Talk:Bill White (neo-Nazi)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Bill White (neo-Nazi). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

White and anarchism

For Nahila,

There are some apparent intellectual contradictions in LNSGP rhetoric that make fair treatment difficult. I appreciate the difficulty presented by White's claims of both anarchist and national socialist ideology. But anarchism is the last ideology anyone can claim to exclusively own, so if people such as White want to present as an anarchist, it is simply a matter of fact that they present as anarchists. While any thinking person can cite contradictions in another's rhetoric, anarchists have no authority beyond the contradictions they can cite to claim White is not an anarchist, if he says he is. On the other hand, we are not obligated to take his word for it that his ideology is internally consistent.

It is important for readers to appreciate the difference between anomie, which can express as anti-social konTEmp 4 awl wrules, and ideological anarchy. It might seem to a reasonable person that White leans more toward anomie than toward anarchy. But Wikipedia is not a court of ideology, it is an encyclopedia, so we will do best to represent his position as dispassionately as we can -- hence the link to the LNSGP article.

The article is sourced on three contrasting advocacy publications, including an anarchist publication, to show that he is plainly not centered in any well-established ideology. But even if we are to mention his rental properties, as you suggest in your edit summary, we need to be careful not to accept the authority of an ideologically-oriented publication that these properties you or I have never seen are indeed "ghetto" properties.

In submitting the first version of this article, I didn't mention his unsuccessful local candidacies or his land-owner history because I had not yet verified details, the article can be encyclopedic without including every published detail of his life and nobody contracted with me to compose a complete article before any deadline. SpyRing

Is White even claiming that he is an anarchist at this point? My recollection is that he started calling himself an ex-anarchist in late 2000. Either way, "anarchist" has an established meaning (see anarchism) that is in direct contradition to national socialism. At the very least, it should be noted that White's (past) identification as an anarchist rests on shaky grounds.

Please explain why "the majority of anarchists" is a conundrum. Anarchists, like any other group, can be counted and quantified. The anarcho-fascism article was already deleted and so called "nationalist anarchism" has been delt with extensively on the anarchism talk page.

Anyhow, I will try to spend some time helping with this article later in the week. Thanks for getting it started. :) - Nihila 22:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His continued advocacty of libertarianism suggests where his anarchistic ideology has gone. Apparently he doesn't see libertarianism in contradiction with national socialism. We probably lack sufficient biographical expose upon which to base an explanation of his own view of his emerging ideological orientation. Interviewing him would probably comprise original research, which this encyclopedia apparently discourages.

Anarchists could theoretically be counted and quantified, but they have not been, at least not in relation to any matter presented here. The text of a single anarchist publication doesn't neccessarily indicate the views of a majority of anarchists. There has not been and likely will not soon be any concensus about any notion held by "the majority of anarchists" beyond very basic precepts that anarchy is a generic term for movements that tend to advocate elimination of imposed authority. We simply lack any reliable medium for polling and assessing the current views of a majority of people who present as anarchists world-wide.

That there exists a Wikipedia article on a topic is not final evidence that the subject has an "established meaning." Whatever established meaning the article might evidence is rendered vague by the language of the article -- "Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of imposed authority, including social hierarchy and coercive power."

However, a mob of anarchists such as those who threw rocks through store windows in Seattle attempts to impose authority, whether they admit it or not. So right away, we can find flaws in the Wikipedia definition which arise from a failure to challenge internal inconsistencies of the rhetoric of some professed anarchists. And pacifist anarchists, no matter how non-violent they might see their own ranks, lack authority to say those others who call their unruly movements anarchism are not indeed espousing a version of anarchy.

Most accurately, "White presented himself as an anarchist at one time." It seems to me the problem arises from a predominant style of writing in this forum, with a somewhat authoritarian overreliance on the passive verb "is" rather than on more accurate active verbs that tell us what a subject has done. A sentence can either refer to the writer's authority that something "is", or it can tell us who did what, with attribution to a published authority beyond the Wikipedia writer.

Other unsubtantiated passive wiggle-words often appearing here include perceptual representations, including "is considered" and "is believed." Basic automated grammar checkers flag passive statements that suggest a perception or count without identifying or accurately quantifying the subject. Either we name who considered somebody to be something, or we are simply stating our own individual notion of somebody else's perception.

Bottom line is, regardless our personal views, encyclopedic writing can neither defend an exclusively noble notion of anarchism, nor disparage a particularly offensive activist who claims anarchism as an ideology. Encyclopedic treatment needs to rely on precise language to present verifiable factual representations.

SpyRing 20:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that it is necessary to interview White in order to complete this article. His views are plastered all over the internet (I have been reading his articles off and on since 1999 and I have interacted with him on rare occasion). The real issue is sorting through all the BS.

I agree that the statement "White presented himself as an anarchist at one time" is accurate. However, Infoshop is not the only site to challenge White's claims that he was an anarchist. Among others, see OnePeoplesProject.com, PublicEye.org, and the Barricada Collective's statement on Indymedia. I have also seen White rebuked in the pages of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. - Nihila 23:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we had a baseline number of how many anarchists there are in the world, I would be interested in discussing what portion of them have formulated any opinion at all about his person. Otherwise, any summation of "anarchists" is a hasty generalization.

I don't know what you mean by "complete this article." Open collaborative writing is by its nature permanently incomplete. Even after extensively reading his written work, I would need to interview this person to report responsibly on what he considers his views at this time. At a minimum, I would need to listen to an unedited interview with an unbiased interviewer who was not working for a political advocacy publication, as all the sources for this article are. But because of his proximity to violent situations, it might have been worth my time to establish an entry here for this person. That doesn’t mean I consider open documents a reliable source for information about a person’s views.

At any rate, the article as it has evolved now more thoroughly summarizes whatever no-cost and easily obtained literature now posted on the Internet has to say about this guy. SpyRing 03:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The histories of William White (agitator) and William White (agitatator) have been merged after a copy/paste move. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bill White is similiar (but only slightly) to Troy Southgate. They have both espoused a variety of views (nationalistic or anarchistic -- and both). There are allegations [1] that Southgate is an informant or a spy. There have been suggestions made about White, also. If it matters, I am an anarchist and probably (no, definitely) biased against both individuals (sorry). -- James

Libel

An editor removed a link to a "One Peoples Project" bio with the followoing summary:

OPP lost a libel action against White for that bio, see court transcript under Hardwick; bio deleted, no need to bring legal proceedings against Wikipedia

I assume Hardwick is actually Erica Hoesch. Which court transcripts? Can you please post it here? The court links in that article don't work. Thanks, -Willmcw 12:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[link:http://overthrow.ws/transcript0805.txt]

Hardwick, Hoyt and Jenkins held a meeting to expound on a number of "facts" about Bill White that they asserted to be true -- that he is a convicted felon, former mental patient, etc. I have not read their bio on him lately, but I assume it still says the same things.

When questioned in court, White denied all of these charges. One of the authors of the OPP bio, Erica Hardwick, is also a convicted felon, currently in custody awaiting other felony charges, and has a history of convictions for lying to the court and to police.

White brought suit against Chuck Munson, original author of the "report" that served as the basis for the OPP bio, as well as ARA and several other anti-racist activists, for libel in Montgomery County, MD. I have not checked the status of that suit recently, and the results are not public info.

In short, the OPP bio of White is contentious, its authors do not have a character that would, say, allow them to give evidence in a court of law, and is based on information that is the subject of a lawsuit.

As such, it is not an appropriate source.

Baxter2 23:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link is not presented as a source for any information. It is provided as a resource for further reading. Just because someone has been sued does not mean that the large amount of information in that biography is entirely false. If you can find some reliable sources for it, you can add a paragraph to the article about how misinformation is being spread about White. But the link is worthwhile. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of sources - where are they? Very little of this article is based on anything that can be found in the pages linked in the "external links" section. A couple of Washington Post articles are mentioned. Let's get sources for this information before it's removed. -Willmcw 00:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Its as well sourced as your "white supremacy" article. :-> I'm adding a (still incomplete) list of media references -- not all web-based. Baxter2 16:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm creating an "anti-racist and opposition views" section under media. Put your links there. Baxter2 16:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right now I have exactly 100 sources cited. I am adding more. Baxter2 17:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to tell how the sources relate to the article. Can you please use footnotes so we know which facts come from which sources? BTW, no articles on Wikipedia are "mine". Cheers, -Willmcw 17:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

All the sources relate to the article. I've sorted them into 27 categories so people can verify different categories of facts. If you want footnotes, do it yourself. I think this is sufficient. Baxter2 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page name -> Bill White?

Since the subject seems to be universally known as "Bill White" I propose that we move it to Bill White (agitator). Any objections? -Willmcw 22:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be annoying for everyone to update their links. Why not create a "Bill White (agitator)" page and redirect it here? Why does it matter? Why use "agitator", as opposed to "activist" or some more neutral term? Baxter2 23:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of the "Bill White" part. I see that you have been methodically "piping" the name back to Bill White, so it'd save future effort. But yes, "activist" would be a more conventional appellation. -Willmcw 00:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bill White (activist)? -Willmcw 08:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

For the reasons above, and since there have been no more objections, I'm moving the page to Bill White (activist) from William White (agitator). -Willmcw 00:45, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

LNSGP

I could not find any mention of White on the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party website. Is there a specific page where he's mentioned? Thanks, -Willmcw 17:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

White acted as their spokesman. I don't know if there is some specific page where he is mentioned, but I don't think its necessary, as he appeared on their behalf on Telemundo, the Alan Colmes show, and half a dozen other radio and TV programs. Baxter2 19:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why list the site if he is a former spokesman who is not mentioned on it? -Willmcw 19:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have never seen an article with 100 sources and it's hard to know what to make of it. Perhaps other editors can figure out some way of handling this unusual list and the other additions to the article. The subject is apparently a controversial figure so additional input should help keep it NPOV. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme links

I removed the excessive list, which seems to be every article that ever MENTIONED Bill White. I also removed many of the links because they were only mentioning him in passing. I think someone got a little wild with their love for Bill White and Lexis/Nexus.--The Grza 20:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can see some trimming being done, but not w an axe. I was enjoying learning just how many sources have commented on the man. Besides, its not like its a big use of disk space. Sam Spade 21:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just taken a quick look at this, and so I don't know all the issues yet, but the large number of links is excessive. We should first of all create a "references" section, listing those articles used as sources for our article. Then we can create a short list of "further reading" from the links that are left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to list every article that ever mentioned him. None whatsoever. The list essentially reproduced a Google search on the man, which you are free to do, but this is completely excessive and doesn't even relate to the man. This is far more listings then any other article I've ever seen, it takes this regular, even sometimes well-written page and fills it with nonsense. There is no reason a minor white supremacist needs more sourcing then the President of the United States.--The Grza 22:21, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I havn't come close to reading every last one of those links, and those which meerely mention him should go. Those which focus on him (and are from reputable sources, relative to how many that leaves), or are written by him however should stay. I read like 2 of the links, and they were both higly relavent. Sam Spade 23:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a pity that there isn't an external website with all of these listings that we could simply link to for further information - "Wikilinks". One link that I followed turned out to be a posting on David Irving's site of one of White's "Libertarian Socialist News" items that didn't mention White and wasn't even specifically signed by him either.[2] White is a prolific author/journalist/web user and has generated a large number of essays. Most of them are probably on his websites. Linking to copies of them elsewhere seems unnecessary. (That may be the only instance) Regarding the unlinked newspaper references, can these be consolidated somehow? Generally, can we connect the sources to the assertions? Cheers, -Willmcw 23:58, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the links is this: There are certain people here who only want to present the "opposition view" links. Most of the opposition view links are simply inaccurate lies that have been published about Bill White. If those links are going to be included, than the more neutral links need to be included as well. However, I don't see what harm including all the links does to Wikipedia. The links are organized by subject matter and the reader is more than able to determine which ones he or she feels is relevant. The alternative is to include no biased material, or only material authored by White, or only "neutral" material, meaning those newspapers which, while they have denounced White in editorials and sworn editorial opposition to him, are considered mainstream. I can see no fair way to present this other than to include all the material.

And, again, who cares how long the page is? Why shouldn't it be as inclusive as possible? Baxter3 00:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this on RFC. The links section is way too long, and few of the links seem particularly notable, much less relevant to the article, which itself seems highly dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What, specifically, about the article is dubious? Again, I think there are some people who just don't want to face the fact that some white activists are extremely personally successful, brilliant people -- people more successful and brilliant than them, and more successful and brilliant than anything they read on the TV or in the controlled news media. If that's not the case, provide some specifics. Baxter3 00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, White mentioned this on his webpage, so all the anti-Bill White nutballs appear to be congregating. Baxter3 00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bill, from what I can tell no-one here had ever heard of you before you started creating this page about yourself; I certainly hadn't. Imagining that the people here are "anti-Bill White nutballs" who are "congregating" is an awfully strange way of looking at the world. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV and unsourced

The first question is whether this person is worth any kind of entry, or whether this should go to VfD. If he's worth an entry, it shouldn't be as long as this one, and everything will have to be referenced. Regarding the links, White is clearly using Wikipedia as a link repository, calling his WP page "The Bill White Article Collection" on his website. See [3] and [4]

I've rewritten the intro, and made the links invisible until we decide which ones, if any, to keep. The first thing is to find sources for the article, particularly the introduction. We need a source (other than White) for the property investment claim; and for the New York Times claim: it's not even clear what he means by that. And also a source for "garnered attention," whatever that means. I also deleted the blurred pic, and moved the clearer one up to the top. We don't need more than one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree, particularly on the image, The idea of using one so out of date is rather confusing. Sam Spade 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do we know it's out of date? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is simply vandalizing this page. This has already been voted up on the VfD. There is a significant politically motivated campaign to vandalize this page or derive information only from highly biased sources -- including some completely inaccurate communist ones -- and those alterations will be deleted. Baxter2 23:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slim's edits seem NPOV and well-sourced; why are you calling then "vandalism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source for the property investment claim is the Roanoke Times "Landord denies allegations of sinister agenda." Why don't you look up some of the sources before vandalizing this page again? 68.10.35.153 23:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that I've had to change my account, as my password is not functional ... Baxter3 23:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

White is not notable for being a property investor. His Roanoke properties have been reported on several times, including instances connected to other aspects of his life. But the size, etc, of his investment is secondary and maybe even unencyclopedic (as it is liable to change without notice). I suggest that the details of his business affairs should go later in article and that the intro should focus on the bare facts of his life and what makes him famous. Regarding the photos, if the photographers can grant us copyright permissions then I think they should stay. The two photographs are so different in appearance as to provide a useful contrast (as with photos of young and old Elvis). Again, it's too bad that there isn't an external website with this kind of additional info available that we could link to. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, almost everything that's been written on White this year has focused on his property investments, except for some minor reprinting of his commentaries in the national press. I think White and his wealth have had a very strong impact on recent white nationalist politics, and played an important role in what makes him famous. I also think those opposed to him and his politics try to minimize his extreme personal success in life in order to stereotype him in a way that makes them feel more comfortable, rather than facing the facts and challenging their pre-conceived ideas as to what a "national socialist" or "white nationalist" is.

The way this is organized, those incidents which have brought White to prominence this year are mentioned in the inroduction. Other controveries are later in the article. White and his company White Politics LLC have also granted copyright permissions to both photos. I have them in writing on file. Baxter3 00:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying these photographs are used only with permission, and are not to be copied by anyone else? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also: Correction of vandalism is not a 3RR violation. You, however, are in such violation. 68.10.35.153 00:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask again about the status of the photographs: are you saying they are used with permission, and are not to be copied by any other publication or website? Also please note: my edits do not count as vandalism, your opinion of them notwithstanding, and if you revert more than three times in 24 hours, you're violating 3RR.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also, a comprehensive treatment of White's business and web ventures needs to include an NPOV treatment of ShopWhite. Regarding the photos, was White the photographer or did he obtain the copyrights to both pictures? And to whom has White Politics LLC granted permission? (There is a similar concern about the photos in related articles). Further, this article is missing some basic biographical information - date and place of birth, education, religion, etc. -Willmcw 08:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

In use tag

To User:Baxter3 and User:68.10.35.153, bot of whom I'm assuming are Bill White: when an editor places the in-use tag on a page, it means they're engaged in a long edit, and the tag is placed there so that other editors know not to edit the page in the meantime. I'd appreciate it if you'd respect that in future. Also, please be aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (3RR), which I believe you may have violated. Violations are likely to lead to you being blocked for up to 24 hours. I'll also leave a warning about this on your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

You can't vandalize the page and call it a "major edit". I am no longer discussing things with people engaged in vandalism, I will simply note your accounts and report you and recommend your accoutns for action. 68.10.35.153 00:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note that you are using the word "vandalize" as a personal attack, and not as an accurate description of vandalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

Bill/Baxter, before you continue editing, you might want to look at our core policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Cite sources.

You're currently trying to write a vanity piece, which is not allowed. Everything in this article must have been published somewhere else already, and all your edits must be sourced to one of those publications. This means you must either provide an inline link after the edit, and then the full citation in the References section; or if the source is not online, a brief citation after the edit, and the full citation in References.

Please do read our policies, because nothing that violates them will be allowed to stand in this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is full citation of the articles in the references section. If every article cited required an *online* link, what you are saying is that anything published in a major newspaper before the internet does not constitute "encyclopedic" knowledge. This is not a "vanity" piece. White is presented in a neutral light. The problem you have is that, in a neutral light, White looks pretty good, and you, personally can't stand that. You are engaged in politically motivated page vandalism. If you continue, I will ask that action be taken against your account, because you are the one violating the Wikipedia policies -- and I find that disgusting.

And, I am not Bill White, and your accusation of that is rather nuts -- the kind of typical nutiness White's opponents engage in. What is wrong with you people? You are psychotic in your hatred of him ... Baxter3 00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're not Bill White, then I expect to see a full set of linked sources for the section on his philosphy, which currently has no sources at all. You have an astonishing familiarity with the innermost thoughts of the subject of this article. -Willmcw 00:51, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I read his website. I was trying to complete and cite that part the other day, but I keep getting interrupting repairing vandalism and deleting garbage edits to this site. I think the philosophy section can be removed, though, until it can be fully written and cited, since I'm obviously not going to have time to do it immediately. 68.10.35.153 00:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition to reading the website you also apparently connect to the Internet from the place where White lives. Remarkable- you're White's biggest fan and you happen to live in the same small city that he moved to a few years ago. White himself seems to be following this editing very closely, based on the updates to his website, so this communication appears to be close and immediate. Please, let's cut the pretense. We may be stupid, but we're not that stupid. -Willmcw 07:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, then don't title challenges to that as 'vandalism' or 'abusive citation of policy,' 'grabage edits,' and any other hostility on your part, when it was –you– who put it on live while not yet afforded a chance "to do it [i.e. Wikipedia:Cite sources ] immediately." Use the preview button, or better yet, a text editor to ensure that when you press 'submit' you have a well-reference piece that cannot be challenged along these lines. Instead, you seem to exhibit great astonishment when your unfinished experiments to the article namespace are not seen as sufficient, when you are rightly taken to task for these aforementioend discrapencies. Wikipedia:Civility is also policy. El_C 01:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know White only from having read his website? That's odd, because on his website he calls you his biographer.

Regarding your point above that all citations must be linked to, you should read again what I said. You must provide after your edits 'either a link to your source or a citation, and then, in any event, a full citation in the References section. The list of articles you've posted gives no indication of which article is used as a source for which claim. And finally, I have no "psychotic hatred" of Bill White. I'd never even heard of him before today. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

If they are not the same person (which seems likely), it is at least obvious that "Baxter" and White are extremely closely connected; I'm not sure why "Baxter" would bother denying it. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I have requested mediation of the dispute with SlimVirgin. I ask that she not engage in any more reversion to her version of the article until some mediation occurs. I will be offline for at least an hour, maybe more. I need to correct a cookie problem that keeps logging me out. Baxter3 00:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There currently is no mediation committee, so I'm afraid your request will not be acted upon for several weeks or months, and perhaps not at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Then we'll see what action is taken against your account. Or, we'll let others discuss this article and its edits here. What you are doing is unilaterlly imposing your point of view, and that will not fly.68.10.35.153 01:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that claim. El_C 01:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not unitlateral when other editors agree. -Willmcw 06:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wow...things have gone quickly over here. The work done by SlimVirgin to fix up this page to remove the propaganda and to help keep out the excessive links should be applauded, and I for one think that the unilateral imposition is preventing much needed changes by making it such a large hassle to fix these pages. These edits are good and in accordance with WikiPolicy; the only stumbling blocks are those of you who are using Wikipedia for your own philosophical experiment, be it Utopian Anarchism or radical inclusionism.--The Grza 02:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, TheGrza. I haven't finished yet; I'm going to try to make sure every significant claim is sourced, and that we prioritize the issues White is best known for e.g. being quoted in the NYT that he laughed about the judge's family being murdered. It may take a few days as I have to read through the sources first myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've been watching this insipid imbroglio deteriorate with some concern. Kudos to SV for taking the high road and this thankless task. FeloniousMonk 06:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FM. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Whenever you talk about Bill White, a collection of marginal and extreme people, known for censorship and shouting down their opponents -- Scientologists, Radical Leftists, Zionist militants, etc -- emerge to lie about him. What's pathetic is that they believe is that their minority consensus is a real reflection of the world. I've always thought that folk whose ego's are so weak they cannot accept challenges to their paradgism should be barred from publishing -- but, unfortunately, in modern society, such a sensible position is a minority view. 68.10.35.153 14:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, don't delete the sources then claim you need to source all the views. I've added footnotes for every statement in the article covered under my previous links section, without reversion and mostly using the existing text, though I have removed some simply factually inaccurate, unsourced statement by SlimVirgin. 68.10.35.153 14:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe the Lefkow quote, which is badly out of context, is White is "best known for". It is just what he happens to have been known for in the last two months. I mean, was the front page lead column article in the February 14, 1996 Washington Post less notable because it was ten years ago? One should not judge "notability" or permanence by the current trend or latest news. 68.10.35.153 14:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the information SlimVirgin has added; it all seems well sourced, and her edit of the article is a marked improvement on your own. I would appreciate it if you simply came to the Talk: page to work things out here; there appears to be no support for your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not well sourced, as Sam Spade notes belows. I did, however, add about 50 footnotes to her version, which people keep deleting in an irrational desire to destroy whatever I type. There is support for my edits; what is not being supported is any of the assertions SlimVirgin is making about White. 68.10.35.153 18:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you say specifically which assertions about White you disagree with, and why? It may be possible to find some compromise wording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Controversial Views

What do people think of this section? I think having a place where people can add their favorite out-of-context (or in-context) Bill White quotes -- like SlimVirgin's Lefkow quotation -- allows everyone to have their say without emphasizing one particular outrageous statement above another. 68.10.35.153 01:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criminal record

Baxter, do you have details of White's criminal record? I've found sources saying he has been arrested at least 20 times for assault, possession of weapons and explosives, destruction of property, graffiti, using a false ID, and assaulting a police officer; and that he spent several months in jail for the latter. Also that he spent time in a mental hospital. However, I don't know how reliable the sources are. Do you know whether this information has been published anywhere credible? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

White has sued over these statements, and those making them have been unable to support them in court Court Transcript 68.10.35.153 14:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the transcript link; it'll be very useful. Can you shed any light on the difference between http://www.overthrow.com and http://overthrow.ws? I've been having some difficulty accessing the former, but the latter is working well. Is it the same website? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

If I read the transcript correctly, it covers a hearing in which White was attempting to get a temporary injunction against Hardwick. White testified that Hardwisk had accused him publicly of being a felon and a mental patient. He further testified that the accusations were untrue. Nobody asked Hardwick to support her allegations. The judge seemed to conclude that no harm had resulted from the accusations, and he denied the request for a temporary injunction (though warned Hardwick not to trespass again). There's no indication from this transcript that White has sued over these statements. As a very public figure, it's hard to imagine that he could win a libel case easily. Except for details of the White/Hardwick fight, there isn't much usueful info in the transcript that I can find. -Willmcw 04:15, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pravda

It seems that White wrote for Pravda for only four months and wasn't paid, according to a message from him on the Stormfront website. [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13526] I've added this information to the intro, along with the Stormfront link; I wouldn't normally use Stormfront as a source, but this seems to have been written by White himself. However, others may prefer that the reference to Pravda be deleted along with the link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not, rather your source should be deleted in favor of another. Do you suspect it isn't true? No matter what, forums are NEVER an acceptable source for an encyclopedia. I must say I am disturbed to see reputable sources replaced w unreputable ones. Sam Spade 17:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Sam Spade. BTW, I like your "modest replies" page. :-)) 68.10.35.153 18:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<No matter what, forums are NEVER an acceptable source for an encyclopedia.> That's not exactly correct. Citing the subject's own statement made on a messageboard, particularly when it is presented as an attribution, is acceptable per the guidelines. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, you said I'd replaced a good source with a bad one: what was the original source for him being a Pravda columnist? It's White himself who is saying he did it only for four months and was never paid.

Also, if you believe forums should not be used as a source (and I don't like them myself), are you saying White's forum should also not be used? The only reason I used the Stormfront one is that the post appeared to be from White himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lefkow

The Lefkow article has someone unrelated to Hale confessing to the crime. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article says "believed to have been killed by associates of white supremacist Matthew Hale" but I don't think that's true any more. Please see the Joan Lefkow article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. I added "initially" to modify the "believed". Does that make the situation clearer? Cheers, -Willmcw 04:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now it is accurate, but to be fair, if it's no longer believed to be the case, then I'm not sure why we're mentioning it, unless some people still believe it to be true. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's there to give the context of White's extraordinary remark, which I feel is notable enough for the intro, given that it was picked up by the New York Times. But without the Hale context, we don't explain why White would have reacted to the murders. Jay, do you think we should get rid of the White quote entirely from the intro? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think the quote is indeed notable - how many other times has White been quoted in the NYT? But since his quote talks about the Hale case, but not Hale's people being involved in the murders, it might be sufficient to leave out the back story. His comment doesn't refer to who did the killing, only that it was "deserved". Here is a suggested variation that omits reference to the killers (original first):

He was in the news again in 2005 when the New York Times quoted him as having "laughed" when the husband and 89-year-old mother of United States district court judge Joan Lefkow were murdered, initially believed to have been killed by associates of white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was fined by Judge Lefkow over a trademark dispute.
He was in the news again in 2005 when the New York Times quoted him as having "laughed" when the husband and 89-year-old mother of United States district court judge Joan Lefkow were murdered. Lefkow had previously ruled against white supremacist Matthew Hale in a trademark dispute.

Would that preserve the relvant portion while omitting the distracting? -Willmcw 05:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

That does it perfectly, Will, thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hardly - just polishing already good text. -Willmcw 06:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

TheGrza re-added more of the Matthew Hale context, but I've reverted to Will's version because it's more concise. TheGraza, please say what you think about this. My reasoning is that, because it's the intro, we should include only the details we need in order to make sense of White's comment about laughing. Also, Gamaliel deleted from the intro: "He is the owner of several rental properties in Roanoke, Virginia." Do others have a view as to whether that should be in the intro or not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right about how it is placed in the intro; I think it should be placed further down the page, but referring to the actual incident, White is operating under the assumption of some sort of Hale connection. I think the significant facts of that Hale was the prime suspect at the time of the statement, as well as his later conviction for ordering her murder are very much germane to the context of the quote.--The Grza 22:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

We could split the difference: say that he got a NYT mention for the "laughing" quote in the intro, then give the whole quote and context later. I am concnerd that the intro paragraph seems to focus just on his administration of Overthrow, while he has been notable more for what he has said on it (and elsewhere. Maybe if we say that he is the "principle author" of Overthrow, or something similar, that would capture his role better. I don't see a good place in the intro for the real estate stuff, unless we just say in the opening paragraph that he is currently a landlord. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave the real estate thing out of the intro. Also, Will, you make a good point about the undue focus on the administration of Overthrow, as though it's a well-known entity apart from White. The only reason the website and White are known (beyond a small circle of readers) is because of certain statements White has made on the site, which have been picked up by the media. I'd say "runs" or "maintains" the far-right, anti-Semitic website Overthrow.com, rather than "adminstrator of" (which sounds like a paid position) or "principle author" (which sounds as though there are other authors). I agree with TheGraza that we should provide the context of the laughing quote, but agree with Will that it should be later on in the text, only because the intro should focus on White, and not give too much space to background. I liked the way Will had managed to make it clear and accurate but without going into detail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mirror image

White has reproduced his version of the Wikipedia piece on his website, without saying where it came from, and without mentioning that he wrote it. All the more reason we need to change it. I'm providing a link to the Google cache of White's website here, as I'm finding the website itself slow to access. [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

And without the notices for GFDL or acknowledging the authorship/source of the article. Is anyone surprised? White needs to read Wikipedia:Copyrights. FeloniousMonk 06:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Website visitor numbers

Baxter, do you know where we can obtain information, independently of White, about the number of visitors the website attracts? I see he's added some figures to the homepage, but it would be better if we could take them from another source, or from the website's site tracker if it's accessible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

A quick check of Alexa indicates that the popularity of Overthrow has dropped precipitously since 2003.[6] Alexa does not give absolute numbers, but the quote that asserted Overthrow is in nearly the same rank as WeeklyStandard is clearly out of date. -Willmcw 03:47, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Will. I added it to the sentence in the intro mentioning the Weekly Standard, though you might prefer to delete the comparison entirely. I'll leave it up to you.

Regarding the court transcript, White has weakened its authority somewhat by having added comments to it, albeit in square brackets. The transcript shows him denying that he's been convicted of a felony or that he's spent time in a mental institution. Baxter, does White have any kind of a criminal record? Also, I'd say the Erica Hardwick incident isn't worth mentioning further, as it's what I would call a domestic incident.

Baxter, regarding the three million dollar investment, I've found a Roanoke Times article saying White expected to invest that amount in the future, but no sources saying he did. Do you know of any? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

This says he's been convicted of assault. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

But this says White appealed and the case was dropped after the victim, Erica Hardwick, failed to show up in court; the article also says the case may be reinstated because of some scheduling mix-up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

SV's version

I havn't had time to go over the differences point by point, but Sv's version is an improvement based on format and images alone. Improvements can be made, and there may be POV issues, I donno. That said, A list of articles by and about Bill White on Overthrow.com supposedly covers the deleted ext links. Does anyone feel references were lost, considering that last? Sam Spade 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SV's version is factual and well supported by credible sources to which it links. I've gone through validated the claims and sources myself and have seen no POV issues. I strongly support this version over the "Whitewash" version. FeloniousMonk 17:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've compared the two version, and I strongly agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The new version is fantastic, SV. Good work.--The Grza 20:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

removing references

why do people keep trying to remove the references? Whats the idea w that? Sam Spade 20:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because there are over 100 of them, most of them trivial or not related to stuff that is in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then trim one by one, as has been repeatedly asked for. Where is the policy or precedent for removal or references on such a grand scale? see Wikipedia:Cite sources. People have been successfully arbited for removing cited info, much less the citations themsel;ves~! Sam Spade 21:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is the policy or precedent for addition of links on such a grand scale, especially for such a small article? They're not sources or references, they're a random collection of writings that mention his name. If he wants to add specific ones that are specifically cited, he can do that as footnotes or endnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats what he seems to be trying to do, I guess he should read Wikipedia:Footnotes. Sam Spade 21:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, his list was not a list of references, as in sources. White is calling it The Bill White Article Collection on his website, and linking to it for the benefit of his readers, though many of the articles have little or nothing to do with him. Quite a few are online even though he hasn't provided the links, so I suggest you read through them to see for yourself. What we need to do is rewrite the article, building up a references section as we go along. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Right. I also not some relevant policy, from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not Self Promotion...Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We can link back to the complete list that White has put on his website if editors think that the list is valuable. (Since we already link to the website it probably isn't necessary). The only sources that we need here are those that support facts or assertions in the article, or which will have substantial additional information. "Citing sources" does not mean listing the "Hall of Records" or all articles ever written by or about someone - it means listing the specific source of a specific fact. Despite all of these sources siginificant parts of the article are apparently unsourced. -Willmcw 22:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Linking back to the list is a good idea, Will: a good compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bill_White_(activist)#references. Sam Spade 20:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam's edits

Sam, I'm mystified as to what your intentions are here. For example, could you explain your reasoning for the following changes?

1) Your intro said the LSN publishes news of extremist groups, but you deleted my edit "whose ideas are not disseminated elsewhere," yet you retained the link to the source that said that. My aim in putting that in is that this is how White describes the LSN himself in the Pravda interview I linked to, and it's arguably a positive thing to say about him: that he's prepared to provide a platform for groups that might otherwise not be heard from. So why did you delete it, and yet retain the link that said it?

2) Why did you delete that he was a Pravda columnist for four months and didn't get paid? We should either retain that information, or delete entirely that he was a columnist, because being unpaid and being very temporary places the claim of employment in context. Instead, you delete the context but retain the claim. What's your reasoning?

3) You restored that he's the owner of White Homes and Land, LLC, and that he has invested in excess of $3 million in the impoverished West End neighborhood of Roanoke, VA. What's your source for these three claims: (a) that he owns LLC, (b) that he invested three million in Roanoke, and (c) that it was invested in an impoverished neighborhood? If you don't have a source, why did you restore the claims; and if you do have a source, why didn't you link to it?

4) You restored that "White also holds business interests in a number of internet and computer related companies, the full extent of which is not known." How do you know that he holds these business interests, and how do you know that the full extent of the interests are not known?

I hope you agree that we can't take Baxter3's word for any of this, particularly as he claims not to be Bill White, and also says he doesn't know him, but has only read his website. And of course even if he were Bill White, we'd also have to base our edits on independent sources where possible, and only on his website when we have to (and then we should make clear that's what we've done). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was probably untrue, there are lots of nazi / white power sites out there reporting stuff.
It was based on a forum, which I give no credit to. We know he worked for Pravda, other links support this implicity. For how long, and how much he was paid would need a valid cite, not some forum.
I wasn't aware there was any denial of this claim, but I believe it has been cited now[7], so thats a moot point.
Well, I know that I never heard of the guy before reading this article, so their dern sure not known by me! ;) If you want a cite on that, ask the person who 1st put it there. My understanding was that these claims were accepted, and being deleted as irrelevent, which I disagree w.

The article needs alot of work, and the 2 versions need merged. I am especially unhappy to discover that the removed references are not to be found in the external link provided, something I had thought would be an agreeable compromise. Sam Spade 20:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Will has sorted out the link to the articles, Sam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

references

A list of articles by and about Bill White on Overthrow.com does not link to the removed references, as claimed. Sam Spade 20:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was there before, I saw it. White seems to have replaced the list with a a few dashes. Maybe he doesn't want the list available. I don't understand why he would have gone to all the trouble of posting it here, copying it to the website, then deleting it. But that is apparently what happened. Hopefully White will replace it. -Willmcw 21:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it was the wrong link. The right one is the previous article: http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=8146. The site appears to be having some difficulty - I couldn't get the page to load. -Willmcw 21:51, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be something wrong with the website. It's also available at http://overthrow.ws/ but I don't know where to find the article list here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've never been able to make any use out of that overthrow website, I think it's badly in need of a web designer. Sam Spade 03:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be working now, maybe he read my complaint? Sam Spade 07:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Baxter, you wrote in an edit summary that the new version contains inaccuracies. I'd be happy to go through it with you section by section, and you can point out what you feel is inaccurate or unfair.

There were some issues with your version that had to be changed. Just one example — Your second sentence states: "He is also the owner of White Homes and Land, LLC, a real estate investment and development company which, according to the Roanoke Times [8], has invested $3 million in the impoverished West End neighborhood of Roanoke, VA."

First, White is not notable for being a real-estate developer. He's notable for the issues reported in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters, and Wikipedia has to go with the major third-party sources before we focus on anything else.

Second, the sentence doesn't reflect what its source says. The Roanoke Times article you linked to doesn't say he's invested $3 million. It says: "He said he has nine single- and multifamily properties in the 1500 and 1600 blocks of Chapman and Patterson avenues either in his possession or under contract. He said he expects to spend a total of $3 million over two years, swelling his number of properties to 45 or 50." (my emphasis)

There were a number of similar issues throughout the old version, which is why I think the new one is an improvement, but if it can be improved further, in terms of accuracy and fairness, please work with us to achieve that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The real estate bit is certainly notable, but SV makes a good point about keeping it clear and concise (sticking to the facts). Sam Spade 23:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is he had it as the second sentence, and while it's normal to keep a person's current employment or position high up in the intro, I couldn't find any third-party source that calls him a real-estate developer. The more partisan sources say he's a slum landlord, and the neutral ones, like the Roanoake Times, just say landlord. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Arn't those all different POV terms for the exact same thing? Sam Spade 00:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, possibly. ;-p SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Being a landlord is important to White's recent life. But if that was all he had done then no one outside of Roanoke would care about him. He is significant and notable because of his political and internet activities. The intro should mention that he is a landlord/investor, but the details should come later in the article. -Willmcw 01:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've added "He is the owner of several rental properties in Roanoke, Virginia" to the intro, which is as much as any of the sources confirm.

I'm also wondering about this sentence in the intro: "White also runs a news service, Libertarian Socialist News, which publishes news of extremist groups whose ideas are not disseminated elsewhere. [9] Looking at the website, it's not clear that the news service is separate from the website; or if it used to be, that it still is; so I'm thinking of deleting that sentence. Does anyone have a view? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote "separate from the website," I meant it's not clear that any part of the website specifically functions as a news service, though I'm having trouble getting into the website, so maybe I just haven't found the news service part of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The "news service" seems to involve a e-mail list. I've found many of the releases reprinted on forums and usenet groups, but I haven't found any newspapers crediting the service. It appears that White presaged the blog era by creating his own outlet for opinion. I think that the Libertarian Socialist News should be treated as one of his interrelated web offerings. I'm still looking for a suitable reference to ShopWhite, which apparently was a business fiasco that left many national alliance-types gnashing their teeth. White is better known for that in many circles than for his real estate dealings. However, all the references that I've found so far have been on forums and other dubious sources. -Willmcw 02:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

There's a reference here [10] to ShopWhite and alleged shenanigans, but it doesn't look like the kind of source we can use. I'll delete the sentence about the news service in the meantime, but feel free to restore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've got also an SPLC reference, [11] (see Linder). Plus there are many sources among forums, etc, there is wide agreement agreement on the basics. I think we can roll this stuff into a two-paragraph (or so) section: Overthrow and the News Service are simple sites focused on advocacy, and the ShopWhite and VNN were mainly commercial businesses where he served in a technical and ownership capacity. -Willmcw 00:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

From the One People's Project website

The One People's Project website has the following commentary on its front page:

PROOF THAT BILL WHITE NEEDS A LIFE Many of us who trapse about the internet have found our way to an online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. This encyclopedia allows visitors to publish and edit entries on a person, topic, etc. Of course, this policy lends itself to abuse, and the operators of the website have often deleted entries that are questionable. That may need to happen soon.

This week, a few entries that a user named "Baxter2" seems to have a hand in authoring were published. One of them is for Bill White. Another is for Erica Hardwick, another for Chuck Munson of Infoshop.org, yet another for Tad Kepley of Anarchy! Magazine and then one for One People's Project. All of them put a negative light on all of their subjects, except one - Bill. In fact, the negative things said about each of the other subjects are exactly the same charges and same spin that Bill puts on these subjects on his own site, Overthrow.com. In his user info page, "Baxter2" notes that he had came to Wikipedia to "flesh out" the article on Bill White, and while he was there contribute to the other entries. He listed the entries he had also contributed to, which included the above as well as one for Jennifer Adams, who White lived with for a spell in Missouri (we think it has since been deleted). It should be noted that Bill was bitching earlier this week about a Wikipedia entry on him, and it is very curious to us how "Baxter2" has the same writing style and talking points that Bill has. Based on this, we think that Bill is the actual author of all of these entries, and is basically trying to use Wikipedia to give credibility to the BS he normally posts on Overthrow that has long been discounted as a credible source.

We have contacted the folks at Wikipedia and asked them to investigate the matter, and we hope to hear from them soon. As much as we would like the entry, truly there are better authors than Bill--we mean "Baxter2". We are posting this to let our readers know not to trust the current entry on us or any that "Baxter2" is associated with.

Oh, and Bill? Get over yourself. With the ongoing investigations of HUD and the FBI (no they did not drop them, you idiot), one would have thought that something would have broken past your dellusion that you are accomplishing something.

Good compromise

Thanks Willmcw. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do others think it matters that he was an unpaid columnist? There's a big difference between someone who's paid or employed to write, and someone who's simply allowed to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I can see that stressing unpaid in the intro might look POV, too. I won't argue the point, just interested in what others think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

As a former professional journalist, I find it highly relevant that he was an unpaid contributor. I think that the information needs to be presented, otherwise the reader is wrongly left with the impression that White enjoyed the full legitimacy of being a professional journalist, which clearly he was not. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13526], he refused payment, and wrote for them prolificaly. That said, its written on a forum, and by a banned account no less. Not a very good source. its alot like someone citing a wikipedia talk thread, only even less reputable. Sam Spade 01:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you admit there's obvious problems with relying on that source, particularly since on the 8th here you wrote "No matter what, forums are NEVER an acceptable source for an encyclopedia" [12]. As support for keeping the fact that White was an unpaid contributor to Pravda, that reference is only useful as a source for viewing his own spin. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the Pravda mention because it may be misleading. My guess is that most folks would remember Pravda from the old Soviet era and assume it was still a communist news service. I'm not exactly sure how to properly characterize it now, but it is just about the opposite of what it once was (the WP article calls it "nationalist"). If we're going to mention Pravda then I think we need to characterize it. However that would disturb introduction's flow. Should we move it down to a chronological point and give it a fuller treatment? -Willmcw 01:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why not leave the mention in the intro (which is perfectly valid in its brevity), and allow the reader to click it if they want to know more about pravda. I (and many others) would say they are still a communist mouthpiece, particularly a National Bolshevist mouthpiece/tabloid. Sam Spade 01:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find that distroted. Their programme/s says they are not; they are just using some symbols and claim to be socialist. They (both) have pronounced fascistic tendencies, I learned that first hand from a brief polemic I engaged in with some NBP, USA represntatives. Anyway, I think perhaps a footnote would be better employed in this case, so as to not disturb the flow of the lead. But I'm, of course, willing to entertain alternative rephrasing of the intro on that front, too. El_C 01:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The tiresome and endless debate about what is and is not socialist is a needless distraction here. Suffice it to say there are differences of opinion on the matter, and that there is no need for us to label Pravda one way or the other in this article. If anyone would like to set to work on the pravda article itself, I would hope they keep a sharp eye for neutrality, since it is a rather touchy subject, with alot of interesting angles. Sam Spade 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but I just found the mouthpiece reference to be inaccurate. Fair enough though. El_C 22:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My only concern about including the Pravda reference, but excluding that he was unpaid, is that it makes him sound as though he's a journalist, which is misleading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If this is to be mentioned, it needs to be qualified (professional, paid journalist viz. lack thereof). El_C 22:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said eariler, as the passage currently exists the reader is wrongly left with the impression that White was a professional journalist, which he never was, and gained some legitimacy from that role, which he never did. The fact that he was an unpaid contributor goes to that point. I'll be reinserting the fact, as it is highly relevant and largely clears up the issue. FeloniousMonk 23:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FM, that's more accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to say such things, cite a reliable source. That forum post not only doesn't back up what your saying (it claims he turned the money down) but it is also far from an acceptable source. Sam Spade 14:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's clear he wasn't paid for working for Pravda, regardless. How do we know he worked for them at all, BTW? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

read the article, esp. ext links, it is cited copiously. I find it disturbing that you accept that crappy forum cite only in ways which make him look bad, and are ready to disregard it if it could make him look even worse. Thats not what I call NPOV. Sam Spade 18:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try to relax, SS. I think he was asking for a direct cite, not whether you are disturbed or whatnot. El_C 23:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is really a tiny detail. Let's not fight about it. Anyway, it's on his own website too.

I have been publishing on my website for years, and it is because of the popularity my material had there that Pravda made the offer to have me write a column, which I do without compensation, for the purpose of drawing traffic to Pravda's website (which my material does quite well). [13]

Again, should we just move this down to the chronological point? 2002. White's tenure as a Pravda correspondent is important to include in the article, but maybe it isn't a key detail that needs to be so prominently placed in the introduction. Or we can split it: mention the Pravda in passing in the intro, and give it a full sentence later. -Willmcw 23:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Though we might use White as a source for this fact, I am unsure of the accuracy of White on matters that he is personally involved in. I have read many accounts of the ShopWhite/VNN controversy on forums. Though individually dubious, they gain a credibility through numbers. White just wrote a new account of the episode which is sharply at odds with the other accounts, and puts his own involvement in a very favorable light. I would rather omit the "fact" of his unpaid status than set a precedent for accepting White's version of events without corroboration. Any other thoughts? -Willmcw 04:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't the right thing to do be to quote him or cite him (or whoever) for what he says, rather than accepting it or excluding it at face value? I'd prefer than everything be cited, rather than nothing, if you follow my meaning. Sam Spade 17:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That works for me. -Willmcw 00:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

nazi.org domain

Bill White's website is overthrow.com, not nazi.com. Whenever I change it, some knucklehead changes it back. Please stop, keep this accurate.

Also, changing the page to Bill White(agitator) would be blatently biased. If you wish to express your own opinions an encyclopedia is not the place to do it.

Zombies and Robots 01:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article does not mention it as Bill White's website though, it notes it as the website of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. El_C 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added a clumsy bit if text to the "external links" to indicate why it is on that list. I'm sure any editor here could improve it. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)