the main article. So I am posting here to see if you agree with this:
A White supremacist is one who wants the whites to reign above other races
A White Separatist is one who wants to separate the white race from others
The National Alliance is the second option, so it is White Separatist. Should I change the article?
Thanks ;-)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.184.167.11 (talk • contribs) .
:The form of white separatism espoused by William Pierce is know to the rest of the world as "white supremacism". I think that the existing text properly describes both sides of the issue. -Willmcw 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiousity, how do you think the NA proposes to make racial separation occur? A variety of races are all intermixed in communities across the world. Since separation would be virtually impossible, the real goal appears to be a return to segregation with the white population in a pre-eminent position. I'm interested to hear your view of what policies the National Alliance has pursued to create separation. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  White Supremacists is not accurate for stating at the head of the article. The Nationail alliance says they are a White Nationalist organization and do not advocate white supremacy officially. It is a personal opinion as to if they are a white supremacy organization and that is why I changed it. When stating there organization officially I think its best to go with White Nationalist or White Seperatist and then below say they have been labeled as a white supremacist group by anti hate groups. I think that is fair, balanced, and accurate without giving an unecessary POV. 
71.131.245.179 01:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Officially they are white nationalists and that is what should remain. As you said everyone thinks its bullshit so I dont see why its important. People will still come to the conclusion without being it drawn for them by editors. It is not a fact officially that they are a white supremacist organization and they always deny it. Therefore the reader has to make up their own minds. I am sure they will come to the conclusion on their own. If you can find me a link where the national alliance officially says they are a white supremacist organization it should stay but otherwise it needs to remain white nationalist officially. 
71.131.245.179 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supremacists? 

message: The intro twice mentions that the group self-identifies as "white nationalist" but critics believe they are "white supremacist".  This redundancy should be fixed.  We don't need this comment twice in one paragraph! Phiwum 11:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant intro 

message: What do people think about moving this article to National Alliance (United States) and placing National Alliance (disambiguation) here? I only suggest this as some of the other NAs are of greater importance to their domestic politics than the American one (notably in Italy). However, considering this particular article attracts a lot of edits and has a huge number of links I though i would be beter to see what the general opinion was before going ahead with any move. Keresaspa 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the article 

message: I saw something on the National Alliance on TV today. So I went to this page and noticed that someone was claiming this was a homosexual group, founded by a gay prostitute. While I absolutly do not agree with the National Alliance, there is no excuse for vandalism in the article. Anyone who wants to unlock it, go ahead. 3D jonny 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked for vandalisim. 

message: That's the way its described by reliable sources (according to our criteria). Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  White supremacist 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: There's a story circulated all over canuck news channels. National Alliance was denied a $200K inheritance will from some evil racist. Bnai Brith helped this court ruling, very satisfied  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.146.190 (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NatAl denied inheritance will in Canada! 

message: What does that symbol mean? It is like the symbol of national crows party (Alfred J. Kwak) or like upsidedown hippi symbol of peace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.230.168 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Lebensrune. The Rune of Life. And ancient German symbol. Also called Elhaz. 112.198.77.39 (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  logo 

message: Algiz
84.95.229.31 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look for Algiz 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Alliance (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051113035550/http://www.nationalvanguard.org:80/printer.php?id=4913 to http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4913
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on National Alliance (United States). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909164547/http://articles.boston.com/2011-03-10/news/29343665_1_white-supremacist-day-parade-route-mark-potok to http://articles.boston.com/2011-03-10/news/29343665_1_white-supremacist-day-parade-route-mark-potok
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newcomm.org/reports/Beyond_a_Dead_Mans_Deeds_color_web.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/crime/article/white_nationalist_sentenced_in_child_porn_case/20639/s
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615171456/http://www.adl.org/explosion_of_hate/explosion_of_hate.asp to http://www.adl.org/explosion_of_hate/explosion_of_hate.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411110158/http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/N_Alliance.asp to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/N_Alliance.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Grayfell, et al. appear to be removing links from the article ruse of wikiguidelines, but really for what appears to be a political agenda.  For example, Official links AKA WP:ELOFFICIAL, An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
*National Vanguard Official News Portal of National Alliance
*White Biocentrism Official Forum and Community of National Alliance
These are obviously relevant links to the organization, but grayfell, et al. are removing them from the article, even though relevant. TonyMorris68 (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:EL. The forum is linked to the offical website, so we don't link it separately. I see no evidence that the National Vanguard website (which makes me want to puke just looking at it) is an official news portal of the National Alliance. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: National Alliance External Links

message: https://www.natall.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? First, intros aren't the appropriate place for URL's. Second, there is a link in the info box. Squirrel Nest (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Their Website should be added in the Introduction

message: I have found a source that I think will be useful to expand the Cosmotheist church section:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324161710_Cosmotheism_and_the_legacy_of_william_pierce_The_stormfront_connection
However, it contradicts the existing sources by stating that "(Christian Identity) is not the same as Cosmotheism."
I would like interested editors to review the source and suggest how best to incorporate it into the article, and clarify if it is neccesary to scrap the other sources or somehow merge the conflicting information.
Also, it appears that someone tried to edit recently, and gave reason as that the organization opposes Christianity. Clearly, the existing sources say that it is, but given that the source linked above agrees with that editor, maybe there is something to their claim. 2600:1012:B138:62A8:0:32:8393:CE01 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else recently tried to contradict the religious aspect as being CI. If Cosmotheism is not CI, fine, but y'all need to find and provide some reliable sources that say so. I mean, the last edit just swapped Cosmotheist for Christian Identity, but left the sources.2600:1012:B147:4D6F:0:2C:39E2:9F01 (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmotheist Church