Talk:White nationalism

Archives

• Talk:White nationalism/Archive 1
• Talk:White nationalism/Archive 2
• Talk:White nationalism/Archive 3

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler was not a White Nationalist. He was a German supremacist. Hitler in his books and speeches did not believe "all white people" to be equal or good. In fact if someone wants to look at the "Hitler youth" training manual whites are separated into distinct groups of good, bad, etc.

White nationalism is usually based on the fact that one is "white" Hitler's program was based on how Aryan/German one was. That's not White Nationalism at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.214.157 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with the second paragraph

After reading the second paragraph, I noticed that the text there describes White Supremacy, not White Nationalism. Though these views are often confused, and used interchangeably, they are, in fact, different. In addition to changing this section, I'd like to start a section highlighting the distinctions between this and other easily-confused ideologies. Mr. Kent (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope of "white nationalism"

To what extent does "white nationalism" entail nationalist ideologies not focused on a whole "white people" per se, but on specific national groups which are, to varying degrees, racially defined as white - in Europe, in Québec, in South Africa, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.24.182 (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the first sentence. Why does Leonard Zeskind's opinion inserted right in the first sentence as if it is academically and factually correct. Surely it can be placed somewhere else as being just another view.

QUOTE; "It has been argued by Leonard Zeskind that white separatism and white supremacism MAY BE considered subgroups within white nationalism "]. So not only is this is a clear opinion but he's also a biased author on this matter, his leftist-position can hold no ground here you need to put someone more non-biased, an individual without an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.24.223 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is a redirect from the "White Power" slogan, which was created in 1960s, in opposition to "Black Power". As such it has incongrous, ahistorical references to KKK: "Examples include the lynching of black people by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).". Shall we separate these?

Zezen (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Move from white nationalism to "aryan nationalism"

why was the page moved without any discussion? and against common use?--Львівське (говорити) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved back to correct title. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Jewish is not the same as Zionism or Israel

This paragraph initally is talking about how some white natioalits support Jewish intergrationg, but then strangely brings up how some white nationalists oppose Israel. Its as if the article usses "oppose Israel" as meaning the same thing as "oppose Jewish intergration". This is a clumsy and strange compariosn and should be changed. "Some white nationalists, such as Jared Taylor, have argued that Jews can be considered "white".[13] Though most white nationalists oppose Israel and Zionism, several white nationalists (such as William Daniel Johnson) have expressed support for Israel.[14]" -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.154.16.31 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Subgroups of white nationalism?

When I went to the webpage for nationalism "supremacy" and "separatism" are not listed as a subgroups. Why do these subgroups only exist for white? What specifically sets whites apart from other ethnic supremacist groups. I'm removing the second line. Not scholarly article to back up this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"What specifically sets whites apart from other ethnic supremacist groups", your Freudian slip is showing or is that too Jewish a term for you? Heiro 05:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

Uh there is no need to be so uncivil here. he brings out a good point. unless there is equality and its not equal when other groups on wikipedia that promotes seperatism, then of course its not equal and thus POV and must be changed.

If you want to, you can include jews like ROBERT WEISSBERG who for example is a white jewish seperatist and not supremacist, who allies himself with jared taylor, who does indeed condemns anti-semitism and includes jews in his organisation. 79.138.3.88 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The writers of this article are claiming it is white supremacist, so under their own assumptions I am asking the question of why these groups only exist for white. The answer: it's an pseudo-scholarly definition that carries no real meaning. Are we going to label Jewish nationalism Jewish supremacist as well? Of course not. Equating white nationalism to white supremacism is nothing but slandering an ideology through association. You might as well put a picture of gallery of Hitler photos on the page. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is run by those who have an agenda to attack white nationalism and turn it into something which it is not. It reveals the true bias of Wikipedia and it's pathetic unscholarly editors that try to masquerade as objective. Leftist garbage pretending to be something more. Malv (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works. If we didn't have sources that discuss white supremacism, then we couldn't use the term. Wikipedia editors didn't make up the term. Scholars write about white supremacism. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how wikipedia works. we are made to have a balanced neutral description of it. not liking sources and dismissing said scholars does not make them non-scholars. that said we are also here to debate whenver to put them into subgroups or not. jewish white nationalists ARE white nationalists.They are for every white countries but with whites ruling said country. like israel is. and yes, sources from political correct and biased sources certainly does not constitute RELIABLE SOURCES. it also states that the sources must have some line proving that they say they are superior. I supose the united nations saying zionism is racism and that many countries still do constitutes that jewish nationalism=jewish supremacism? no of course not. the vote in the general asembly against israel does not mean reliable or correct. so it certainly wouldnt constitute white nationalism either. they are seperatists like jews and arabs are. 2 states not 1 state, they strongly believe they must be seperated and live peacefully in each NATION, hence why they are NATIONALISTS. so it would be correct and equal to put into the article in this said group. if other groups has, so must this.if its not, then it means whatever sources one has on white nationalism and seperatism is indeed heavely biased and thus not RS to write about. And yes, scholars that are white nationalists do indeed constitute reliable sources if they are verifiable and not anti-semitic. Michael levin and Jared taylor are RS unless somehow they cant be verifiable.

And no source says hitler was a white nationalists, he was a german supremacists and german nationalists, but not for all white countries. unless the russians, poles and jews that were killed in the concentration camps are somehow not white? so no he wasnt for WN. Thus should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.104 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Steven L. Akins, BLP violations and semi-protection

I've semi-protected the articles because of IPs from Perth trying to add Akins name. This may have something to do with this thread at the white supremacist Vanguard forum, where Akins himself says "I am not an activist figure nor do I have any sort of prominent standing in the movement." Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It definitely is to do with the thread, the last post in that thread a little while ago says "Alas, Akins, my repeated attempts to add your good self to a list of Prominent Individuals in WN on Wikipedia (using a variety of different IP addresses), over the last week, have all been shot down in flames. Apparently, you just don't rate." Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Akins has been trying to add himself (under 'Steven Akins') to Wikipedia under a pseudonym, 'Ben Abramson': http://whitenations.com/showpost.php?p=13828&postcount=14

I quote:

Just to test this theory out, a few days ago I created a Wikipedia editor account under the name Ben Abramson (I wanted it to sound Jewish to see if they would let what I did stand).

After registering as Ben Abramson, I then set out to create a new article on myself (Steven Akins) citing myself as an anti-Semitic White Supremacist who runs the website The Way I See It on which I espouse my anti-Semitic, racist, White Supremacist views and philosophy.

In creating the article, I carefully followed the format used in the writing of the article on Don Black, and cited my website, as well as comments other people have made about my racist views on their own websites and blogs, and kept everything factual and to the point.

Within minutes I was notified by another Wikipedia editor that my article had been tagged for "speedy deletion."

I responded as Ben Abramson by saying that I felt the article should be left alone because it was about a public figure (author) who is anti-Semitic and a self-described White Supremacist that runs a website promoting racism, anti-Semitism, and White Supremacy.

Within less than an hour after I had written it, the article was deleted - gone - vanished without a trace, never to be seen or heard from again.

Why?

Because Steven Akins isn't a part of the controlled opposition - I'm the real thing, and they want to keep people who are the real thing as obscure and out of sight as possible while promoting their operatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.219.26.67 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol. It was speedy deleted as "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Any article about you would have to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Your continued attempts to promote yourself on Wikipedia don't seem very successful, do they? Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC

BAn 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 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

History of White Nationalism

I'd like to know what the general consensus is here about the beginnings of "White Nationalism" and why certain groups have not been linked to this page. The groups discussed in the article seem to be newer groups which expressly call themselves "White Nationalist." The KKK is not linked from this page, although it is from the KKK page to here. As far as earliest origins go, I would honestly mention the fact that the United States of America was very explicit in the Naturalization Act of 1790, saying only "free white persons" of "good moral character" could become citizens. That sounds like "White Nationalism" to me. That was more or less strictly adhered to until the 1868 14th Amendment. Even then, the Bhagat Thind case in 1923 determined that non-whites still could not become naturalized citizens. At any rate, the 1790 act must be the first example of being "White" as a crucial determinant of citizenship in world history. That has to count for something on this topic.

Also, should we really be including German National Socialism under this topic? Certainly race played a central role in NS ideology and citizenship, but the emphasis was quite different. I'd be hesitant to include any European nationalist movements under the category "White Nationalism" because they are typically much more focused on their individual ethnic designations. On the other hand, Rockwell's American Nazi Party should be included since it's basically old-fashioned White Nationalism with the added inspiration from NS Germany. In general, I think it'd be worthwhile to have separate headings for the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and describe the various past and present manifestations of White Nationalism in the said countries. What say ye? ElkanahTingley (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Scope of "White Nationalism" II

I'm also very uncertain about some of the groups characterized on this page as "white nationalist." Not all European far-right or nationalist groups with an acknowledgement of race = "White Nationalism." Certainly a group that declares "Keep Denmark Danish!" or "Russia for the Russians!" shouldn't be lumped in with WN only because they are right-wing and anti-multiculturalism. Also, groups that are pro-(insert native European ethnic group), anti-multiculturalism, AND acknowledge common bonds with other Europeans...doesn't = WNism, though I see how it can get muddled. WNism, to my mind, is most easily identifiable in the post-colonial countries. Throwing together National Socialism, various European Ethno-Nationalisms, and White Nationalism seems a bit like painting with a very big brush. We might as well just have one huge page called "Race-Related White/European Far-Right". Thoughts? ElkanahTingley (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

comparing this article to Zionism?

I was reading up on several types of Nationalism here on Wikipedia, and I couldn't help but notice that while White Nationalism was presented extremely negatively here, the article on Zionism portrayed Jewish Nationalism as an extremely positive movement. Perhaps we could work to make this article a little less biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.228.248 (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me to be the case that the 'Zionism' article is fairly unbiased and balanced. The second paragraph of that article mentions criticism of the concept, et cetera, and this seems to me to be an acceptable level of neutrality. Certainly, nobody is going to be indoctrinated by reading the Wikipedia article on 'Zionism'. Meanwhile, this article only comes off as possessing a negative tone because of the stigma associated with the terms 'anti-semitism' 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. From what I have ascertained, those who subscribe to the ideals of White Nationalism do not see any issue with these terms and do not view them negatively; certainly not to the extent, I think, that a rewrite is merited. I would certainly be happy to discuss this, though, if you really feel that there is an issue with the page. Kapitulasjon (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Notable individuals" additions

An ip added a list of names to the article under "notable individuals". Spotchecking the list, 2 of 2 I checked had nothing in their articles about white nationalism. I reverted the addition (saying it was a BLP concern), but I was reverted by Volunteer Marek (who said that only one was alive, and that one was applicable). I can concede that it isn't a BLP concern if none of them are alive, but that doesn't address my actual concern: how are these names actually relevant to the article? It's not as if we should take no care before placing names of deceased people in such an article. I checked another name, and again found no mention of white nationalism anywhere in his article. Which of these people are actually related to the topic? Edmond Barton, Jim Saleam and Alfred Deakin don't appear to be.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction, Jim Saleam apparently is a white nationalist, although nothing was written about it in his article. I added a sentence to that effect. I still don't know how "notable" he is to the topic, however, considering no one even thought to include it in his article until now. Given that, I don't see why he should be included on this list... and the others seem even less appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson is also alive, and also has nothing in her article about white nationalism (anti-multiculturalism doesn't mean white nationalism, necessarily). I'm re-reverting per BLP. Please discuss here before reintroducing these people.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm, can you explain how Joseph Goebbels or Heinrich Himmler or George Lincoln Rockwell don't qualify for inclusion? Note none of these are LPs. [1]. Ok, I get that this article should really be a redirect to White supremacism or whatever, the present title being essentially a weasel code word for that, but these guys qualify. Volunteer Marek  00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

White nationalism and white supremacism are technically different things. The labels are often used interchangeably, but they aren't actually the same. It's also worth noting that this isn't a category or a list where we can enumerate every one; the section is for a few notable white nationalists - the most significant. I expect all 3 of those people might fit here, but do we have any source at all saying that they are "notable white nationalists"? Are they discussed in any literature focusing on white nationalism? Either would suffice, but I think we should avoid inserting names without a source. My concern was that none of the names (aside from Rockwell) added had a source, or any mention of white nationalism in their articles either... but I only reverted because of the BLP concern (and some of the names seem unlikely to be related at all). Those 3, on the other hand, are probably good candidates. If you're familiar with the topic, I wouldn't revert their addition, but I think it's generally a bad precedent to set adding content without sources, so I'd strongly prefer to see a citation first (ideally one added to their article). Thanks for commenting here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

White Nationalism, Separatism, Supremacy

These terms are used in different ways by different scholars. I suspect the best we can do here is present a variety of views.Chip.berlet (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The practical effect of following that route has led to the situation where Scalise was recently claimed to have spoken to a "White Supremacist" organization, when a look at an archive for the EURO website clearly shows that neither "supremacist" nor "separatist" goals are espoused. (Where those news organizations got the WS label is a mystery.) For that matter, I'm hard-pressed to even justify labelling EURO as being "white nationalist": What does that mean? If a person is white, but he isn't a supremacist, and he isn't a separatist, what exactly is he? He's just "white", right? Even calling him a "white nationalist" can be misleading: A person who does not wish to form a separate country cannot be labelled a "nationalist". No, "the best we can do here" is identify the various misrepresentations that are being made about these terms, cease the lies, and accurately label people and organizations to the best of our ability. Frysay (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cf. Nazi Germany and Slavs

In the paragraph it is stated:

• "Slavic peoples, such as Russians and Poles, were considered Untermenschen instead of Aryan."

This is certainly an error, which you should be clear if you look at main official Nazi documents. In the Ahnenpass it is stated that "wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian". Source: Christopher J. Wells (1 January 1990). Deutsch: Eine Sprachgeschichte bis 1945. Walter de Gruyter. p. 447. ISBN 978-3-11-091484-9.
Cornelia Schmitz-Berning (Walter de Gruyter publishing house) quotes Nazi documents:
!To be of Aryan heritage everybody is considered who does not have –- in the perspective of the German people –- alien blood. Above all Jews and gypsies are aliens, even if they live in Europe; then alien are the Asian and African races, the Australian aborigines, the Indians of the Americas; whereas an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or Czech, or a Pole or Italian, if they don't have such alien blood, must be considered to be Aryan, no matter whether he is living in his homeland, or in East Asia, or in America, whether he is a citizen of the USA or a South American Free State."
(Source: Cornelia Schmitz-Berning (2007). Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (in German). Walter de Gruyter. p. 61. "Arischer Abstammung ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volke aus gesehen, fremdrassigen Blutseinschlage ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraume lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z.B. ein Engländer oder Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat oder in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der U.S.A. oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.")

So what do we have here? No doubt there are conflicting sources. I think for the sake of truth we should mention both conflicting sources. Sincerely, 84.187.237.219 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The quote you refer to is in relation to citizens of other countries not other ethnic groups. Ethnic Poles weren't considered Aryan by Nazis. Ahnenpaß was used to prove German ancestry.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I wrote - you're simply wrong on this one - the Germans living in those countries were called Germans by the Nazis, they were not called Czechs, or Poles, which is absolute obvious nonsense if you read articles, documents ... whatever from that time. So this statement from the official document does speak about ethnic Czechs, Poles etc. The Nazis did not equate Germans and Aryans -- it was called Aryan certificate. And that's why in the Nuremberg laws is was written about "German blood" and "related blood" (German: "artverwandtes Blut"). Sincerely, 84.187.237.219 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Aryan pass was used to prove German ancestry.The sentence you mentioned doesn't speak about "ethnic Poles" which is quote different from a Polish citizen(of whom many pre-1939 were Germans). Ethnic Poles as it is widely known were considered by Nazis to be subhuman non-Aryans targeted for slavery and extermination.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You simply state "widely known" -- if you read primary sources from that time -- what you call "ethnic Germans" are by the Nazis referred to as "Germans" -- no matter wheter they live as a minority in Poland. "Ethnic Poles" are by the Nazis called "Poles". It is simply obvious nonsense if you read original sources to expect to find Nazi quotations talking about "ethnic Poles" ("ethnische Polen") or ("ethnische Deutsche"). When the Nazis said Poles, they meant Poles etc.
Have you heard of the film stars Pola Negri (Polish) and Lída Baarová? They were also film stars in Nazi Germany. Now do you really think the Nazis would make "Untermenschen" film stars. It's simply an error.
Sincerely, 84.187.237.219 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I am afraid you are pursuing Original Research. Do you want me to quote 15 or 20 scholarly sources stating that Poles were considered non-Aryan subhumans by Nazis? I will be happy to oblige. As to films-proves nothing, we make movies with dogs, doesn't mean we consider them human. Nazis made movies with Poles it doesn't mean they considered them human either.You aren't seriously claiming that Poles or Russians weren't considered as subhumans by Nazis are you?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There are several points to this: first -- it's disingenuous to only let one side of the sources be heard and simply remove the others -- and what's more -- do those sources quote primary sources? Shouldn't we for the sake of truth demand the primary source where this is supposedly written? Where is the German text?! I read about instances where a journal simply quoted a newspaper article, which itself did not name its sources and did not provide the original wording. Is this what you call scholarly search for truth. Do you even care whether this article sheds a true light?! Why on earth would you remove a primary source which even has the original German wording? I read many original sources from that time. I read primary sources by Nazis -- professors who were members of the NSDAP and wrote on these issues -- I have no doubt that the conception which is now presented here in this Wikipedia article does not represent truth.
Answering your last question: I'm absolutley serious that's it's pure nonsense that Poles and Czechs were considered subhuman by the Nazis. Do you think Goebbels would have a "subhuman" lover Lída Baarová? Do you think Hitler would be excited about a "subhuman" film star Pola Negri? 84.187.237.219 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Of course, people do get excited about dogs, horses, cats, and zoophilia exists. No doubt sexual intercourse with Slav was especially exciting to Nazis considering the taboo surrounding the subject and belief they were interacting with animalistic creatures. The massive rapes committed by Wehrmacht on millions of Soviet women in WW2 perhaps can be explained by that.But like said before, you are engaging in Original research. "side of the sources be heard and simply remove the others" We usually don't consider revisionist and Nazis to be reliable sources. "sheds a true light?! " Wikipedia isn't about showing "true light", I suggest you read on its rules. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to say that you don't quote Nazis -- the very parts you added included quotations.
Again -- if what this article now maintains was true -- then there should be primary sources -- where one can read the German original words, which were supposedly said/written?! -- if it was true, those sources could be mentioned. And they should be mentioned. What I DO KNOW ARE primary sources that say something else, contradicting information. And to my astonishment -- they are simply removed. You rather remove an original source than tolerate information you deem "revisionist". (Would you allow Wikisource to publish original documents if they contradicted your secondary sources?!) For me this is proof that you are not mainly interested to present here a true picture, which is actually sad. So I'll leave it here. 84.187.237.219 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is "The rise of the Internet provided an expansion of audiences for white nationalism.[3]" significant?

The first paragraph states "The rise of the Internet provided an expansion of audiences for white nationalism." Sure it did, but then again the Internet provided an expansion of audiences for tens or even hundreds of thousands of other subjects. Isn't this so obvious as to be too obvious? I will delete. It does not add to the article in any signficant way. Frysay (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an article about "tens or even hundreds of thousands of other subjects." That said, as the lede is meant to summarize the article, and since there is no actual content pertaining to the online presence of white supremacists white nationalists, I reluctantly agree that it can be removed. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you write in, and then line-out, the words "white supremacists" when that wasn't in any way involved with my edit? Frysay (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Because "white nationalist" is a damage-control euphemism. Nothing to do with you. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to understand that reasoning. A look at the WP article for "black nationalism" shows that it contains, in the lede, "There are different indigenous nationalist philosophies but the principles of all Black nationalist ideologies are unity and self-determination—that is, separation, or independence, from European society." In contrast, the article "white nationalism" contains no equivalent phrasing. The implication is that a black (or a black organization) cannot be called a "black nationalist" unless he advocates separation or independence from other races, but in stark contrast whites do not have to advocate any such separation or independence from other races in order to be labelled "white nationalist". (Indeed, it is almost as if, to some people, it is impossible for a person to be "white nationalist" without also being called "white supremacist". Is that true, also, for "black nationalists"? Apparently not.)

The problem, in WP:European-American Unity and Rights Organization, is that for about twelve years (2002-December 27, 2014) virtually no media entity referred to EURO as being "white supremacist", and WP referred to it only as being "White Nationalist". At some point days before Dec 27, 2014, a liberal noticed a long-ignored fact: Stephen Scalise had attended a meeting, originally thought to have been a meeting of EURO, although days it was later understood to be a meeting of a different organization in the same Hotel, a few hours before. Smelling political blood, an organization ("Occupy Democrats") sent out a press release, announcing that Scalise attended a "white supremacist organization" meeting. After reading dozens of such media articles, I saw that none of them actually justified or explained by EURO constituted a "white supremacist" organization. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/06/what-we-know-about-steve-scalise-attending-white-p/) In that context, the term "white supremacist" seems to have been used primarily as an epithet, and for that having a consistent definition wasn't considered necessary.

Apparently this press release prominently contained the words "white supremacist", so over the next week or so hundreds of media organizations following that lead began to declare EURO a "white supremacist" organization, when they had apparently never so-labelled EURO before. Indeed, EURO was only quite rarely mentioned, let alone labelled. Some WP editors, on WP:European-American Unity and Rights Organization have actually had the temerity to claim that these hundreds of references to "white supremacist" EURO are evidence of "consensus". Myself, I consider that to be utterly foolish: These organizations are displaying just about as much independent thought as a hundred orchestra-musicians are showing by following the direction of their orchestra-conductor.

I suspect that the source for this discrimination ("white nationalist" vs. "black nationalist") is PC, or "political correctness", a characteristic in which Wikipedia abounds. A good illustration of the effect of this is the WP:EURO article, in which people are trying to label the EURO organization as being "white nationalist" (or even "white supremacist"), despite the fact that the list of stated positions in that article in no way calls for "separation" or "independence". I think the issue is whether WP should continue to be PC (aka WP:BHLPOV; "Bleeding-Heart-Liberal Point-Of-View"), or whether it should actually follow the WP:NPOV policy. As painful, no doubt, as this change will be some of those affected. A look at this Talk page shows that the issue has been divisive for years.

To fix this problem, I believe it is necessary to change the as-stated definition of "white nationalism" to be consistent with that of "black nationalism". This will not only fix the problems that have been stated to exist for years here, but will also make the labelling of specific organizations such as EURO non-discriminatory and consistent. A person or organization should only be labelled "white nationalist" if it would be properly labelled "black nationalist" if the skins of those involved were of a different color. Does anybody object to this? Frysay (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, no original research. What is stated in another article has no bearing on this article. All content must be verifiable in reliable sources.- MrX 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of White Nationalist

A White Nationalist is a person who adheres to ideas of White Nationalism, not just someone who is both a nationalist and white. White people is also capitalized when used as an ethnic label and not just a color descriptor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nazism & white nationalism

Why are there a part about nazism in this article? Nazism were the ideology of the nazi party in germany. They belived the world were divided into higher and lower races, and the so called aryan race were the highest, with other words germans. They belived the russians and other slavs were udnermench. They had conspiracy theories about the jews, freemasons, johovas witnesses and so on. The jewish people were espacially hated because they belived their entire race where buisilly engaged in destroying the aryan race.

With other words, this isn't white nationalism. Slavs are white, freemasons are usually white, johovas witnesses are usually white, jews are usually considered white (they look the part and have intermarried a lot) and so on. So I don't understand what white nationalism has to do with nazism. It is the same kind of nationalism as any other, hence the word; white nationalism. This seems more like the usual anti-white nonsens.

And again. Why can't we have a normal defention of nationalism on this page? There are two versions; the modernist view and primordialism. Why can't both be used? Why only have the typical modernist view (which I find orwellian)?Olehal09 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your personal views of who is an isn't white, and the reasons why you don't think Nazism and White Nationalism has anything in common. In wikipedia however we try to follow only published arguments written by experts. Experts generally see close relaiton between Nazi race ideology and different forms of "white nationalism" both historical and present. If you want to remove material you will have to justify it based on not representing the published sources. The material you removed was sourced so to remove it you have to either argue that the text does not adequately represent the sources cited, or that the sources cited do not adequately represent the general literature on white nationalism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Then show it. Please. Because nationalism isn't the same as hating anyone else or having a belife of beeing superior to others. Read the article about nationalism. I am so tired of this orwellian nonsens on this wikipedia page, and I'll personaly use much of my spare time if necessary. I do also want to get an answer on the other aspect I have written about. Olehal09 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, nationalism isn't the same thing as feeling superior or hating others, it just so happens that many nationalists (white and otherwise) do. And the literature on white nationalism reflects this, and is cited in the article. As for your other question, you can increase the odds of those aspects being included if you find sources that see that as relevant for describing white nationalism and present them here on the talk page. It is not other editors responsibility to find sources in support of your argument or provide additional sources in favor of content that is already sourced. Your time will be better spent by doing some research and providing more and better sources, than by revert warring.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

But I have already done that herr danske (I belive you're danish, I'm a norwegian). I've also the page number as requestet. They just seem to have a problem having the modernist and the primordialist view representet. Again, please, show me these sources (that white nationalism = a belife whites are superior to others and needs to rule). In this wikipage, every single form of white nationalist example were not based on this. The nazis on the other hand belived in the superiority of the aryan race, which is manly the germanians. The white slavs were undermench. They belived in conspiracy theories about the jews, freemaisons, jehova's witnesses and many other people.

If you want to include nazism, come with sources which states that it is the same. Because the sources used now don't say this. Olehal09 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, and not understanding what is being argued. No-one is saying that white nationalism and nazism is the same, and the article also doesnt say that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

But then; why are you incorporating nazism into the nationalism of whites? I've read the part about nazism, and no sources say it is white nationalism. And I know it have no place here, because the nazis were a mentally ill group basing their views on conspiracy theories and non prooven theories about race. Olehal09 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Because they are related historically and ideologically - with the common link that National identity and State should be organized in line with a concept of racial purity favoring a certain group of white people - what varies is the methods and the definition of who is sufficiently white. The obvious example of the close relation between the different ideologies is David Duke who is both a klansman, a former neonazi, a white supremacist and a selfdescribed white nationalist.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In what way are they related historically and ideologically? By the same rationale Chinese nationalism should be frowned upan as conected to nazism. The Japanese should also, especaially when considering their treatment of the Chinese. 5 million of them were taken as slaves in WW2, many were slaughtered, and even more died because of starvation. China were the country in the world with the highest civilian casualty. They belived themselves to be superior too, like their ally in Europe. Every nation is part of the nazi club, also Rawanda and Turkey. It's just ridiculus to draw lines between nazism and white nationalism. As stated before, nazism were riddled with theories of superiority, non prooven science and conspircay theories about different people.

When it comes to "racial purity" (again an orwellian way to conect it with nazism). Of corse nation is based on family and ethnic background. Nation = tribe (to some degree family).

I don't know much about David Duke. I read about him now and I can see that he was a former member of KKK and he don't describe himself as a white supremacist anymore. He is in his own words only interested in the wellbeeing of the white people in America, and says he is a white nationalist. Not beliving in violence, superiority or conquest. He is on the other hand an antisemite.

Anyway, I want you to find a source that says nazism is conected to white nationalism. Since the article don't have any. And your opinion isn't enough. Olehal09 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just leave the cited content in place and don't insert your opinion without supporting citatins and we'll be fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm tired of this orwellian nonsens. I'm not stoping, because this is not true. Nazism is not the same as white nationalism. If so, every kind of nationalism is conected nazism.Olehal09 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you intend to be disruptive. WP:BURDEN is on you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and as I've said. None of the sites or books refered to says nazism = white nationalism. Nazies hated whites the most actually; ref. the slavs and jews.Olehal09 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jews and Slavs weren't considered white back then and still aren't in some places. That said, please do not be disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So with other words; white nationalism is the same as nazism because the core of whiteness is the "aryan" germans. And since they murdered slavs because they were belived to be undermench, jews, freemasons, jehova's witneses and so on because of conspiracy theories. That means that white nationalists want that to. At the same time, to prefer and love your own people if you are white (white nationalism), it means that you also belive whites are superior to other races (mainly slavs and to some degree blacks), are violent (supremacist, because the nazis were), are engaged in conspiracy theories and so on. It is this kind of nonsens and orwellian dobbelthink that really make me wonder about this world. Olehal09 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Barely following what you're saying. But I'm gonna stop trying since you fail to provide any sources on the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As stated before; read the sources on nazism (under germany on this page). None of these sources say that white nationalism is the same as nazism. By the words: nationalism and the definition that has been made on the other wiki page, we know that this is to feel that you belong to a people or nation and that you love that nation. Either real or not. And therefore I don't understand why you have nazism on this page. When the sources aren't valid, I don't need to give you sources. Noone needs to prove nazism don't equal white nationalism. You have to proove the contrary with sources, and no there are none at present. Olehal09 (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As stated before, nobody says they are the same. It is true that nationalism in general is (at least in theory) not the same as supremacism, chauvinism, ethnic nationalism, or ethnocentrism, it's just that supremacists use "nationalism" as a euphemism (and nationalists tend towards some kind of supremacist ideology in practice, rarely being satisfied with their ostensible goals), just like "patriot" is a typical euphemism. White nationalism in particular, as a race-based "pan-movement" (striving to unite the whole "white race"), is a completely different beast from "normal" nationalism. But even "normal" nationalism is inherently problematic due to its divisiveness and (frequently) intolerance of multi-culturalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thereby, should nazism be represented in this article. Since it weren't white nationalism at all. And anyway, why is it wrong that a movement isn't pro multiculturalism? Olehal09 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nazism is the most extreme form of white nationalism. It is not the same as an ethnocentric form of white nationalism, but Nazism is seen by most scholars as a bloodline from of white nationalism based on the myth of an "Aryan race."Chip.berlet (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Anti-white movement

This article seem to be occupied by the anti-white movement, you can help by making it a little more neutral. There is not a clear link between Nazism, violence etc. and the white nationalism in itself. Most nationalist forces has some individuals who are violent, just like the green movement has violent individuals. Nazism were German nationalism and a hatred for slavs and jews. 129.177.38.35 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this one, piece by piece. First, to address "occupied by the anti-white movement." If this anon IP has adopted the view of "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white"[2] (and that's really the only time I've seen the phrase "anti-white"), then it's a safe bet they got it from some white nationalist/separatist/supremacist source, because that's who came up with that bit of nonsense. I'd remind 129.177.38.35 from Bergen University that WP:NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." NPOV does not mean "everyone gets to have their opinions represented, no matter what." In fact, the idea is to have Wikipedia pages be opinion-free, unless you've clearly labeled a thought as an opinion, and include a reliable source.

Second, "There is not a clear link between Nazism, violence etc. and the white nationalism in itself." Show me where in the article that is stated as fact, and I'll remove it myself.

Third, "Nazism were German nationalism and a hatred for slavs and jews." Great! So go edit the Nazism article. Rockypedia (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

- To put the term "anti" infront of something or someone, simply indicates that they are against them. Like anti-gay, anti-american, anti-british and so on.

- What I tried to do, were to make the start of this article about white nationalism, as a form of nationalism as any other. The facts is that this form of nationalism is no different from any other, but it do for some reason focus more on superiority, supremacy and violence. It includes nazism and so on. The term nationalism, does not mean you belive your people or nation are superior, some nationalists might think so, but that has nothing to do with the term. It can be informative to include some relevant tendancies in the white nationalist movement, but this should be a separate section. The start of an article should always explain the subject, not defamate. It would also be prudent to add some history of white nationalism. The EU were once (not anymore, now a multicultural project) a white nationalist project, because they want to make Europe and european peoples one nation. They didn't want separate nationalism, but one white nationalism.

- Nazis were germanic nationalists. They belived germanians were a superior race, the lowest races were Slavs (eastern Europeans), Jews and Africans (german nationalism, with a hatred toward different peoples/races). To claim that white nationalism (acording to the defentitions of nationalism and the academic reserch on the subject) is very simular to nazism is just fals.

- In the last part of your comment, you asked me to find the parts of the article that stated white nationalism had a link to nazism, violence, etc. I think it is quite obvius where you can read it, namely in the first part of this article.

129.177.179.164 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy and paste the most salient point, because you ignored it: WP:NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." NPOV does not mean "everyone gets to have their opinions represented, no matter what." Rockypedia (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And I will refer to the defention of nationalism. To the fact this article isn't represented fairly, and to my point, this article is occupied by the anti-white "movement". 129.177.179.164 (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of nationalism are irrelevant here by policy. This reminds me of editors who have argued that 'anti-Semitism' means anti anyone who is semitic. What this article is about is "white nationalism", and sourced need to discuss the phrase, not the individual words. And I haven't seen any anti-white editors here. Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Right

We should incorporate material from this into here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no generally accepted definition of what the alt-right is. Different authors are trying to put their own interpretation or spin, often politically motivated, on it. We need to keep this in mind when making statements about the alt-right. Many of the cited sources are political and come with an agenda. Also the large number of groups and ideologies all listed as alt-right is risible. Some of these groups, supposedly all alt-right, are ideological polar opposites. The idea that they have all been united by Donald Trump is patently ridiculous. Monarchists, Libertarians and the KKK all joining to elect Trump? Again, we need to vet the sources more closely and exercise greater care/commonsense in how we apply them. Some of the section on the alt-right reads like a weird far left conspiracy theory. Many of the groups/ideologies have no credible connection to white supremacism and I see little justification for their inclusion in the article at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources seem clear enough though and there's a decent variety of them here. The same material is on alt-right's page too. What, exactly, warrants its removal other than your personal interpretation? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

As I noted above, many of the sources are political and have an agenda. Some of the claims are conflicting and defy WP:COMMONSENSE like the claim that all of these often deeply conflicting ideological groups are all supporting Trump. The last time I checked the Libertarians loath Trump and think he is a fascist. I am pretty sure they are running their own guy for President. And Monarchists... really??? And what is the point of naming all of these groups or ideologies, most of which have nothing to do with White Supremacism in this article? It looks like an attempt to taint by association. In this case one that is highly tenuous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I do think the alt-right needs to be mentioned. But we have to be careful how it is done. And no group should be named in this article that doesn't have a credible connection to White Supremacism. -18:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel like fighting over this one but sources are allowed to be WP:BIASED. Getting sick of the way of edits recently around white supremacy articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

{{ec}{::How can there be an accepted definition of something that isn't official and is too new for academic study? It's important to understand that this isn't a group. It's something more amorphous. As for Libertarians, Peter Thiel is a prominent libertarian and a Trump delegate. I don't endorse the lead as it stands, but I think if we include alt-right we copy the main article. The editor who posted the first line was a sock. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

My recent revert of material from Metapedia

I'm checking out the licensing/copyright issue, but in any case I'm pretty dubious about copying from a bigoted site like Metapedia. Doug Weller talk 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely we dont want to duplicate text from there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Last paragraph of intro

This:

Critics have argued that ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist merely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote white separatism and racial violence.[6]

Is clearly heavily biased to have in a short introduction, However, I suspect that (as with many biased articles on conservative topics) people have defended it at length. Which debates should I look at before proposing its removal? Exercisephys (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, it would be heavily biased to have an introduction to an article on the controversial ideology of White Nationalism without mentioning the most prominent criticisms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The section summarizes the 'criticism' section of the article, per WP:LEAD. That section definitely needs attention, though, but removing the summary without any replacement would damage the lead of the article for non-neutral reasons. Looking for a fight right off the bat doesn't WP:AGF, so please try and explain the actual problems you see with the sentence. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree that you need to be more specific. Saying "that's biased" doesn't help. In what way is it biased? What do you propose as a replacement? Rockypedia (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: @Rockypedia: I don't think a neutral reader would need much explanation, but I'll give you my perspective. It's like having a three paragraph, seven sentence intro to the Marxism article that ends with the paragraph "Critics have argued that Marxism is a way for lazy people to get free stuff by killing rich people." I'm sure I can find you a bunch of critics that have said that, but it doesn't make it a neutral thing to include in a short lead. The phrase "critics have argued" also feels like WP:WEASEL to me.

Maybe we'd be better off with something like "Many groups and ideologies comprise white nationalism. Some are considered part of the establishment political system, while others are radical, extremist, or violent." That's more neutral and defensible. Exercisephys (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

To phrase it more briefly: that paragraph presents a strongly opinionated perspective on the topic without a counterpoint, and justifies this using weasel words. Exercisephys (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You think those are comparable examples? Comparing this to Marxism is a dead-end, for many reasons. One of which is that Marxism has a massive body of academic debate surrounding it from multiple perspectives: pro, con, and other. I don't think there's a lot of academics, outside of the tiny, very fringy, Radix Journal scene and similar, who defend white nationalism. The point of the lead is to summarize the body. Why would we leave this aspect out? The idea that white nationalism is an accepted part of "the establishment political system" is extremely controversial, and would need sources and explanation. Saying that the criticism mentioned is atypical or simplistic suggests a non-neutral assessment of the academic coverage of the topic, which is what Wikipedia relies on. You propose replacement is likewise non-neural, as very few independent sources categorize white nationalism as non-radical or non-extremist.

"Counterpoints" are not required or expected. That's not how WP:NPOV works. Inserting a counterpoint would be false balance. Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what's been said already: you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. I'd suggest you read it again. In particular, read the section titled "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance", as it's applicable to your attempts to edit the lead.

I also state that there's nothing dubious about the last line of the lead. There's three paragraphs of well-sourced criticisms in the body of the article, and the last line of the lead does a good job of summarizing those paragraphs - which is exactly what it's supposed to do. If you want the lead changed, you don't just change the lead - you edit the body of the article, with reliable sources, and then you summarize what's in the body. Check WP:LEAD for instructions on how to do this. Meanwhile, I'm removing that tag as it's unwarranted and I feel its only purpose is to introduce some false sense of doubt into the validity of the sentence. Rockypedia (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel like arguing about this further. At the very least, "critics have argued" is a textbook case of weasel words. It should be replaced with the names of specific critics you guys consider authoritative and worth mentioning. Exercisephys (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. This is a criticism that is so often and so frequently repeated that naming specific proponents would be a misrepresentation of the facts, making it appear as the criticism is tied to specific individuals, when in fact it is the mainstream view of the movement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I admit that white nationalism is more of a fringe/extremist ideology than I originally thought (the term is often applied to far-right groups, but it seems this is the media's mistake). However, your current section gives only two or three examples of critics supporting the above-mentioned claim. If many reputable political scientists indeed support this, I think we should change the lead to say "many critics argue". Exercisephys (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

For the millionth time, you don't just change the lead. That sentence currently accurately describes what's in the body in one good sentence. Change or add to the body, then talk about changing the lead. Rockypedia (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

White supremacy and Nazism

This quote from Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America is used to state that white supremacy draws much inspiration from the German Nazis:

The third major grouping includes three white supremacists who agree with most of what those in the separationist group say but have grafted onto their call for political separation a Social Darwinian and white supremacist ideology that draws much of its inspiration from the German Nazi movement of the 1930s.

Does anyone know of a second source for this? Based on what I've read, white supremacy is an abstract concept composed of very heterogeneous groups. This seems like an oversimplifying statement used to drop the word "Nazi" early in the article (although that word does probably deserve to be in the intro, in some context). Exercisephys (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

David Marcus of The Federalist

Milesian83 added the following with this edit, repeated for convenience:

David Marcus in The Federalist has suggested that this rise of this new brand of white nationalism and white identity has been abetted by an increasing tendency for social justice movements on the left to stigmatize whites, especially white working class men, in the media, academia, and pop culture.

I have removed it, because I do not think this one opinion piece is relevant to the entire topic. It also accepts certain highly controversial presuppositions as factual. The "increasing tendency for social justice movements on the left to stigmatize whites" is a controversial assessment, so using this opinion to introduce that claim is not WP:NPOV. This should not be presented as fact without much better sources. Marcus is not exactly saying that social justice warriors (used by him without apparent irony) are the cause of alt-right white supremacists, he is saying that both groups use parallel tactics which causes more polarization in the right. (Strangely, he barely goes into the possibility that it goes both ways.) It's also worth emphasizing that, whatever his opinions are, he's not at all endorsing or supporting the alt-right or the white supremacist talking-points he's discussing. He's not saying that white nationalism is justified by the left, but that actions of the left have fed the right. This is an opinion piece which makes a lot of bold, unsupported assumptions about liberal academia to support a lot of controversial claims. I don't think it's relevant to the entire topic, especially since it's a single opinion by a not-obviously notable pundit. If there are more sources discussing this view, maybe something could be compiled, but not based on this one source. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

References

The material should only be included if other sources took note, and probably only with attribution. The Federalist is not a particularly strong source. That said, the source could be use as additional citation for the last paragraph of the 'United States' section.- MrX 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016

Information is lacking on who the critics are in the following phrase:

Critics have argued that ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy

Recommended to add the template after the word 'Critics'

Pukcplzb (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The lead is intended to summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. The specific details are listed in the criticism section of the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible ideological/political editing by organizations or individuals

I think there are political/ideological organizations or individuals who are editing this page. It's not natural that the nationalsm of certain groups of people should be portayed this negatively. If you don't think they are evil or something. This article need serious reevaluation. 37.253.210.234 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This article shakes the foundation of Wikipedia by allowing White Nationalism to be defined by sample extremists.

This article does this:

• 1. Profile anyone who is a white nationalists as racists and a bad actor.
• 2. Cite references which identifying a few people as white nationalists, sometimes dead, and always extremists, without any attempt to discern if they are representative of a large fraction of the people that would identify themselves as white nationalists.
• 3. References given attempt to create the definition of White Nationalist, making it synonymous with White Supremacy, White separatist, Hitler, and the KKK which appears to be the mission in and of itself, even though other racist groups exist which would fit the definition fine.
• 4. No research or reference is made to determine if millions of Americans would identify themselves as, "White" and also as a "Nationalist" and are not racist.

Finally, English language matters. Hi-jacking the english language words "White Nationalist" is what this article does. This article even includes the words "Alt-Right" , a politically charged word I'm betting few readers would have ever heard prior to about 3 weeks ago.

Wikipedia is one of the few triumphs of the internet, I have contributed money to Wikipedia twice, unfortunately this article fails the wikipedia mission. It is not an information article, it is a blog one opinion quoting another, with absolute political agenda and viewpoint.

Wikipedia needs to examine carefully if this article fulfills Wikipedia's mission.

Josephleecanton (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:5P, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc... EvergreenFir (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph. And you evergreenfir should be ashamed to not take this seriously. 37.253.211.21 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)