Talk:White nationalism/Archive 2

message: Article: 'This version of White nationalism is distinct from those versions that promote general expulsion or genocide.'
This is wrong, because it states that there are some other versions of nationalism that DO promote expulsion or genocide. Changed to 'distinct from supermacism', but got reverted. So the question to HOTR is: names of these versions? AlV 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: White separatism

message: The people trying to keep links off the article page should be ashamed of themselves. Additionally anyone who can bring in knowledgable users should be commended, not harassed. If you do indeed suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, please review the respective ISP's. I find the way this page is being handled to be in defiance of common sense, intellectual honesty and wiki-policy. Please review your statements, actions and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Sam [Spade] 01:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone threatens to bring in an army to enforce their view on others we will look at their ISPs.  In the meantime, no one is suggesting that anyone is a sock puppet.  (Or even a newbie, IMHO.)  I have no problem with my statements and actions.  We merely disagree that slanting an article (or set of links) to one point of view is correct.  Nor do I agree that it is in Wikipedia's interest to create tandem sets of articles with skewed POVs to each side.  (Isn't that the goal of disinfopedia or one of the other wikis?)  The best solution is to discuss these links on the talk page and gain some consensus on what belongs.  After hearing your opinion and solution, this is my opinion and solution. - Tεxτurε 02:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your solution is fine, and I am discussing. I would like to see more links (and more users involved here specifically, and in the project generally), not less. I do agree with evening the links out, but only by adding more links, not less. The above question by Svigor about the policy on him inviting others to the discussion was answered by an assault on his character, and severe assumptions of bad faith. I rebuke that response, and question the benefit of suspecting a new user of being an old one (that happened to me, and was rude enough to almost convince me to leave the project, BTW). Where is your proof against the gentleman, good sir? Produce such, or kindly cease all defamations of his character. Sam [Spade] 04:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it insulting or "an assault" that I am not suggesting that he is a newbie?  (or a sock puppet for that matter.)  I did not use that lack of assumption of newbie or sock puppet to make any accusation.  Why do you leap to such a conclusion? I find your rebuke puzzling and rude. Instead I responded to two concepts: inviting numerous people who agree with one pov to force his view on the rest of us, and splitting the article into two (within this article or without). - Tεxτurε 04:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cry me a river. Its quite simply a personal attack to suggest he is a sockpuppet or returned user w/o proof. Stormfront is by no means a single POV BTW, they have a fair amount of anti-racialist trolls who try to shout them down. Bringing in knowledgable users of all persuasions is always a good thing. Exclusivity is anti-wiki. Sam [Spade] 04:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cry me a river" - I don't need to reply to that. - Tεxτurε 04:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: You refuse to answer what you have no answer to. You slander that which you do not understand. Every personal attack is another sign of your intellectual dishonesty. Next time, try logic. Sam [Spade] 05:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better soloution 

message: I hope I speak for the group when I apologise for any misunderstandings. The important thing is to acheive NPOV and factual accuracy within this article. We can best acheive that thru mutual respect and determination, NOT thru personal attacks. Lets move on. Sam [Spade] 05:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets move on

message: The current definition is a great example of putting groups in a false light without actually slandering them.  The omissions and hostile use of the " symbol alone are clear violations of the Neutral Point of View rule.
Prison comment: priceless.  
And thanks for pointing out the abundance of friendly links provided in the Zionism article.  I'll paste them here for a comparison with the one lonely link to Stormfront:
edit: In the interest of concision, I took the liberty of editing out FenrisSF's inclusion of the links, because I think I have a pretty good idea who he is, and I don't think he'll object.  If he does, he can always change it back, and I'll apologize.  Here's a link to the page & section in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#External_links
Svigor 04:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By purely random chance FenrisSF's first and only edit is to this very talk page. - Tεxτurε 15:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be "by purely random chance," Texture?  Do you have ANY comments to make here that don't fall under the ad hominem attack category, or any contributions to make other than hostile reverts contrary to Wikipedia guidelines? Svigor 04:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great points, Svigor 

message: Here's my understanding of things that the term white nationalism can mean, and my opinions on what should be described here, and what should be mentioned but point to other articles:
* White nationalism can mean support for separate white nations, or white areas within nations.  This is better dealt with at white separatism, however, which is a fairly unambiguous name for that viewpoint, and mirrors black separatism.
* White nationalism can be support for the idea that white people share a common heritage and ought to share a common identity as an abstract "nation of people" (not nation as in nation-state), and perhaps also have advocacy groups to work on their behalf, essentially white versions of groups like the NAACP (a group that works on the behalf of black people).  I think this is primarily what ought to be described here, and it also parallels black nationalism closely, so we keep our terminology consistent.
* White nationalism can also be white supremacism, in the same sort of sense that US nationalism can be US supremacism (belief that the US is superior to other countries).  This should be mentioned, and critics of white nationalists that accuse them of being white supremacists in disguise should also be mentioned, but the primary documentation of the white supremacist movement itself should be at white supremacism.  Note also that this must be done carefully: it is undoubtedly true that there are closet white supremacists who masquerade as white nationalists, but in the minefield of identity politics, accusations of racism are thrown around quite commonly in all directions.
--Delirium 19:53, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
:I find that generally agreeable, and would mention in response to your second point that there is just such an organization : N.A.A.W.P. Another reason for more links, not less, eh? Sam [Spade] 00:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes, even as a WN, I fail to see the forest for the trees.  I agree with virtually all of what delirium has said above, especially his definition of white nationalism.  He is perfectly correct that WNism is about white people thinking and acting as a political block, as people of other races do. Svigor 04:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What This Article Should Be About

message: Here is some important info regarding the recent ban, well said by a wikipedia:arbitrator . Sam [Spade] 23:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent ban 

message: (feel free to post commentary within the text if you wish, as long as it's signed) Svigor 04:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [old criticism] "Though according to some long dispensed-with in terms of any meaningful scientific value" - is this really the place to insert this information? Is this a definition of White Nationalism, or a refutation of it? [snip] As I stated above, I don't expect this entry to be a WNist tract, but I do expect an honest representation of what WNism is, and I do expect enough room for that representation to breathe. I'm sure the entry on race that is linked to has more than enough grist for the race-denial crowd. Even if this caveat does belong here, it shouldn't be included in the same paragraph that sets forth the WN beliefs concerning race, much less in the same sentence.
[new criticism] This statement is no better than its previous incarnation (which appeared sans the "especially those that affect outward appearance" addition), and demonstrably worse.  There is absolutely NO basis for the idea that white nationalists base their personal identity vis-a-vis race "especially [on] those [genetic characteristics] that affect outward appearance."  Generally, and especially among the WN intelligentsia, WNs see the surface differences between races as markers for race, not as the important substance of race.  Of course, social identity theory tells us that these surface differences are important in and of themselves, but generally, they are held by WNs and race-realists essentially as race-identifiers, not as the significant part of racial differences.
In other words, contrary to the wildly popular delusion, it isn't all or mostly or even significantly about skin color.  Skin color generally ranks near the bottom of the list of the average WN's "racial differences list," far below behavioral genetics, except as a race-marker.  Try a post at Stormfront.org about how racism is all about skin color or surface differences, and enjoy the mockery you receive.
In all parts of the world, personal identity reflects the degree of awareness and connectivity to the outside world and foreign cultures, thus "race issues" tend to be seen as related to xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and other "culture clash" paradigms.
This still makes no sense.  Can someone explain the significance and meaning of this passage to me?  I still maintain that it's muddy and pointless.
Similar concerns that may be a catalyst for a distinction of personal identity are religion, gender, language, and differences regarding these issues are often manifested in conflict of one form or another.
This still has no direct bearing on the subject at hand - what in the blue blazes does this have to do with white nationalism, specifically?  Doesn't this belong in some other entry, in "personal identity" perhaps?
Some of these groups have condoned violence in the past, and some have built up strong followings mainly in prisons.
There are many Republicans and Democrats in prison too, what's the point?  It's also too general - which groups, when, and where are the references?  Otherwise, it just looks to me like what it probably is - an attempt to pathologize white nationalism and associate it with criminality.  I think I'd find an in-depth study of this issue very illuminating.  As I said before, the National Alliance has a membership in which the highly educated and members of the professions are overrepresented by a factor of 7 compared to the public.  This is still as relevant as the unsubtle prison assertion.
I mean really, many Hispanic identity groups are mainly prison societies, is that to characterize the article about Hispanic identity groups (if there is such a beast?).  Many historically Jewish identity movements are mainly communistic affairs, should we slide that little tidbit into the section on Jewish identity or Zionism?
As a result of the violent and radical image of some of the white supremacist groups, a growing number of white nationalists have adopted less hostile rhetoric, and portray themselves as conservatives interested in maintaining traditional values, including white dominance in American life. 
The growing strength of mainstream, non-violent voices in WN groups is not solely a result of the violent and radical image of some white supremacist groups, therefore I think this sentence should begin with "partly."
Many of these groups deny advocating white "Supremacy" and instead call for "Separatism" - often with the canard that 'mainstream' minority groups such as the NAACP and LULAC are "separatist" as well. 
It is not only true that many of these groups deny advocating white supremacy, many groups actually do not advocate white supremacy. This sort of not-so-subtle phrasing is part of what I object to. Is this to be an honest presentation of WNism, or a refutation of WNism? As for the "canard" statement, this has little to do with WNist belief, even if true. I've never heard a WN refer to the NAACP as a "separatist" group. I have many times heard from WNs the complaint that advocacy groups for non-whites are publically supported and given positive press, while advocacy groups for whites are automatically classified as "white supremacists." This is a quite salient distinction, no?
Many also reject the label of "Racist" for "racialist", and point to studies which they contend show clear disparities in "racial" abilities.
The WN view on race and racial science deserves it's own paragraph, not just the second half of a sentence. It's also worth explaining why many WNs reject the term "racist," if it's worth mentioning the rejection itself. Some may object to my proposed rewrite (in archive1), but in my experience the word "hatred" does not appear in dictionaries in the definition of "racism," while it does appear in the definition of the term in the vernacular.
It would also be nice to dispense with the not-so-subtly disparaging quotes around the term "racial."
American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens are two leading examples in the United States.
They're two examples of what?  This is poor writing.  The only logical conclusion is that the examples being cited either are being cited to support something that hasn't been stated, or they are being cited to support the last applicable idea put forward in the previous paragraph (i.e., Amren and CoC include the "canard that 'mainstream' minority groups" are separatist.  The former seems more likely since the latter is patently absurd and demands references.
In Europe, several far right political parties such as the British National Party, France's Front National, and the Austrian Freedom Party have won fairly wide support based on platforms widely seen as advocating racial separatism in addition to traditional nationalism.
I think the "widely seen" bit needs to be supported or withdrawn.  Just because the press says it doesn't make it so - the American public feels the same way, if the latest Pew study on mass media credibility is to be believed.
Jewish and Muslim peoples are rarely considered "white", even if they appear to be European.
If this is to be mentioned, an explanation is required.
Hispanics, Portuguese, and Italian people may or may not be considered white, based on regional backgrounds (Basque Spaniards and Northern Italians may be accepted while Sicilians and Puerto Ricans aren't). 
This passage is extremely problematic. First of all, Portugal and Italy are nations, not races, and currently neither nationality carries racially exclusive connotations. Swedish and Russian people "may or may not be considered white" too. So, the passage is nonsensical. Second, "Hispanic" is a very racially ambiguous term, and essentially includes a variety of racial groups whose membership in the group "Hispanic" essentially boils down to language and history, not to race. Third, the idea that Sicilians and Puerto Ricans are considered non-white by all WNs is simply wrong. Many WNs recognize that some Puerto Ricans are at least genetically white, and most accept Sicilians as white.
Put simply, this passage needs to go, it's far more wrong than right.
In white minority nations such as South Africa or some Latin American states, there are often arguments for a "white homeland" as well, and white Nationalism takes on a more literal meaning.
There are indeed arguments for white homelands in South Africa and some Latin American nations, but I fail to see how there WNism takes on a more literal meaning - explication is called for here.
Again, these aren't my only problems with the existing article, but I think we're moving in the right direction.
Regarding external links - deleting the links to WN and WN-sympathetic sites is simply reprehensible.  I'm no expert on the anti-WN presence on the Web, so I'll leave those links to others (I'd be bored and irritated by the inevitable accusations concerning "softball" anti-WN links anyways).  Before anyone removes the any pro-WN links provided, I'd advise a quick perusal of the number and nature of external links at the Zionism article for perspective: there are 21 of them (or there were as of June 10th), and fully two thirds of them are pro-Zionist.
Svigor 04:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of page as of 6-11 

message: who is disputing what, and what needs to be changed/added/removed/discussed so that it can be removed. Sam [Spade] 20:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You added the header; please do explain why. —No-One Jones 22:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, seeing as there is no objection at this time (myself included, I believe...) I have removed the header. Svigor, would you like to start implemeting your suggestions? Sam [Spade] 00:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer that I receive some feedback about my commentary above first.  Since I'm currently working on a WNist treatment of WNism at Wikinfo , I'm willing to be patient until it's finished.  In fact, I'd be willing to settle for a prominently displayed link to my Wikinfo article and caveat that WNists find the Wikipedia article highly objectionable (assuming that the Wikinfo article is allowed to remain unmolested). Svigor 21:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd be okay with putting the link with the others at the end of the article, say at the top of the pro links, or better yet in a separate section with a header like, "other definitions of WNism" or somesuch.  As long as it's easily noticeable, and labeled something like "Wikinfo Internet Encyclopedia definition of WNism." I just want a good article from a less hostile p.o.v. readily available to people who view this article.  Perhaps a link early in the text somewhere, in a sentence like "for a more sympathetic treatment..." etc. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like my comments interspersed, say so and I'll move 'em.  White Nationalism and white separatism are related, but quite distinct.  White Nationalists are people who want whites to start thinking like a group with a common identity and working identity politics like other races do.  White separatists (practically by definition WNs) are those who want white people to be allowed to create their own monoracial nations. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: There is no monolithic WN position on mixed-race marriages, but the overwhelming majority disapprove.  If you ask a more specific question I can give you a more specific answer.  I'm not aware of any links specifically about this, but a Google for "Jewish intermarriage assimilation" should find you a Rabbi or two whose opinions are congruent with many WNs in many ways. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute header 

message: I revised the introduction to the Lincoln quote.  First, there is no evidence in the quote that Lincoln was opposed to the civil rights movement; any claim is an anachronism, any way.  Second, as introduced the quote violates our Wikipedia: No original research policy.  This quote is an example of a primary source; the way it is placed in the article interprets it a particular way.  This is a perfect definition of "original research."  If we can cite secondary sources that argue that Lincoln was espousing the same views held by White Nationalists today, then we can say "According to X, Lincoln himself espoused the same ..." and provide a proper citation.  That is how to write an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein 03:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lincoln quote 

message: As I was searching through the internet I found a WN website that describes itself as "Pan Aryanism" and they call there organization the Pan Aryan National Front. In the past, WN's have only defined white as Germanic and Nordic people of Northern European decent, but this Pan Aryan WN group accepts non-European whites, such as Syrians, Lebanese, Turks, Iranians, North Africans, etc. The website for the Pan Aryan National Front is, http://www.panf.info/upload/index.php?styleid=1 , I thought this odd kind of WNism would be kind of interested for many people who work with this article.--Gramaic 19:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new kind of Whte nationalism?