Talk:White nationalism/Archive 4

This is not an oped piece

Phrases like, "which neither reached a consensus on racial categories nor is accepted by contemporary geneticists" have no place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral to the subject matter and not make arguments for or against. Said quotation is a subjection that makes a political point and does not define what a White Nationalist is, therefor it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.60.132 (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination of Black and White Nationalism

It seems to me that there are differences in the Black and White Nationalist wikipedia articles. The BN page features the African American Portal, which links to a large group of African cultural information. Why is WN not considered part of White Culture? Why does Black Culture seem to receive a preference?

EvanBittle (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be looked into. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Black and white nationalism may sound similar but they are not. BN simplistically stated is based on isolation and indepndance, WN is motivated by notions of superiority to non whites and is currently associated with active neo nazi politics. Also, defining this mysterious 'white culture' appears to be a challenge to the WS. An encyclopeia reflects the world, it doesnt create it. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also compare wikipedia's article on Zionism[1] -- which is benignly described as "a nationalist Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, calls for the self-determination of the Jewish people and a sovereign, Jewish national homeland."--Wittsun (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A separate state for whites

I reverted the edits on this issue. Most self-identified white nationalists do not advocate that white people move to a separate state, most of them do not advocate the creation of a separate white homeland in the northwestern US and Western Canada, and so far as I know not even the farthest fringes suggested that all white people should move there. White-homeland proposals do exist, in the US and South Africa, but their advocates are a 'minority within a minority'.Paul111 10:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi paul, that is incorrect. Almost all White Nationalists demand a separate sovereign nation for Whites only. Also, this means that most White nationalists are white separatists too. If you spend any amount of time on Stormfront, which I have, I am an active member on Stormfront, you will find that almost all White Nationalists demand an all-White nation. If you take the word "White Nationalism" and break it down, you will get this:

White Nationalism

White National

White Nation

The main goal of White Nationalism is for a White nation. For documentation of my membership on Stormfront, my username is Osmium14. For further evidence, I point you to the White Nationalist Position Statements here: www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223388

Position Statement 1 explicitly states the creation of a White homeland that is free from non-Whites.

Osmium14 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And where would they put this 'white' nation, with its approximately one billion inhabitants? Where is the evidence of support for this option?Paul111 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We have not determined the location of our future White nation. However, Europe or North America would be good candidates. Evidence for the demand of a separate sovereign nation?

1) The White Nationalist Position Statements that I linked above talks explicitly about an all-White nation.

2) Just go on Stormfront and talk to the other White Nationalists there, most of them will tell you that White Nationalism is about having an all-White nation. Like I said, it is the main goal of White Nationalists. One of the reputable members such as MuadDib, JohnJoyTree, David Duke, Don Black, or others would agree. Osmium14 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The demand that an existing nation should be white, is not the same as a demand that a new white nation be created. That is what the section is trying to explain. Polish nationalism was about creating a Polish nation-state, as national homeland for all Poles. By the same logic "white nationalism" would imply creation of a vast new state, uniting all white people. If that was what it advocated, then this article should say so - but the evidence won't support that description.Paul111 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

White Nationalism does imply the creation of an entirely NEW nation. Although, some WNs wish for an existing nation to be all-White, this is not the main objective. The main goal of White Nationalism is the creation of a new nation for Whites only or the dissolution of an existing nation into smaller entities, each small piece would be an independent nation within itself. Thus, we emphasize the birth of an all-White nation. Osmium14 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the wording on this issue. There is no evidence that the majority of US white nationalists reject their American identity in this way, or that they want to move to British Columbia, or that any substantial number of white nationalists want to create a white superstate. There is no evidence that white nationalists in other countries reject their national identity either, in fact most are aggressively patriotic and chauvinistic. Wikipedia has criteria of notability and accuracy, and proposals by very small groups, and individual views, merit no more than a mention in an overview article.Paul111 09:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So you basically didn't read the White Nationalist Position Statements. The majority of U.S. Wihte nationalists prefer to create a White superstate separate from the non-Whites. Osmium14 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the statements themselves, but judging by the [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?t=223388 cover letter], it appears that they are the personal ideas of one Stormfront contributor. Based on that document, how can we say what the majority of WNs favor? At most it is what its author and some forum posters agree on. -Will Beback 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul111 is confused about White Nationalism. The British nationalists, French nationalists, and German nationalists aren't WHITE nationalists. The BNP (British National Party) promotes a Britain for white Britons though. The BNP disagrees with many issues of White Nationalists in general such as creating a nation for all Whites; the BNP espouses the idea of a nation for the native British people and ONLY for native BRITISH people. White Nationalism, on the other hand, is for the creation of a separate state for Whites only. Here is a FAQ from a very reputable member of the White Nationalist movement, his name is YGGDRASIL, he speaks for many White Nationalists, just read up on him on Stormfront and on his webpage: http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-06.htm and here's an excerpt of the first question:

1. Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

Will Beback, I know JohnJoyTree posted his White Nationalist Position Statements, one by one, on the forum, for everyone to vote on, and thousands of White Nationalists voted on the position statements. You can go to the link I gave above, and look in the 2nd post where he lists the statements. These statements can be considered as what "White Nationalism" is about. It is a folly and inaccuracy to think that "White Nationalism" doesn't imply a nation-state. Paul111 does not know what White Nationalism is, nor is he a White Nationalist himself. I am a White Nationalist and I've been with the movement for over 8 years, since 1998.

To say that White Nationalism is not about creating a nation is like saying you like to go swimming without getting wet. It is stupendously illogical. The whole idea of White Nationalism is about creating a nation for Whites to live in. Wikipedia needs to reflect the truth and this article needs to be edited for accuracy. I have provided abundant evidence for my case. Osmium14 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Picking one statement at random, I see that 169 Stormfront subscribers voted, about 88% agreeing with the proposal. We can certainly say that the majority of Stormfront voters support these proposals, but they are not necessarily a cross-section of Stormfront subscribers much less of the whole international White Nationalism movement. We all know that the validity of polls of this type is very low. -Will Beback 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, that is a baseless accusation without foundation. The polls do represent the general opinion of a majority of White Nationalists. And so does YGGDRASIL's WN FAQ. The majority of White Nationalists in the world do espouse the creation of a nation for Whites only. To mention White Nationalism without affirming the idea of a separate nation is slander and disinformation. If we picked at random any White Nationalist in the world, he or she would agree that this movement is about creating an all-White nation. This is common knowledge to anyone active in the movement. If you believe otherwise, I want to see evidence that the majority of White Nationalists don't espouse the idea of an all-White nation. Osmium14 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The accusation is not baseless. I checked and none of the statements polled more than a couple of hundred votes. Please show me where you find "thousands" of responses. Also, since when is Stormfront the only WN forum? The plain fact is that there's no way we'll ever know what the majority of WNs think. -Will Beback 05:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I again clarified the text, pointing out that a segregated whites-only zone is not a nation. The article should stick to standard terminology, and I emphasised the commonalities and differences with other nationalist movements. I also added that is is difficult to judge the degree of support for any option. The only sources are forums and websites, and a 'movement' website might be the work of one individual. But given the amount of patriotic rhetoric, and the emphasis on the heritage of white Americans, I think it is clear that most US white nationalists don't seek to abandon their American national identity in favour of a giant White-o-stan. That helps put them in historical perspective, since there is a long tradition of 'white-America' politics, and comparable traditions in other countries.Paul111 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To have a Wikipedia article on White Nationalism, without stating that WN is about the creation of a White nation is tantamount to talking about swimming without getting wet. This article is a disgrace to White Nationalism and Wikipedia's tradition of accuracy and non-biased factual information. White Nationalism does NOT equate to American nationalism. It has no "American" identity present. The desire to retain an "American" identity is ABSENT. We are not White American nationalists, we are WHITE Nationalists. An American identity would be present in American nationalism, not White Nationalism. Notice when you go to www.stormfront.org, look on the top-left of the window it says "White Pride World Wide" because White Nationalism is a worldwide movement, not an American one. The request for a segregated "Whites-only" zone is not generally present either, most White Nationalists demand the creation of an entirely NEW nation for Whites only. A segregated Whites-only zone would be a logical stepping stone to an eventual White nation though. But it is not the main goal of White Nationalism. Also, White Nationalism is not "White America" politics. Show me evidence of the tradition of "White-America" politics. There may be a historical perspective and comparable traditions, but they do not relate to White Nationalism specifically. They are isolated events that bear no relationship to the current White Nationalist group. Anyone spending even a small amount on Stormfront will immediately realize what I'm saying. I am editing this travesty of an article to reflect accuracy and truth, rather than libel and slanderous disinformation. I encourage Paul111 and everyone else to go to this "Beginners Guide to White Nationalism" and scroll down to the "White Nationalist Solution" part and read the articles listed there. It will explain to you what White Nationalism is about. <nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?t=324762 Osmium14 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'Beginners Guide to White Nationalism' gets a grand total of three Google hits. Like any forum post, it is inherently non-notable unless it attracts support. It is not, in itself, evidence for any political movement. There is no evidence for a widespread total rejection of American identity among US white nationalists. Segregated zones are not a nation, and proposals for segregating the United States are not in themselves a proposal to create a new nation. It is nationalist to seek a new and separate nation-state in the western USA and Canada, but there is no evidence of substantial support for that option. Wikipedia is not a forum, and the purpose of this article is to describe white nationalism, in the context of nationalist ideology in general.Paul111 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you insist on misrepresenting White Nationalism. Where is your evidence that we only demand segregation within the USA? Most White Nationalists, if not all, demand the creation of a NEW nation for Whites only. Spend a few minutes around on Stormfront and you will quickly get the evidence you need. Why do you insist on this inaccurate description of White Nationalism on Wikipedia is beyond me. Can you at least back up your "claims" with some evidence? Why am I the only one providing evidence? Dr. William Pierce and his articles are widely-read by White Nationalists throughout the country. It takes only a minute to understand the White Nationalist movement. The fact that you still haven't understood it is a testament to your stupidity. I already provided ample evidence with the White Nationalist Position Statements which were voted on by hundreds of people PER position, so if we add up the hundreds, we get thousands of votes for the complete position statement. If you don't think thousands of votes is enough evidence, then there is something wrong with you. It is your turn to provide evidence for your claim now. Or I shall submit this case to Wikipedia to be mediated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation Osmium14 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

William Pierce described himself as an American. So do most other white nationalists in the USA. There is no evidence that a majority of white nationalists have abandoned their national identity as Americans. The fact that they seek to segregate the United States does not make them a separate nation. In discussing nations, nation-states, and nationalism, this article should use acepted terminology, and also match the usage at those three articles. The fact that a group of white Americans want to live in a whites-only zone does not, in itself, make them a 'white nation'. The section on relationship to nationalism does note, that a fully-segregated state would no longer be a nation-state, since the national unity has disappeared.

Online polls at one forum are not evidence, and the voter totals can not be added up since the same people may be voting in successive polls. Additionally, sources quoted by Osmium14 often contradict the interpretation he gives to them. For instance, the White Nationalist FAQ by 'Yggdrasil' explicitly identifies white nationalists as European-Americans, and proposes the segregation of the United States by Congressional districts. It does not state that whites are non-Americans, and it does not identify a new territorial homeland for them. The suggestion that most US white nationalists have ceased to feel American, and are prepared to withdraw from the United States and leave it to non-whites, is inherently unlikely. With a few exceptions, the reverse seems true: they think whites are the real Americans, and that non-whites don't belong there. I suggest that users who are interested in this issue read the articles on Basque nationalism and Breton nationalism, as examples of what a separatist nationalist movement entails. (The comparison could be added to this article, to help clarify things).Paul111 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront is a World Wide forum for White Nationalists everywhere, not just in the USA. If you need further evidence that we demand the creation of a new nation, whether using existing territory from the USA or not does not matter, it is a new nation for Whites only. There is NO EVIDENCE that the majority of White Nationalists demand to live in a "segregated Whites-only" zone within the United States. The author Carol Swain, a black female, has written a book on WN. Her book is called "The New White Nationalism..." and also another book from her is "Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America." These books have quotes from the leading White Nationalists such as Jared Taylor, Don Black, David Duke, and others. The whole point of the movement of White Nationalism is for the creation of a White nation. Your links to Basque nationalism and Breton nationalism are irrelevant! We have a common saying in WN, it is "Our Race is Our Nation," and this means the rejection of any form of "American" identity. 'Yggdrasil' states in his FAQ in the 2nd question and 1st question that WNs intend to create our own nation,

Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/whitenat.htm

I do not agree with some parts of his FAQ (such as a new nation for Whites and a segregated zone for Asians within the "White nation), and this FAQ is old, from 1994 I presume from what I can remember. The White Nationalist Position Statements are better suited as the almost near-perfect opinion of White Nationalists everywhere. I have private messaged Don Black, David Duke, and others about the WN position statements. Also, 'Yggdrasil' posted in the thread for the original position statements. There is abundant evidence that we WNs do want to create a new nation for ourselves only, not living in a segregated Whites-only zone within the USA. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ME WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE of White Nationalism promoting YOUR IDEA. For the meantime, I am submitting this to be mediated by Wikipedia. Osmium14 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any white nationalist ideas, and therefore nothing for white nationalists to promote. The purpose of this article is to describe white nationalism, and not primarily for white nationalists, but for others. The appropriate theoretical perspective is the theory of nationalism, and comparisons with other nationalist movements. That will go some way toward neutrality, and prevent it being used as a propganda vehicle. Wikipedia is not a forum where white nationalists talk to each other, about what they think is the true version.

If the majority of US white nationalists turn their back on the United States, in the way that Timothy McVeigh did, then that would be a very significant development, and would deserve a prominent place in this article. But there is no evidence of this, and in the absence of reliable surveys of white nationalist majority opinion, Occam's razor suggests that the least unlikely view be attributed to them. The section can be re-arranged to start with the minority who do want to fully secede from the USA, and that will clarify the position of those who consider themsleves 'white' but still American.Paul111 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The comparisons with other nationalist movements are warranted, however, they must be used in perspective. Since this is not American nationalism, we do not have any affiliation with an American identity, or a "White American" one. This article is simply erroneous. Your refusal to submit to your errors is appalling. The majority of White nationalists (NOT JUST US White Nationalists) do not care about the United States or America. There is evidence in the WN position statements, WN FAQ, and with the opinion of the major leaders of White Nationalism. This section needs to reflect reality: the MAJORITY of White Nationalists do want to fully secede from the USA, to create their own nation either using the existing territory of the USA or completely new territory somewhere else. Osmium14 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The sections have been re-arranged, rewritten, and the 'race' section combined with the 'definition' section. Criticism and response were moved to the criticism section. The article now says explicitly, that there are no reliable sources for how many white nationalist support which version.Paul111 11:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I current have sources in the form of literature that I can cite in this article. One book is Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America by Carol M. Swain & Russ Nieli. The book is published by Cambridge University Press in 2003. Here is the Amazon link and Cambridge link. However, I don't know how to cite using Wikipedia yet, and don't have time to learn it. I will be adding in new material some time in the future. -Osmium14 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

US census

hello. i wanted to explain my deletion about the revert i made dealing with hispanics in the US. first, most 'hispanics' are not from spain, so that was one problem. second, white nationalism is not a US invention, so i really think the entire part about the census is irrelevant. census and prison population statistics are often a source of confusion. the census takes into account 'hispanic, not of white origin.' however, prison data usually adheres to the older tradition of seeing hispanics and whites as one part of the puzzle. that being said, i really dont think that a self-proclaimed white nationalist uses either population count to justify nor explain his/her position, besides the POV that becomes apparent with related statements. i suppose thats why i feel that the US census data, as a whole, should be removed. this isnt just a US issue. The undertow 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but we can later add a passage which is corrected. Perhaps you are right on the US centric definition here, but many Hispanics have Spanish ancestry, as they are either unmixed white or mestizos (=half-white). I think, for white nationalists, being white implies exclusively European ancestry, without any admixture at all, which disqualifies mestizos for their definition. 87.165.117.87 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

im somewhat in accordance. hispanic has such a broad definition, like latino, that it really has no practical use. im assuming that hispanic refers to those from hispaniola and spanish refers to those from spain. latino baffles me, unless its implicit that a latino comes from latin america. i am not trying to pigeonhole anyone, as african-american can refer to anyone of black heritage, but should be applicable to those who actually derive from africa at some point. mexicans are a derivation, for the most part, of spanish and what we refer to as native americans. although spanish would be 'white,' the natives are not. i like your idea of adding a section pertaining to white nationalism in the US, with proper citation. with that, we could incorporate census data. im not entirely unopposed to any one idea. wn as it pertains to europe, esp croatia, germany, etc and the US would be a great passage as to show that white nationalism is not consistent, across the board. good call. The undertow 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not American myself, but I'm quite interested in the topic through some of my American friends. According to the census data, some 48 % of Hispanics see themselves as white and an equal amount as some other race, though this mostly stems from racial perceptions in their home country. Mexicans are actually a mix of native American and European ancestry, the average Mexican as far as I know has around 60 % European and 40 percent native American ancestry. My idea was simply adding that European ancestry alone does not make you white in the strange definitions of white nationalists, it needs to be unmixed white for them - even if mixed whites are undistinguishable from unmixed ones (see Johnny Depp, Mariah Carey). 87.165.117.87 11:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

this is an interesting topic and i applaud you for using the talk page. hispanics do not exist as an absolute. in fact, a good reference would be my puerto rican friends, who refer to women a 'spanish gals.' it has no reference as to their heritage, as they are from New York and consider J Lo to be a spanish gal. spanish denotes that one is from Spain. there is no argument there.
if i implied that you were american, i apologize. i will be so brazen as to add that stats will not work here. if a mexican finds him/herself .0001 percent native, they do not fall within the realm of white. the ambiguity may begin here. blacks, who are a 'hybrid' of 2 races, can claim either race. however, this article is about WN and WN has no tolerance for any mix, unless it is a white, european mix. jews are not white according to WN. and half-bred (lack of a better term) is not white.
simply, WNs want to preserve a white race. any mix dissolves that ideal. according to your own data, i have never heard a hispanic term themselves as white. that is new to me. i do agree that being of euro descent does not classify one as white. turkey, for example, is under huge scrutiny. im going to regret this, but it is probably best to ask a WN, in america, to expand upon these feelings. as for myself, i am white, and have only euro ancestory. i suppose that makes it easy. but nationalism deals with a regional construct, and that is where it seems this article falls apart. not to mention, that i feel this article is FAR too long for such a trivial subject. any and all ideas are appreciated. i am all about NPOV. i would still like to work together for a npov section on US WN, and include other citations as wellThe undertow 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was the usual social perceptions of race vs. the WN perceptions. In usual perception, a mix with one race being dominant and "passing" as a certain race makes someone a member of this race. However, WNs don't accept this, and want 'racial purity'. Turkey is not really a part of Europe nor a European people. Also, (Ashkenazi) Jews aren't white for them, even if their Semitic ancestry is very distant. I think we mostly agree, however, you seem to misunderstand my point. Sorry if my English isn't perfect.. 87.165.117.87 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

White Supremacist & Neo Nazi

Be them white supremacist, neo nazis,or by any other name, they are the same. Being that fact that there is no white nation the term white nationalist is incorrect. White nationalist, well first to have a white nation, one would have to get rid of people not considered white. However the fact that these people don't even know the first thing about terms could be a problem. If you are educated you would know "white,black,asian,and hispanic are not way to place race into sections. Hispanic is not a race!! Nor are colors!! The article dares to explain what white as a race is, however last I recall in america the term is in constant flux lacking any formal foundation. However terms that can be changed to included and exclude people at a drop of a hat for particular agendas is what some enjoy. Point being this article like may other is bias. --Margrave1206 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Look this is disgraceful, White nationalism is fine, just as is blacks being patriotic, and it's been made to look like anyone who says "WHITE POWER" is a neo- nazi, untrue, he loves his people above others, and who doesn't?

This thing needs a cleanup.

82.2.51.162 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that "my people" doesn't mean "people whose skin is more or less the same shade as mine" to everybody; for some of us, it can mean "people with similar goals, ideals, morals, and vision". Gzuckier 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people think race is just skin color. Race is more than just skin color. If you look at albino Africans (Africans with White skin and blonde hair), they look weird and disgusting because their facial features and skull shape don't match Europeans'. Check this out: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15317

If you take a African person and make his skin white, would he look like a White person? No. The same goes for Orientals, there are some Orientals with lighter skin than most Whites, but due to their slanted eyes and facial bone structure, they'll never look "White." Race is more than just skin, it combines skull shape, bone structure, height, hair color, eye color, behavior, temperament, brain size, intelligence, and much more. It's in your DNA.

There exist races that have distinct physical and genetic characteristics. I prefer to use the terms: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid as the three dominant races. There are other smaller races, which might be the Aboriginals/Australoids. --Osmium14 06:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to randomly jump in on this, but I have a small point I just wanted to make (just to provoke thought). You make the example that a person with "black" features but white skin as a result of albinism would not be necessarily seen as truly "white" by most people. This claim may have some ground. Perhaps some physical features outside of skin color could preclude a non-white person from being seen as white. But what about a white being person being seen as a non-white? Hypothetically, what if there was a "white" person ("white" meaning physcial features save skin color) with black or very dark skin? I think there is no doubt such a person would be viewed as black, regardless of skull shape, bone structure, intelligence, behavior, etc. In fact, I personally know a few people who are biracial (black-white) and have very dark skin yet their other physical features (at least facial structures) are more like their white parent. These people, at least in the view of most, are black . . . no one ever sees them as white in any way, shape, or form (no pun intended). I have my own reasons for believing why this is the case, but I won't go into them here! That would be another debate.

Just to better show of my point, let's take Halle Berry. She is described by many as an "African-American" actress. In fact, she is biracial, half white and half African-American. I think (let me stress the I THINK as this is in no way scientific!) her physical features, outside of skin color, could be described as mostly "white". But because her skin color is darker and because she is known to be biracial, people label her as African-American.

Also, I don't know if the albinism photos are completely fair. The skin color caused by the disorder is extreme; most white people do not have skin nearly so light (myself included). Niether, in the same way, is the hair color of albinos common amongst white people. Therefore, at least in part, these abnormalities of course cause albinos to look "weird".

Just food for thought! Please respond . . . JeffreyN 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If Caucasians have dark skin they are likely to be rejected by white nationalists. Skin color and facial bone structure are the main visual cues. Family history is another requirement but that is not always looked into. Some WN's prefer not to 'scratch too deep' Pendragon39 07:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cites

"In these ways, by the 1830s the Declaration of Independence was read to mean white independence and American nationalism to be essentially white nationalism. Taken as a whole, these nationalist arguments reiterated the allegiance to whiteness, valorized the segregationist social solidarity through which whiteness was constructed, and reconciled the violence of slavery as its legitimate expression. For the vast majority of white Americans, white freedom, white supremacy, and the concept of a "white nation" were all one idea, one national ethos.

"This national ethos would inhabit the most banal of social pronouncements. For instance, in arguing against abolition in 1836, Senator Leigh of Virginia mentioned white mob riots against the black communities of Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York, and asked what worse social disorder would have erupted bad there been general emancipation (Horsman, 1981: 209). There was no thought of charging the white mobs with criminal behavior, or bringing their instigators to justice. In his view, the white mobs were simply demonstrating the Anglo-Saxon propensity to dominate and enslave other races. Whites who argued for emancipation were the real outlaws and traitors for advocating what would have fomented even greater mob violence. In short, for Leigh, black people should be enslaved for their own good, so that good civilized white folks would be spared the necessity of mob barbarity.

"This "nationalist ethos" even infected the antislavery arguments of the several antislavery parties in the North and Midwest (those that would later coalesce into the Republican Party). Though they argued that slavery was morally wrong, it was because it produced inequality among whites, not because it was inhuman toward blacks. Slave owners had a decided social and political advantage over non-owners, by wealth and the votes they controlled. In addition, white workers were at a disadvantage where slave labor could be employed in the same jobs more cheaply, thereby reducing overall labor conditions. These parties managed to get slavery gradually abolished in the North, after which they contented themselves with obstructing slavery's extension to the new territories. Nevertheless, they ultimately supported black disenfranchisement in both areas. In effect, antislavery was predicated on white supremacy rather than on human dignity and human rights. Only the radical abolitionists considered the humanity of the bond-laborers--which sometimes meant calling nationalism itself in question. For instance, against white nationalism, William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879) proposed his "disunion" thesis, and attempted to articulate the construction of a different form of nation altogether..."

The cultural roots of interventionism in the U.S. Social Justice March 22, 2003 Yakuman (数え役満) 09:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Will Beback · † · 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC?

Damn; this is an unusually well-cited article. With just a little work, this could be a FAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.211.161 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ethnicity"

The source used to claim that White nationalism is a form of Ethnic nationalism, in fact, says the opposite:

For most Americans, “whiteness” is still a fairly artificial identity; people tend to be far more conscious of religious or ethnic background.[2]

Ethnicity is clearly seen as something different from "whiteness". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible use of an unreliable source

This website here is being referenced, but it seems to be pushing fringe theories.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-published books, such as "March of the Titans" are not considered reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Wow, this article seems like it was written by a white nationalist. It gives undue weight to the views of white nationalists, and tries to diminish the merit of the opposing views, which are hardly expressed within the article.--Sefringle^Talk 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

hasn't changed.P4k (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

no it hasn't, and this article clearly needs cleanup. Yahel Guhan 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its getting a lot better, perhaps we need some fresh sets of eyes to cast over it. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Do white nationalists identify with any particular religion?--AveryG (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not really. A fair majority are Christian-oriented (Protestant/Roman Catholic); however others are agnostics, atheists, pagans, Buddhists... It runs the whole gamut. So, nope. – Sasoriza (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddhists? Yikes, that would be interesting, since Buddha wasn't white. Then again, neither was Jesus! Stonemason89 (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Many white nationalists view Christianity as a alien cultural import into Western Civilization. Christians were considered contemptible in the early Roman Empire[3] for reasons Nietzsche delineates.[4]. While some white nationalists prefer pagan traditions[5] others gravitate towards Creativity or Nature's Eternal Religion.[6]--Wittsun (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism on Wikipedia

I've noticed that the white nationalist article has tags like "discrimination" and "controversial" on the talk page while black nationalism has "black diaspora". Aren't they basically the same thing? I think it clearly violates the NPOV rules. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

White nationalism shouldn't have a black diaspora tag because the two are not very relevant. The black nationalism article does not seem to be very controversial (i.e. not a lot of edit wars), so it probably should not have that tag. Is black nationalism relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination? Maybe it is, but that is for that WikiProject to decide. Hope this helps. Regards, the skomorokh 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the numbers, I am deleting that discrimination tag right now. WN has nothing to do with discrimination. It is like saying the sole fact of being white is discriminating! WP:BEBOLD--Eros of Fire (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Project tags don't mean that an article concerns the name of the project. It means that members of the project are including the article in their project. Projects are usually interpreted broadly. Further, this is a talk page and not the actual article. I've restored the tag pending agreemtn by project members that this article is no longer a part of their project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

R1b not is the aryan haplogroup

R1a is the aryan eurasoid haplogroup and I is a european haplogroup; R1b is a non-Aryan haplogroup!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.57.156 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of "KKK".

I removed the Ku Klux Klan from the list of groups advocating White Nationalism. As the KKK article itself quite clearly states, it is far from being a monolithic organization in the 21st Century and it's nothing short of absurd to characterize every upstart group identifying with the KKK as fitting neatly into the White Nationalist mold. If someone has reliable sources identifying particular KKK groups as WN, feel free to add them, but at this point in history it's kind of pointless to paint the KKK in such broad strokes. Also, though I am DEFINITELY nothing even vaguely resembling a White Nationalist, it's hard to argue that associating all White Nationalists with the KKK creates a very, very emotionally charged situation, especially in the US. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that the KKK movement has splintered into a number of groups. But do any of the KKK groups hold positions different from white nationalism/supremacism? If anything connects them I'd have thought that was the common link.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd further note that in the heyday of the KKK, it was undoutedly a proponent of white nationalism. Overall, I think it shold be restored, and I don't think we'll have any trouble finding sources to support its inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Catholics and the Klan

Although the article doesn't specifically mention the Ku Klux Klan, it seems relevant to mention the fact that the historical KKK did not really recognize Celtic, Gallic or Irish Roman Catholics as White, since much of the White nationalism movement has a decidedly Protestant character. In fact, the Christian element within White mationalism could well be termed Protestant/WASP nationalism, the kind of nationalism that is found within Protestant organizations such as the Orange Order in the UK. ADM (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If whites can be united on an issue, they can be easily divided over pity things like ethnicity or religion (such as Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Belgium/Benelux) to produce conflict between similar people who may look alike ethnically or share a common culture for decades and centuries to come. You could include the late 19th century rivalry between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in the Boer wars before the union of South Africa formed in 1910, later became a republic in 1961. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

is white nationalist a racist?

Hi. I would like to know if a person who claims to be a white nationalist is a racist person. I have a friend who claims to be a white nationalist but I am an asian and she is very nice to me. So it is hard for me to understand if WN is racist or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz887 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You might try asking at the reference desk; this page is for talking about the article rather than the subject itself. Cheers,  Skomorokh  06:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence not appropriate within the scope of Wikipedia or any educational oriented website for that matter. -- Rock8591 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Striking similarities w/ Metapedia

Is there any particular reason why this article is nearly identicle to it's Metapedian counterpart? They may well be copying us, but I hope I'm not the only one who finds it worrying that our article on white nationalism practically mirrors that of the white nationalist wiki. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

They're probably copying us. This article has been in existence since 2003, while Metapedia was founded much more recently than that. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is incomplete in some areas

This article is missing mention of some of the central tenets of White Nationalism:

• It is a militarist movement, that emphasises preparation for, and necessity of violent racial conflict
• Anti-semitism - more specific than mere racism, the theory that Jews are responsible for almost all the ills of the 'white race'
• The assumption of an intellectual and cultural superiority of white races above all others.
• The promotion of the theory of an inherent bestial nature of black people.

Many of the common criticisms of White Nationalism are also missing:

• History revisionism (e.g. White Europeans colonised the USA before other humans did via the Bering landbridge)
• Neo-nazi political philosophy
• White Nationalism belief in 'might is right', as applied to past European colonial wars and colonialism.
  

Centrepull (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Might have to do it yourself because a lot of the things on this list are just stereotypes of "white supremacists" and not necessarily related to white nationalism as an ideology or movement--Львівське (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Two separate lists. In stating that the first list is of overlooked tenets, I am exactly claiming that they are related to White Nationalism as a movement. The second list is of common criticisms. Common criticism are just that, whether 'stereotypes' or not. Centrepull (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems more like presumptions than actual tenants. Do you have sources to back up these claims? White nationalism is separate from White supremacy, and doesn't necessarily call for a 'race war'. Anti-semitism is associated but not requisite. --Львівське (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire "Criticisms" section should be removed. I am by no means a White Nationalist or sympathetic to White Nationalism, but good Lord -- that section is preposterous. There is no equivalent lopsided "Criticisms" section in the articles that deal with other political movements centered on race.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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. [7]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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"[8] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. I've noticed this too, but have always been ignored. 37.253.211.21 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of you, (although you might be Joseph I guess) are single purpose accounts - Joseph has only the edit above, you have edited this and the White supremacy talk page. EvergreenFir is advising you to read our policies and guidelines. And if Joseph ever reads this, being white and say a Scottish nationalist has nothing to with being a white nationalist, that's a logical error. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you should take what Joseph say seriously. 37.253.211.21 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You should read about the five pillars and then attempt to edit the article yourself, although it's a huge waste of time and all political articles are guarded by ideologues attempting to own their corner of this site and present the reader with the truth. Zaostao (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Civility is one of those five pillars. Inviting someone to do something by describing it as "a huge waste of time" poisons the well and insults pretty much everyone involved, including yourself. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2016 (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)

Please tell me what is wrong with keeping Israel an ISRAELI country filled with Israel culture. Absolutely nothing! Seeing as you want Wikipedia not to be biased, you should help enforce the different meanings of white supremacy and white power. Also while you're at it, keep Wikipedia up to date with the stance of the Middle East not being so Western and respecting other religions. Lol I've honestly had enough with you lot, typical liberals.

ActorBoss (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a racist article...

I'm now typing this for the second time seeing as my last post was deleted and I was uninformed what that had happened. Clearly this article is being controlled by anti-white people. Why was White Power submerged into White Supremacy? Two different meanings.. My opinion is that White Power is being proud of the White race and White Supremacy means being more superior than any other race. Why do certain people have more authority than my own opinion, seeing as I'm also white too. Please change this as I'm also offended. Black Power = being proud of the Black race but being proud of the White race means you're a racist? Hmm no. I'm now wondering if the persons responsible for making this into an anti-white and racist article are liable to be sued or charged by law enforcement at the very least. I'm going to look into it. Wikipedia is pathetic and very political correct. I'm going to leave it at that at the moment and keep this civil as I'm extremely annoyed and angry at this biased and racist article!

ActorBoss (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You've never edited this page before, at least not in the past couple of years. Perhaps you mean Talk:White supremacy, where your previous diatribe remains visible [9]? I strongly advise you to withdraw your attempt at legal intimidation above. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have never claimed to edit this page before. I was proving a point that White power and White supremacy are two different subjects. I feel Wikipedia is extremely biased and maybe some liberal editors should wake up into the 21st century and understand that being a White nationalist and proud of the White race doesn't make you a racist. What a load of garbage. The black power Wikipedia page is made out to look like a saint but however the White power page is made out to look like nothing more than a guide to joining the Nazi party. Ahh so after I've threatened legal action something is done about it. Good one. Also I don't feel like to be intimidated about what I can and cannot do, especially when several editors are provoking racial hatred and distressing me. Seeing as you're unaware, that's an illegal offence. I've witnessed a couple of people on Wikipedia trying to get that point across but nothing was done about it and they were forced to accept that being proud of the White race is some form of a harmful racist ideology. I have backed down as White power has been unsubmerged from the White supremacy page, that is a start. However this is not the 1960s and this page e still demonizes the White race, this is not equality at all. You'll find "most White nationalist groups" aren't race at all. Whoever has edited that is completely full of themselves. From my acknowledgement the KKK, American Nazi Party and the Aryan Brotherhood are 3 groups, that's not "most" whatsoever but Wikipedia seems to think that because the media highlights those groups nonstop and not the law abiding and educated White nationalist groups. Infact those groups that I've mentioned are White supremacy gangs that provoke racial attacks. Change is needed.. ActorBoss (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You've never had any post on this page deleted, and you may not make legal threats to try to coerce change articles to reflect your views. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White nationalism. 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/20130521185357/http://www.nsm88.org/jointhefight/NSMApplicationPacket.pdf to http://www.nsm88.org/jointhefight/NSMApplicationPacket.pdf

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 9 November 2016 (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)

Hello. I myself would like to know when the term "white nationalism" was coined, and by whom if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.9.43 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

White nationalism or White Nationalism?

White nationalism or White Nationalism? ברעזרא (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 20th changes to lead.

This is regarding this edit to the lead. The change introduced several concepts to the lead which were not established in the body and which were not clearly sourced. It also accepted as fact claims which are not widely accepted as valid by outside sources. "The existence of the white race", for example, accepts that White people are a discrete race (as opposed to a group of races, among other options), which is controversial. For these and other reasons, I have reverted the change. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've re-written it to address the issues you raised and made sure that everything is clearly sourced. For example, instead of implying that White people are a discrete race, it now says that "White nationalism holds that White people are a race". The new information has also been added to the main body. ~Asarlaí 23:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Parenthetical on "(what they see as)"

I believe the sentence "White nationalists seek to ensure the survival of (what they see as) the white race, and the cultures of historically white states." should not have parentheticals around the phrase "what they see as." It is clear from within the article and sources that the particular definition of what that white nationalists use is not necessarily everyone's. As a result, the phrase is actually an integral part of the meaning of the movement, not a parenthetical.

Thanks for editing.

Slpreskill (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Slpreskill

Bias and a lack of research

"Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence."

Says who? There are ZERO sources or citations attached to this. I can't think of any white nationalist groups (separate from white supremacy groups) who promote racial violence. This part should be removed from the lead if reliable sources cannot be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameequalsjeff (talk • contribs) 07:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body of the article, and sources in the lede are not necessary if the content is well-sourced later on. This specific content is more clearly explained in the article's criticism section. That you personally cannot think of any such groups is not relevant to Wikipedia, because that's original research. As the article explains, the line between supremacist and nationalist is very blurry. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Subgrouping

presently:

White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups of white nationalism

Are we sure about the accuracy of this? I would think nationalism would be a subgroup of separatism, since it is possible to separate people through a variety of distinctions (nation, state/province, city, street, house).

Similarly, for supremacy to be a sub-group of nationalism would require that every supremacist is a nationalist. Isn't it possible for some supremacists to be for sharing a nation with non-whites? That's effectively what the Confederates were doing: they were supremacists (wanted whites to enslave blacks) but did not want them out of the nation, because they wanted them to remain in the nation as slaves.

I would change this to:

White nationalism is a subgroup of white separatism. There are white supremacists in both groups.

Of the sources I can see cited...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/world/americas/white-nationalism-explained.html?_r=0

white nationalism certainly overlaps with white supremacy and racism

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2003/04/11/interviews-offer-unprecedented-look-into-the-world-and-words-of-the-new-white-nationalism-60031/

Swain and Nieli organized the interviews, conducted in late 1999 and early 2000, into three categories by ideology:

https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-138582084/the-new-nativism-the-alarming-overlap-between-white

hardcore white nationalists mixed easily, distributing literature and engaging potential recruits, explicitly identifying nation with race.

I don't see "subgroup" or similar mentioned in any of the 3 sources adjacent to this statement so it's not entirely clear what this line of thought is based on. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Relationships with black separatist groups"

I just moved some text, which I didn't write, from White supremacy. In my opinion, this material is probably unduely long, unless and until there is a White nationalism in the United States article. And that is overdue. Anyhow, it meshes better here than in its prior place.--Carwil (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White nationalism. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5VV8vdm47?url=http://www.theage.com.au/ to http://www.theage.com.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong on the 14th Amendment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has been commonly accepted that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution granted "Blacks" citizenship. This is absolutely false and based upon revisionist history. The 14th and the 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed for 2 express purposes: 1) To bring the South back into the Union because these so-called "Slave States" had seceded from the Union and at that time, were without Constitutional power. 2) As a reminder to the these States and any other that, any person born here were in fact citizens.

Slavery had already been abolished in the Northern States so this idea that the 14th Amendment "granted" citizenship to the African Americans, is in fact ahistorical and a part of American revisionist history that has been accepted in mainstream academic thought. Proofs can be found in several places; 1), in the Dissents of Justice Curtis (click here) and Justice Mclean (click here); 2)A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, image 1639 (click here).

In each of these instances, it is proven unequivocally that, the descendants of Africa in this nation, were in fact citizens from day one for it was their votes which helped to ratify the Articles of Confederation and also, the Constitution of the United States with the latter, via their elected representatives.

This notion that the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to those of African descent here is completely false and should be corrected across every medium of information which perpetuates this falsity.Sheik Way-El 04:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A review of Timeline of voting rights in the United States might be helpful in understanding why these claims are controversial (to put it mildly). Regardless, it is not obvious what this comment has to do with improving this particular article, so I have closed this as WP:NOTFORUM. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A difficult phrase to take objectively

"Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, mass immigration of non-whites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race, and some argue that it amounts to white genocide.[6]"

I would personally rephrase this as, "Many white nationalists believe that race-mixing, multiculturalism, immigration and low birth rates among whites are a threat to majority white demographics."

The chosen phrasing of this has many problems.

\It uses language that is only used by white nationalists. Most people do not know what the word "Miscegenation" means, because it is a word coined through an anonymous pamphlet spread as white supremacist propaganda [[10]] and perpetuated by the Ku Klux Klan. It has no place on Wikipedia. "Mass immigration" is a phrase used by the American right wing to demonize immigration, and "mass immigration of non-whites" is clearly, again, only used by white nationalists, much less being NPOV. "White genocide" is, again, an idea that only exists in white nationalist circles and is not common knowledge. The phrase, "some argue that it amounts to white genocide," is meaningless to an objective reader and sounds ridiculously propagandous. Zugamifk (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If we are describing what white nationalists believe, and they believe that miscegenation is a problem, there is no reason to avoid the word "miscegenation" in describing their views. I have no idea whether most people know what the term "miscegenation" means or not, and any problems involved in understanding can be solved simply by linking to Miscegenation, a dedicated Wikipedia article about the topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Miscengenation" as a word has a very long history and is not an invention of pamphleteers or the KKK. Please see Miscegenation law and Loving v. Virginia - miscegenation laws were at one time prevalent in the U.S. That's a fact, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which presents facts to its readers. It describes things that happened and concepts that exist. Our use of such words and phrases as the ones you object to does not equal agreement with the concepts behind them. Through reliable sources, we explain those concepts, and do not kick them under the rug because they are reprehensible. If we are to adequately and accurately describe white nationalism, it is necessary to use those terms, because they form a significant part of their ideology.

Please see WP:Wikipedia is not censored for further information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I object to the use of the word "Miscegenation" specifically for its etymological history. I linked to the Wiktionary article, which explains it explicitly. While I believe in Wikipedia as a platform to share ideas, this word was invented to describe the idea as of race mixing and place it front and centre. The pamphlet I refer to and which has been recorded as the origin of the word was spread by Democrats at the time as propoganda to fight the very idea.[1] It was a word invented to place the very idea of "race-mixing" as something vile. I hope it can be rephrased somehow, but this word should only be used in a historical context, and not descriptively. Zugamifk (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to your ideas, but they are antithetical to what Wikipedia does, what it stands for, and how it is written, so there's really no chance your objection is going to result in any change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

How is rephrasing this sentence antithetical to what Wikipedia does? There are other hateful words that are avoided unless there is context. The N-word is only used in quotes. Why can't we relegate "miscegenation" to quotes? Zugamifk (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be extremely awkward in an article which frequently touches on the subject. If you check the article Nigger, I think you'll find that scare quotes are used only when referring to the word itself, not the concept behind it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The origin of a word is irrelevant. If reliable sources use it in quotes, we might consider that, but they don't. I have never seen it considered to be a hateful word in the way "nigger" is, although perhaps some right-wing Republicans might see it that way (how the parties have changed since then!). It certainly isn't a word used only historically. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)