Talk:Identitarian movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

needs work

article either needs expanding or deleting.

info links comprise almost as much as the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I, too, don't see a well-sourced article unlike Bloc Identitaire. Either someone fixes it or we should consider deleting it. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ECPR conference link

A recent Washington Post article recommends this paper as a primer on the Identitarian movement.

• Vejvodová, Petra (September 2014). The Identitarian Movement – renewed idea of alternative Europe (PDF). ECPR General Conference. Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Political Science.

I'm adding it to the article on WaPo's vetting. The DRAFT VERSION language makes me think there should be a newer version somewhere; however, in reading this version it seems to need just an english-language copyedit. I suspect news sources will corroborate most of it. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

White supremacist?

Under the section "In North America" it says
The head of the white nationalist National Policy Institute Richard B. Spencer is a self-described identitarian and promotes white supremacist views
There are 3 references, none of which seem to make mention of the claim. The fact that 3 templates were created for the references made me post here, rather than make the edits. --2601:CD:C104:17A0:A54E:4F52:B527:7AF3 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at Talk:Richard B. Spencer and multiple other talk pages. The sources (and several others) do support that the NPI promotes white supremacist views. We could add more, but we should avoid WP:CITECLUTTER, as it could itself be interpreted as form of editorializing. The overlap is very close, and these terms are often treated as euphemisms of each other. They should be weighed accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dutch Identitair Verzet

The Dutch far right movement Identitair Verzet is part of this movement. Their website tells it all: [1]. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

what is the movement about

This article says where the movement is derived from but has zero description of what exactly it *is*. What do Indentitarians believe? Presumably someone looking up "Identitarian" would like to know this. The articles on Fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) and Anti-Fascism both do a decent job of explaining these movements.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to re-write the introduction section, but I think someone who feels up to it should.

ZeroXero (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Today there was in Deutche Welle a documentary about German Far Right and they presented Identarianists, too. It was the first time I heared about them, so I looked up in the WP. This is why the WP articles are for. "It is on the TV, therefore is encyclopedic". Some more material can be found here [2] if someone wants to enrich the article. I don't think the word itshelf can be related to a particular race/nation/religion. It has more to do with the question "Yes or No to cultural identity". (from Greece). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.7.124 (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yea the article definitely needs a rewrite and to include that info. I know what to write somewhat, but I dont have any sources. I would have to research it.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead needs to be rewritten

I've started by making it clear it's an international movement, not a European integrationist one. I don't think that " it has taken on its own identity and is largely classified as a separate entity altogether with the intent of spreading across Europe. The Identitarian movement advocates the preservation of national identity and a return to traditional western values." is correct and it appears to be original research. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Identitarian/ism

If you look around, you'll see that this term is being used as a term for the ideology of identity politics. This one is new to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

White supremacy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Completely discounting all votes by single purpose accounts and per the extensive persusive arguments by Doug Weller, there is a weighed consensus to support inclusion of the term.Whilst the procedural objections to the RFC are valid, discounting reliable sources for perceived bias and indulging in original research are not valid arguments.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

---

This is a discussion to arrive at a consensus as to whether the terms "white supremacy" or "white supremacist" belong in this article, especially as to whether the definition is imposed on the Identitarian Movement or not.

Allow - either or both of the terms should be allowed in the article, with reliable sources included
Disallow - neither of the terms will be allowed to interfere with the article  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 07:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Another editor who seems to be more familiar with Wikipedia and handling consensus has stepped up to take over. Good luck and happy hunting.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disallow - This is a separate movement from white supremacy and white nationalism, even though they all share some common ground.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 07:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Waste of time comment - I did not know about the group till I saw this article, so I feel I'm not educated enough to vote. But- a) do reputable news outlets list them as white supremacists?; b) do their primary sources ID themselves as white supremacists; c) do their tenets involve believing the white race is superior; d) etc, etc. In sum- we can't say "they are far right so therefore they are white supremacists", but we can say "they believe that the white race is superior, so we can call them white supremacists." Does that make sense? For people who know about the group, the answer to this should be the final answer. We can't call a group white supremacists unless they ARE. And we shouldn't NOT call a white supremacist group as such because it is a charged term. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Can't see why you called this a "waste of time comment." You make rational, cogent arguments and come to logical conclusions. Even though I started this topic, that doesn't mean I believe in it. I believe in accuracy. If Identitarians are white supremacists, it needs to say so. If not, then that needs to be made clear, too. My opinion is based on what I feel is credible.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 15:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Include per reliable sources. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Include How can we not if we are going to follow the sources. I deliberately didn't look at sources such as Slate or Salon, but let's see what the conservative National Review had to say a year or so ago: "“Identitarianism” is a newfangled euphemism for white supremacy. Coined around the start of the 21st century by the intellectual wing — such as it is — of the French far right, it has since been adopted by white nationalists the world over. Last October, I attended a conference in Washington convened by the identitarian movement’s American division, the National Policy Institute (NPI)."[3]. And note that he says both "the world over" and links it to rather than distinguishes it from "white supremacism". A North Carolina newspaper (yes, it's using the SPLC as a source, that just means they think it's a good source) pointing out the growth of the movement in the US and linking it to white supremacism.[4] CNN discussing the term and others and quoting a domestic terrorism specialist:"The far rightists used "white nationalism" to appear more credible and patriotic, Johnson said, and the term detracts from the stereotypes conjured by white supremacy. But make no mistake, he argued, white nationalism is a euphemism. "They want to distance themselves from white supremacy," he said."[5] That's an important point and part of the broader picture of white supremacists doing everything they can to hide their real beliefs. CNN again, quoting an academic with a specialist in the field:""They're racist, but they have fancy new packaging," said Brian Levin, director for the Center of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino. "They learn to downplay the swastikas and get a thesaurus, so instead of white supremacy they use words like identitarian. It's just a repackaged version of white nationalism.""[6] Again, note the emphasis on re-branding. The founder of the One People's Project quoted in Wired: ""If you know the buzzwords, you know what you're dealing with," Jenkins says. "Someone saying they're a 'race realist' or 'identitarian'? That's code for white supremacist."[7] The The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles discussing Identity Evropa and calling it white supremacist.[8] And isn't Identity Evropa, which is white supremacist, part of this movement? Why isn't it included in this article? There are more sources but that seems enough for now. By the way, the language of this RfC isn't exactly optimal. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your claim that Evropa is 'part' of the Identitarian movement sounds like original research. Linked loosely - perhaps, because they are both arguably part of the alt-right, but nothing more. 81.157.84.167 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — 81.157.84.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I asked a question. It's founder describes himself as idenitarian. No original research involved. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Disallow The French Wikipedia article makes no mention of it, where the Identitarian movement started and is more mainstream. Same with German. The 'movement' is not prevalent enough yet in the English-speaking world to quantify the term, I can't find much discussion of it where the author hasn't just looked at what has been written by French or German authors and rephrased it. I'd argue that applying loaded and unfounded terms to the article will just drive on the movement in their aims. 81.157.84.167 (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — 81.157.84.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Disallow - regardless of what fake news articles are released, I can confirm that no racism or white supremacy is accepted in right wing identitarian politics, this is coming from a member. 109.145.113.182 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — 109.145.113.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Bold text isn't a substitute for consensus - Why is this so rigidly framed? Any IPs or other new editors need to be aware that this isn't a ballot, and Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Other comments and options should be discussed or proposed, and neither is a valid option. Please review Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Including the phrase "cast your vote" in the RFC is likely to cause needless confusion. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – Despite what the initiator of this RfC claims, this is not a vote as polling is not a substitute for discussion. Accordingly, I have refactored this section to remove the unsigned instructions regarding voting and to unseparate the voting subsection. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include – As Doug Weller said, we have to follow the sources. The sources appear to be leading in one direction based on the above discussion and no opposing argument has been made that is rooted in the available sources. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include (summoned by bot) – There are clearly sources that support this interpretation, as Doug Weller notes. If there are other reliable sources contesting the characterisation, then the article can report that there ae differing interpretations. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Disallow As I've said elsewhere, it's difficult to maintain accuracy in a time of political turmoil. There's alot of bias and distortion out there, even in seemingly reliable media sources, and it's important not to let it creep into an encyclopedia. The term 'white supremacy' is a very loaded label which obscures what the identitarian movement is about. To my understanding, this is not about racial ideology; this is a populist/ethnonationalist backlash against globalism, neoliberalism, and open-door immigration policies. I think what is most important is striving to be factual and accurate, rather than unquestioningly paraphrasing easily available sources. Bigdan201 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Objection to RfC. This RfC is contrary to Wikipedia policy and frankly, completely bogus. We don't decide whether a particular term should be blacklisted from an article. We decide whether it belongs in a particular place in the article, with a particular wording, supported by particular sources. When it comes to our core verifiability and neutrality policies, context matters. Without context, the RfC is meaningless. If I have to choose between these two ridiculous options then I choose Allow because I don't think a term should be summarily blacklisted without considering context. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, context does matter. If the article mentioned that they've been described by certain commentators as white supremacist, that would be fine. The article directly supporting that statement would NOT be acceptable. Bigdan201 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• @ Bigdan201 - What you said is spot on and 100% true. Identitarian politics is not predominately about race, although white culture is important. Black members are also allowed to join and are encouraged. At the moment Identitarian politics is against neoliberalism and open-door immigration policies. The movement strongly encourages intelligent, non violent and mainly young people (teens-30s) to get involved and are strongly against racist and biased views as it incredibly damages the image of the movement and is generally very wrong. As I said before this comes from a member associated with Generation Identity. ThePlane11 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ThePlane11 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

• Include - As Doug Weller has referenced well, there are many reliable sources. Wikipedia should be about reliable sources, not the spin that some editors find in vogue at the moment. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disallow - or more accurately, the terms should be allowed in the context of explaining that identitarianism is not about white supremacy. Great floors (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2017 (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.

White nationalist? The sources don't prove this

Intro says: "The Identitarian movement is a white nationalist[1][2] movement". One of the sources doesn't say this at all. It just says that the group "Defend Europe" is both white nationalist and identitarian. (Defend Europe is also a non-profit, does this mean all non-profits are also white nationalists by similar association?) The other source does make a mention of "he white nationalist “Identitarian” movement", but one journalist's casual comment doesn't really create enough weight for such an accusation/attribution.

If I wanted to start the Micheal Jackson article with "Micheal Jackson was a racist[1][2] who sang...", I'd need a lot more than just a guilt-by-association comment and a throwaway comment by one journalist.

I'm sure there's plenty of overlap between white nationalists and identitarians. In particular, I'd guess the white nationalists are usually also identitarians. But that doesn't mean identitarians are all white nationalists. I'm sure many identitarians want nothing to do with white nationalists and distance themselves as much as possible.

There's overlap, but they're two separate groups. Great floors (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(A discussion of the relation between the two groups would be a great addition to the article. But a flat "Identitarians are white nationalists" is just nonsense.) Great floors (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"A discussion of the relation between the two groups would be a great addition to the article" - If such a thing were available in a source perhaps. Wikipedia doesn't permit speculative discourse on it's talk pages, let alone on the article namespace. There are lots of sources which identify this movement as white nationalist. Some of them are in the body of this article. Are you suggesting that the statement requires more citations? If so, let me know which further citations you wish to add and I will create a link bundle after the statement so as not to create a cite kill effect. Edaham (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Does it need more citations? Of course it does. There are only two and one is off-topic and the other is a casual mention in an article about something else (it's about an action, not about classify the group). Yes, if there are sources please cite them. Great floors (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Quibbling over the use of sources in the lede for statements which are well-supported in the body is counterproductive. If you think these sources are unreliable, explain why. Dismissing them as "some journalist" is deeply misguided about how sources work on Wikipedia. If a cite-bundle would solve this, it would be helpful, and there are so, so many sources that could be added to such a bundle. It is a ridiculously simple thing to source, and it's very clearly a defining trait of the movement. From past experience, I suspect a bundle will only help a little, though. We would still likely have to deal with a constant stream of nit-pickers who reject some of the sources as insufficient, while ignoring the larger picture. We've seen this so many other places with white nationalist/identitarian/race realist/white supremacist/racialist/white separatist/alt-right/new right/etc... If a bundle simplifies the discussion or slows down the stream, it's still worth it. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't edit any of the article types you mention. This isn't a topic I'm into. I stumbled on this article and noticed the content is poorly and incorrectly sourced. The body is also disorganised, but I don't care enough to dig into that problem. A casual comment by a journalist is not WP's gold standard. You surely know this. If the article really has good sources about the identitarian movement being *part of* the white nationalist movement, then add these sources, and be clear: use the "quote" field of the cite_web tag to show what part of the article you think supports the statement in the article. I've been clear in my edit summaries and explanations here.

Please don't grab a source about Mr. X saying he's a white nationalist and an identitarian, and use this to support a claim that the identiarian movement is part of the white nationalist movement. Or a source about Identitarian Organisation X having dealings with White Nationalist Organisation Y. That's just overlap.

Now, if you do have good sources, then that's great! Add what the sources say. I don't care what WP says about identitarians (as long as it's accurate and backed up). Great floors (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if you've edited these articles before, because I have, and I've seen this exact discussion played out multiple times before. Your edit was whitewashing, and the Miami Herald source is absolutely not a passing mention. If a reliable source, such as the Miami Herald, say this as a fact, we do not need to couch this in layers of WP:WEASELish quotes. Many sources say, both in passing and substance, that this is a white racist organization using whatever the in-house euphemism is for it. This a simple and straightforward description. You have made your request clear. Demanding specific standards of placement and formatting for these citations is disruptive. One of us will add the bundle when we get around to it. Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

White supremacy - implement the RfC?

On September 6th the RfC was closed, I don't have the time right now to implement it. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Far Right Youth Group?

Inapproprpriate description to call them a far right group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C400:8AD0:74F9:6A9B:EA1E:AB52 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So, what would you call them?  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 19:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Reactionary conservative youth group" or something of the likes. The term "far-right" implies a radical fringe right ideology, whereas the Identitarians' positions of opposition to mass-migration and Islamization is very mainstream in modern conservatism. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The 4 references for "white nationalist/supremacist"

To make the references clear, we should use the quote field of the cite_web tag. However, when I try to do this I find only wafer thing support and some contradiction of what the intro claims. But if I change the intro to accurately reflect its references, I'll get reverted because some people seem to think the references say something else. Below is what the references say. If you think I'm missing something in the references then show me your quote. Otherwise the intro has to be fixed to reflect what's in the references. (More references are surely required - I find it hard to believe that these articles are the only or most thorough ones that discuss identitarians.)

1. Miami Times: "White nationalists charter ship to catch Muslims in the Mediterranean... Generation Identity, whose members call themselves Identitarians"

   (This journalist calls Generation Identity a white nationalist group and says they call themselves identitarians. He doesn't say anything about whether identitarians are part of the white nationalist movement.)

2. snopes.com: "The Defend Europe group, which is part of the white nationalist “Identitarian” movement..."

   (That's the only mention of "identitarian" in the article. The sentence is about one group and mentions they call themselves identiarian. And snopes is a website, its authors aren't journalists.)

3. LA Times: "In diverse California, a young white supremacist seeks to convert fellow college students... He said called himself an “identitarian,” not a white supremacist."

   (One dude says supremacist things and calls himself identitarian ...and In November 2007, he had been ... suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, paranoia and flashbacks, court records show. He's the proof?)

4. politicalresearch.org: "The group cloaks their White nationalist message in language of identitarian pride in European heritage"

   (That's the only mention of "identiarian" in the article, and it's to say that racist groups sometimes abuse the "identitarian" name. Nothing about identitarians being white supremacists.)

That's the evidence that identitarians are racists???

If anyone thinks these references are up to Wikipedia's standards as being representative and authoritative of what the identitarian movement is, please show me the quotes. Great floors (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's the evidence. And that's enough. There's also more out there, but this is actually sufficient. Volunteer Marek  11:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The evidence for references to this being a "white nationalist" movement is at least existent in the first two sources, but the sources used to justify the "white supremacist" label are clearly insufficient. Nowhere on those pages is the Identitarian Movement referred to as "white supremacist." God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we reading the same material? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

'His answers to the students’ questions about his views were long-winded and complex. He said called himself an “identitarian,” not a white supremacist.' - Source #3; distinguishes between the labels of 'identitarian' and 'white supremacist.' Never calls the Identitarian Movement 'white supremacist,' and never labels Identity Evropa 'Identitarian.'

"The group cloaks their White nationalist message in language of identitarian pride in European heritage and softens it with a polished look." - Source #4; refers to the group Identity Evropa as being 'white nationalist' though they hide behind the language of identitarian pride in European heritage. This is not a reference to the Identitarian Movement, a distinct European group with distinct goals unrelated to Identity Evropa or white supremacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

We had an RfC recently which was closed with the decision to call them white supremacist, but that wasn't implemented. Here's what I wrote there (a bit above, but it seems to have been missed) I deliberately didn't look at sources such as Slate or Salon, but let's see what the conservative National Review had to say a year or so ago: "“Identitarianism” is a newfangled euphemism for white supremacy. Coined around the start of the 21st century by the intellectual wing — such as it is — of the French far right, it has since been adopted by white nationalists the world over. Last October, I attended a conference in Washington convened by the identitarian movement’s American division, the National Policy Institute (NPI)."[9]. And note that he says both "the world over" and links it to rather than distinguishes it from "white supremacism".

A North Carolina newspaper (yes, it's using the SPLC as a source, that just means they think it's a good source) pointing out the growth of the movement in the US and linking it to white supremacism.[10]

CNN discussing the term and others and quoting a domestic terrorism specialist:"The far rightists used "white nationalism" to appear more credible and patriotic, Johnson said, and the term detracts from the stereotypes conjured by white supremacy. But make no mistake, he argued, white nationalism is a euphemism. "They want to distance themselves from white supremacy," he said."[11] That's an important point and part of the broader picture of white supremacists doing everything they can to hide their real beliefs.

CNN again, quoting an academic with a specialist in the field:""They're racist, but they have fancy new packaging," said Brian Levin, director for the Center of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino. "They learn to downplay the swastikas and get a thesaurus, so instead of white supremacy they use words like identitarian. It's just a repackaged version of white nationalism.""[12] Again, note the emphasis on re-branding.

The founder of the One People's Project quoted in Wired: ""If you know the buzzwords, you know what you're dealing with," Jenkins says. "Someone saying they're a 'race realist' or 'identitarian'? That's code for white supremacist."[13]

The The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles discussing Identity Evropa and calling it white supremacist.[14] And isn't Identity Evropa, which is white supremacist, part of this movement? Why isn't it included in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

See, this is constructive. If you want to use the National Review and SPLC sources to document actual instances in which people refer to this Identitarian Movement as "white supremacist," then by all means do so. But reverting to previous edits that reference bunk sources is not any way to go about editing an encyclopedia. Claims made on a Wiki page, especially claims this inflammatory and debatable, need to be backed by solid sources that provide direct evidence for those claims. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The four sources quoted at the top of this post never say identitarianism is about white nationalism, let alone supremacy. Refs 1 and 2 show that, according to a journalist, the term "identitarian" is used for some of Generation Identity. The journalist puts it in quote marks, never even saying that it's rightly used. Ref 3 says some crazy dude uses both terms for himself. And ref 4 says some racist group abused the term. These sources are nonsense. Great floors (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

We also have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is used as a source by a lot of people. It's very possible that someone would call identitarianism a white nationalist movement because they read it on Wikipedia. Then someone adds that as a reference and the circle of nonsense is complete. Great floors (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be highlighted that the Identitarian Movement itself does not espouse white nationalist or white supremacist goals or values. The term "identitarianism" could be used to refer to the blanket term 'identity politics,' which would of course include white nationalism and white supremacy. But this article describes the specific political activist groups in Europe, born out of the French group Generation Identitaire, whose only explicit goals are to stem the flow of mass-migration and to prevent Islam from replacing European culture. Using language like "it has been described as white nationalist and white supremacist" is absurd. Its the equivalent of me writing a blog post in which I label Daft Punk "racist" without providing any evidence to back up that claim, then edit the Daft Punk wiki page to say "The group has been described as racist." It gives the implication that these 'descriptions' are warranted or justifiable, even if they're clearly neither. Until someone can provide any evidence that the Identitarian Movement (that being the specific set of European organizations derived from Bloc Identitaire) is a white nationalist or white supremacist movement, there's no justification to include those labels in the group's encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk • contribs) 04:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not "equivalent". You're not a reliable source. You're just a random Wikipedia account... well, not so random, you're a WP:SPA newly created Wikipedia account with 11 edits. But, hey, if you ever publish your opinions in a reliable secondary source, *then* we could use it. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Preventing "Islam from replacing European culture" is a statistically absurd conspiracy theory heavily popularized by white supremacists. Anyone who tries to distance this movement from racism by citing neo-Nazi talking points is unlikely to get much traction. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whether you think it's an absurd goal or a viable one, it doesn't matter whether white supremacists share that goal, the point is that the goal itself has nothing to do with racial supremacy of any sort. Not once has this organization stated a goal or view of white supremacy or the promotion thereof, so it is grossly unfair to categorize them as white supremacists on their wikipedia page. This isn't a forum in which we get to let our biases determine how the public sees a particular political group. This is an online encyclopedia, and as such needs to be written from an unbiased and objective standpoint. You've failed to provide any evidence that this organization is in any way racist, white nationalist, or white supremacist. Saying that some journalist has described them as such is not at all sufficient to justify including those labels on the group's encyclopedia entry. It doesn't matter whether the author of an article is writing from an 'esteemed' source like the Washington Post or the New York Times or whatever, an opinion by a journalist is not factual evidence of the Identitarian Movement being white supremacist. Until you can provide a shred of objective evidence to back up your view, we can't let the biases of wikipedia editors define the identity of a political movement. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What organisation are you referring to that hasn't stated a goal of white supremacy? It's a movement (as your last sentence says), and movements can't make official statements. And we do use reliable sources for descriptions - I don't think someone with just a handful of edits is in a position to say we can't. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The organization I'm referring to is the collective of identitarian groups united under the lambda symbol and sharing common roots and goals, including: Génération Identitaire, Bloc Identitaire, Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs, Generazione Identitaria, Identitäre Bewegung Deutschland, and others. The Identitarian Movement described in this wiki is mainly limited to these groups and their supporters, and none of them espouse white supremacist goals or values. And I'm not refuting the "reliability" of these sources, I'm objecting to the use of journalists' opinions to justify labeling these groups white supremacist when the facts don't back up those labels. It doesn't matter whose opinion it is, it's not backed by any actual evidence and therefore isn't appropriate for use in an encyclopedia entry. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is that none of these groups espouse white supremacist goals. My opinion is that pushing the false narrative of Islamic displacement is itself white supremacist. Without WP:RS, your opinion doesn't belong in the article any more than mine does. Like it or not, reputable journalists are considered reliable. This isn't stated as their opinions, this is reported as a basic fact. If you want to change the article, find new sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

But reputable journalists are only sources for what they say. If one says "I interviewed this one nut job and he said a bunch of racist stuff and then called himself an identitarian", then you can maybe add to the article something about the existence of a single nut job who calls himself an identitarian. Although I don't think that passes Wikipedia's requirement of not giving WP:Undue weight to small events.

What is not allowed, is seeing one nut job say something, and then accusing a few hundred/thousand/million/whatever of being white supremacists (i.e. racists). That's just POV and makes Wikipedia look like nonsense.

(Yes, I'm sure there are racists who cheer identitarian movements from the sidelines, and I'm sure there are even some who throw their money at it and turn up at their events because their own movements just get ignored, but that doesn't make the identitarian movement racist. It's specifically about identity, not race.) Great floors (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for how we handle reliable sources. Reputable journalists distinguish between reporting and opinion. Opinion should be evaluated based on context, but should generally be attributed. Reporting is generally treated as factual unless we have some reason to believe otherwise. "Identity" is treated by both reputable journalists and reputable academics as a thinly disguised proxy for "race", and this holds regardless of how the movement's spokespeople see it.

As for racists who "show up", well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. The implication that no true Identitarian is a racist is unsupported by sources or reality. If you know of Identitarians who aren't racists, so be it, but that would do absolutely nothing to imply that no Identitarian anywhere is a racist, nor would that mean that the movement itself must not be racist. Reliable sources would be needed to even touch on a claim as bold as that. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing, objectivity, and neutrality

@Doug Weller: @DrawingLol: Sources used in this article need to be reliable and objective. The two sources DrawingLol keeps trying to add to this article are neither. We also need to keep this page neutral, which means that accusations as inflammatory as the white supremacist label necessitate proper counterargument as presented by the two Identitarian webpages I linked. Also, DrawingLol's repeated reversions of these edits to include unreliable sources backing unfounded claims border on vandalism, or at least constitute edit warring. My deletion of those unreliable sources is not edit warring, it's simply fixing mistakes. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not obligated to cite unreliable "counterarguments" out of false balance. Identitarian websites are not reliable, and the euphemistic opinions/public relations of some Identitarians are not at all appropriate for inclusion without reliable sources. In this case that also means independent sources, since Identitarian groups are extremely unlikely to be reliable. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as the POV tag, I have been trying to introduce neutrality to this article for the last two weeks and have been consistently overridden by other editors. When I delete unreliable sources and highlight contested statements (for instance, the claim that the movement is 'white supremacist' which has been exhaustively debated and for which there is ample evidence for and against), I do so only to remove the blatant anti-Identitarian bias that other editors keep trying to slip into the article. When I make edits to remove statements that aren't adequately substantiated or to remove sources that don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, I simply get reverted by a tag-team of editors who think that neutrality is somehow abhorrent in the case of Identitarianism. Trying to keep this article up to Wiki's WP:RS and WP:POV standards by undoing destructive edits has led others to label me as an edit warrior, simply because no one else seems to be fighting for objectivity. I feel the POV tag is necessary for this article because I seem to be the only editor concerned with neutrality and I can't keep up with this on my own. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 tag removed: Regarding use of {{npov}} (from template:NPOV): The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable. I can't see anything approaching an actionable edit or change in your complaints about other editors. You might be looking for The complaints department. Additional - The material you are proposing (published by the subject of the article on their website) is WP:PRIMARY. It's not suitable for inclusion, especially when other sources which satisfy WP:RS and WP:DUE are readily available. Edaham (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What this article needs is an external unbiased review of the claims, language, and sources used in this article which, as I've pointed out many times in this article, are insufficiently substantiated and clearly only representative of the anti-Identitarian biases of these editors. When the Identitarian groups at the core of the movement (the French, German, Italian, and British branches of 'Generation Identity' namely) refute the 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazi' labels and do not state goals relating to white supremacy or Nazism, it is unfair to use those labels without addressing their disputed nature. The specific actions needed are a review of the claims made in this article, which are clearly biased, and the subsequent removal of biased language and addition of disclaimers about the disputed nature of such claims. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What this article needs is an external unbiased review of the claims, language, and sources used in this article

- it looks like you just gave it one. Many thanks. Since you've nothing else to add regarding specific and actionable editorial changes based on either policy or reliable sources, shall we move on? Edaham (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a clue as to what specifically GEAG means by "unbiased" (not caring about racism in any way?), "objective" (a synonym for unbiased) or "external". Or even "neutrality" which I presume is not the same as our neutral point of view policy. Maybe some examples would help. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

a hat would help Edaham (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If I can't make the necessary changes myself without being reverted by biased editors, then the tag stays up until someone else comes along to do it. If you want to see examples of removing bias, see my edits in the page history. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

or does it...? Edaham (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the Identitarian movement really about?

Generation Identity, or identitarian movement is not a nationalist, or white nationalist movement. Generation Identity does not base their political views upon enlightenment era concepts (nationalism, concept of ideology). Generation Identity base their political views upon the ethno-cultural identity of the European peoples, which is in itself something completely different from the concept of ideology. Nationalism is a relatively modern concept as is ideology, therefore there is no reason for identitarians (the name is self explanatory) to be nationalists, or to have any form of ideology. Generation Identity sees ideology as universalism and are against the standardization of cultures and peoples. They have ethno-pluralistic view on the world. An English source can be found below.

https://identitarian-movement.org/generation-identity-faqs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2693:9400:25EF:C0A2:E277:29EE (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the tiny UK group's site. Neo-Nazi Scottish Dawn says GI has had an influence on them.[15] Everybody has some sort of system of ideals, even if they don't call it ideology. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I gave that site as source because I believe it is the only one available in English. It influences people, thats the idea behind the movement. I dont really see what a Neo-Nazi has to do with this? Care to explain that? Basing your political views on ethno-cultural identity which was the default before the concept ideology came into being is fundamentally different from the concept ideology itself. Culture is not an ideology and identity is not an ideology either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2693:9400:BCA1:CF90:DC5A:E51C (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism is a modern phenomena, not concept. Ideology means "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy" - whether the term is modern or not doesn't matter. Consciousness existed before the concept, as did ideologies. Identity politics is a form of ideology. Universalism is an ideology, but ideology isn't universalism, and if some GI adherents think it is they are confused. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Universalism is an ideology, but ideology isn't universalism, and if some GI adherents think it is they are confused." Identitarians dont think that. Its just that identity is not universally applicable while ideology is. The ethno-cultural identity of the European peoples cannot be applied to any other enthic group, it is unique to Europe. An ideology like lets say capitalism can however be applied to any ethnic group in the world. The ethno-cultural identity of Europe would disappear when the European people disappear, ideologies would remain the same regardless of ethnic group. If you would like to stick the label of ideology onto Generation Identity then use patriotism as opposed to nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2693:9400:F5DD:277C:6115:7925 (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh? The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy[16] says " In the case of patriotism, that entity is one's patria, one's country; in the case of nationalism, that entity is one's natio, one's nation (in the ethnic/cultural sense of the term)." So I don't see how your suggestion would work. Oxford Dictionary has "ADJECTIVE: Relating to or supporting the political interests of a particular racial, ethnic, or national group, typically one composed of Europeans or white people." "NOUN: A supporter or advocate of the political interests of a particular racial, ethnic, or national group, typically one composed of Europeans or white people." Doug Weller talk 18:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"NOUN: A supporter or advocate of the political interests of a particular racial, ethnic, or national group, typically one composed of Europeans or white people." I would argue that its not about political interests,, it is about identity, but I suppose all arguing on here will be useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2693:9400:CD22:5DB4:588D:7ED2 (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're arguing against academic definitions so yes, I guess it will be. We use the mainstream academic understanding and definitions of such concepts. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no nationalist movement that is active in the interests for all European peoplesn rather they are active for their own people ony. Nationalist movements are not pan-European, Generation Identity is. It is not about the nation/people, it is about our entire family of European nations/peoples and especially the identity thereof. It is only a matter of time before 'identitarian' will also have an academic definition so argue against a brick wall all you want, the clock is ticking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:2693:9400:b821:c692:be90:f935 (talk • contribs)

This is a complete waste of time. You clearly haven't checked to see if there is an academic literature[17][18] and a lot more. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"This is a complete waste of time. You clearly haven't checked to see if there is an academic" I went through this academic literature, it was the same identitarianism is nationalism type of nonsense that you read on Wikipedia and on other various sites of the same calibre. Dont you think that if people who are interested in Generation Identity and end up going to a lecture about Generation Identity and hear nothing but criticism of nationalism that an increasingly bigger group of people will come to the realization that Wikipedia is a sorry excuse for an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2693:9400:4CF5:F8BC:E549:5E65 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You came back two weeks later just to say it's not a waste of time? It is only a matter of time before 'identitarian' will also have an academic definition... turns into ...it was the same identitarianism is nationalism type of nonsense that you read on Wikipedia.... So yeah, waste of time. Wikipedia reflects the academic definition. It is not a place for advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia reflects the academic definition." So much for being a neutral source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2693:9400:356C:FFB6:7329:67C8 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Identitarian Center in Halle searched by the police

Since the article is protected somebody else you add the following information:
In November 2017 the Identitarian Center in Halle (Saale) was searched by the police and storage media confiscated.
Source: Jan Schumann: Identitäre Bewegung - Polizei durchsucht Schulungszentrum der Rechtsextremen (i.e. "Identitarian Movement - Police searches training center of the right-wing extremists"), in: Mitteldeutsche Zeitung, (11/13/2017). 93.224.107.234 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2018

Somebody has vandalized the page by labeling it as National Bolshevik. We are not a political movement, but a social one, and as such have no specific political ideology. I am requesting editing permissions so as to delete or edit this claim.

Wokeupnew123 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC) wokeupnew123

Not done: The claim about "National Bolshevik" is sourced. Please provide multiple, independent reliable sources to refute the assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

lol at wasting time on this site. Nozbolfan

I noticed this, fixed it for you. JM17 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Please include quotes in your citations, or let's remove them

Citation quality here is atrocious. Not one of the 18 refs in the intro gives a quote to show which part of the linked article supports the relevant statement. So I checked some, and many had nothing relevant to the sentence they're attached to. That means they're off-topic and should be removed.

Here's the syntax for adding |quote= to a citation:

{{cite web|title=Some randommer who'll be our "expert" today|url=http://sjwonline.org/blog/identitarians-love-nazis/|quote=blah blah identitarians are all racists blah blah}}

If anyone believes that statements made in the intro, and believes that those statements are supported by the citations, then add quotes. Otherwise the citations should be removed. Great floors (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your cringy example poisons the well for productive discussion, but didn't we already have this conversation? We do not require that quotes be taken in isolation to support content. While sometimes helpful, that also risks cherry picking. If a source judged in context supports a statement, that is enough. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

But the references currently used are mostly off-topic. A small number even demonstrate the contrary to what this article claims. If I remove any and explain why, I get reverted with no explanation. How can anyone raise the quality of this article if the high-volume editors refuse to say how the sources support what they're adding? Great floors (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Just spit it out: You're complaining about the phrase "white nationalist" in the lede, right? Wikipedia doesn't like WP:EUPHEMISMs, and most Wikipedia editors don't like word-games and evasive language. The sources I checked strongly support the conclusion that identitarianism is race-obsessed, extremist, nationalist, overwhelmingly white, and apathetic at best to non-white people who stay out of white people's "territories" and hostile to those who don't. Simplifying this to "white nationalist" is perfectly reasonable. "White supremacist" would also be acceptable. Your insistence that each source must have only a single quote summarizing this point is unrealistic. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

There was a recent edit war on whether identitarians would be considered national bolsheviks. I gave multiple peer-reviewed sources from the Southern Poverty Law Center and political journals explaining their support of Dugin, and their influence on the broader European far-right. All of the sources provided are considered reliable sources, and I found the POV reversal somewhat frivolous. I went over the 3 revert edit revert rule because this is clear POV editing from users who don't like the conclusions. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea about the subject and don't care. Our policy of WP:BRD and 3rr is pretty clear. Use the talk page to get consensus before you revert to a preferred version of article text. If WP:RS and WP:V is on your side you will get the consensus you are looking for and can use the RfC template to attract more attention, if the lack thereof prevents a consensus from being formed. Using this process rather than undoing my last edit would have been the perfect time to do this. Peace out. Edaham (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do a RFC in the next week if this doesn't get attention. Peace to you too. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush here. It's pretty clear that you've got a bunch of sources ready for discussion. If you go the BRD/RfC route, you'll get the attention of a bunch of editors who (if they support the changes, which I think they well might) will assist in maintaining a version of the article, thus negating the need for you to continually revert. This is one of the reasons for preferring the BRD process over edit warring. Edaham (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Lambda -- the main symbol of the identitarian movement

Lambda

Shouldn't the main symbol of the movement be depicted in the article? 93.224.109.12 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2018

This article is highly offensive, and misrepresentative, it completely portrays the identitarian movement in the worst possible light, and doesn't address the issue of government forced miscegenation through diversity quotas in closed communities (people are naturally tribalistic, if you force other people among them, there will be violence, because people have the right to be among their own, its called freedom of assembly, and shouldn't be forced into breeding with other races, the media and porn industry push miscegenation as a form of racism, because of political correctness) over people who didn't ask for diversity, its genocidally hateful racism aimed at white people only. Its no conspiracy theory, its been traced methodically back, with factual evidence to support it as fact. This isn't a small organization pushing it either, these people causing this problem are sick individuals, and by pushing their narrative, you WikiLeaks are enabling it to reach a point of civil racial conflict. Its not racist to be white and proud, its not racist to be a white male, its not racist to want to be among your own people. And the fact that I even have to explain this, is ludacris. Look at all other countries in the world, almost all of them are exclusively racially homogenous based on the founders of said countries (except Egypt its changed hands quite a few times). What I'm getting at, is that for peace to win, people must respect each others boundaries. Destroying entire ethnic cultures, languages, and identities over miscegenation, is a terrible tragedy. Did you know languages are disappearing on earth, as well as verbally transferred histories. Bleed into one, is basically the death of all cultures, individual races are beautiful in their differences, if everyone was the same, what is the point of life in a bleak watered down mix of all cultures? Feminists push the idea of "I wish everyone had equal outcomes" but that is pure communism you cannot have the "equality of outcome" without oppressing many many many people. This is a very complex and involved problem. Your site has spewed it completely from the leftist perspective, which doesn't even address the grievance of the crux of the problem. Its very disappointing that WikiLeaks isn't taking a neutral partisan stance on political discourse on hotbutton issues. Your article is from a completely leftist perspective. I'm going to link this article to 4chan and /pol/ and let them see what they think of your article. 97.70.101.11 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

European vs North American

So the Identitarian Movement is really a European movement, and a continental European movement at that. There are certainly American groups that model themselves after it, and call themselves "identitarians", but they're not acknowledged by the European movement to be the same thing. And the American groups do not use the yellow lambda symbol that the French, German, Austrian and Italian groups do. And there are political differences too. The IM makes a big deal about drawing a line between themselves and Nazism, whereas the American groups generally don't. The IM avoids antisemitism, whereas the American groups often don't. The IM is specifically focussed on stopping non-European immigration to Europe, especially Muslims, whereas the American groups are more focussed on white people vs. black people already in the U.S. Tactically, the IM does a lot of "direct action" stunts, which they like to video and post on YouTube, whereas the American groups generally don't.

I think it would serve the reader better if this distinction were made clearer. Certainly this is all pretty clear in the sources. The (European) Identitarian Movement is its own thing and deserves its own article, separate from broader uses of the term "identitarian". It has its own distinct politics, tactics, and graphic design, widely shared among the various European groups, that aren't shared by everyone calling themselves identitarians. FenceSitter (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Photo

I removed the Spencer photo, as his connection to the IM is vague and unsourced. I recommend replacing it with a picture of Martin Sellner, as his name seems to be mentioned in many of the sources. FenceSitter (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Some more sources I came across:

• "Meet the IB, Europe's version of America's alt-right". The Economist. November 12, 2016.
• "Hipster or hatemonger? The trendy young face of Austria's far-right". CNN. December 2, 2016.
• "Identitarian movement - Germany's 'new right' hipsters". Deutsche Welle. 23 June 2017. More articles under "DW RECOMMENDS".

FenceSitter (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Substantial editing by sockpuppets

If you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational/Archive you will see that 4 socks of his have been editing - AKOQ, DrawingLol, CornFlakes and CornFlakes which may explain why some sources mentioned above (not the section just above) have vanished from the article. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Blanket revert at Identitarian movement without any apparent reading of the text or the sources

Article needs major re-write, and much better sources. Intro seems to have been written by someone familiar with the American alt-right, but the Identitarian movement, while related, pre-dates it and has a very different origin.

For example, 6 sources are affixed to the label "white nationalist", but none of them actually use that term to describe "identitarians". Neither does the source cited (6) refer to identitarians "believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory". Sources 11-through 14 do not link the movement to "white supremacism", and "various governments" and "civil-rights organizations" are again, not mentioned in the sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Source 6 says They do talk about white genocide [but] they are careful to represent themselves in a peaceful way and avoid any suggestion of violence,” Mr Davey added.". I don't have time right now for the rest. 05:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a quote from one Mr Davey of the "Institute for Strategic Dialogue", not The Independent.

An institute which researched independence, right? But you claim it's not in the citation. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

From memory, and glancing again just now, sources clearly support that this movement is race-obsessed, specifically regarding white people. Any rewrite of the lede which downplays this racist aspect would be misrepresenting sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What? I think you're jumping the gun again here. I just said it needs better sources. Of course the group is "race obsessed" and "white nationalist" - it just needs better sources. I'm not trying to "whitewash" the article (pun intended). Please re-read my comments, and the sources. Thankyou. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you've tag bombed. 5 blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing and now this? Doug Weller talk 07:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The 6 sources (2 through 7) you mention are not just for "white nationalist" but for "a European and North American[not in citation given] white nationalist" and source 2, the SPLC, backs the first bit you say isn't in the citation given. Source 3 backs European. Source 4 backs that also as well as white nationalism, read it again. Source 5 explicitly says "Identitarianism: A white nationalist movement with roots in Europe." Source 6 I've discussed above but also mentions Europe, specifically the UK. Source 7 says "The group are part of a broader pan-European movement called Identitarianism, which focuses on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture. They can broadly be described as white-nationalists." Doug Weller talk 08:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you're a little confused. I wasn't disputing the fact that the movement was "European" or "American", or "White Nationalist" for that matter. Please re-read my comments. So, for example, the first "white nationalist" designation is only given in one reliable source - source 7 (you're right, I overlooked that). Likewise with the other lists and designations: "white supremacist", "civil-rights organizations", "researchers of extremism", etc. These statements and designations are not sourced. I thought it better to delete it all and start from scratch. You objected and reverted - evidently without even bothering to read the article or the sources properly. So now I've had to tag the specific statements and designations which are unsourced. Looks ugly, but how else can I draw attention to the poorly-sourced state of the intro? You got yourself into an edit war for no reason. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You reverted the text "North American white nationalist" and "with many in it believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory. It also supports the concept of a "Europe of 100 flags".It has been considered white supremacist by civil-rights organizations, researchers of extremism, news organizations, and various governments. The movement has also been described as being a part of the global alt-right. " (I cut out the reference numbers.) You ignored all the discussions above and the sources, and of course the RfC. You claimed the text wasn't sourced. That's just not true as I'm demonstrating below. Of course such a large blanking after all the discussion above was reverted, but as you know, I only reverted once. Instead of discussing it, you reverted, then tag bombed the article without so far as I can see checking. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

More on sources

As all can see from my edits, I've worked a bit on the article and moved some sources and replaced one removed by a sock. I'll do more work when I can, maybe today but if not tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Christoph Gurk

The article mentions Christoph Gurk as some sort of authority without identifying why he is relevant and whether he is a critic. Anyone can claim anything about anything, that does not mean it should be mentioned. I am not opposed to mentioning his statement, just that it be qualified to show its relevance. Unfortunately, I dont read German well, so I cant look at the citation.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He is a München/Buenos Aires based journalist who works on and off for various German news outlets. This is his web page. The source cited in the WP article is an interview (and not a neutral one at that) with Alexander Häusler, a German social scientist who focuses on islamophobia and right wing populism at the Hochschule Düsseldorf. Apparently, Christoph likes cats. Cheers! 201.214.75.200 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

He has 300 followers on twitter, he's about as relevant as the steak I had for dinner last night it would seem to me. I say that his opinion on the matter is quite unimportant and does not add to anything really. RossDoTs (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest the information from him to be deleted, since he cannot be considered a reliable source.

Edit: Similar case goes for Anna Thalhammer 191.114.107.1 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Anna Thalhammer

The part about having close connections to Neo-Nazis is not to be found anywhere in the original article writtne by Thalhammer. I know German and read it several times. The only thing that is mentioned about Polish and Hungarian Neo-Nazis is that some supposedly were invited to a protest organised by Identitarians, although no evidence or source is given to support that allegation. I will delete the part unless anybody can come up with a valid reason not to. 191.114.107.1 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (I will be improving it, it is a huge movement across europe and has an international headlines, is a hot topic within anti-fascist organisation, see Searchlight Magazine article, I will be gathering the links. But you you spend a little time researching it you'll see) --AWT (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the references on the page. Also, it had a german wiki article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitäre_Bewegung and https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Génération+identitaire

not clear to me that it is a movement? it seems to be a political party within the white supremicist movement, nominate for deletion bc of lack of relevance? this seems like PR/branding move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

Change white nationalist, to ethno nationalists. TownsfoIk (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Those ethnicities are consistently white. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Major Concerns About This Article

Hi there, there seems to be an apparent lack of objectivity throughout this article. Many assertions are misrepresented opinions from online journalists that appear to have no understanding of this organisation or its motivations.

1. Nowhere throughout any legitimate source has this organisation been evidenced to promote white nationalism. White nationalism is a totalitarian and white supremacist ideology. This organisation has been known to oppose mass immigration for the sake of cultural preservation therefore their self admitted term of Nativism is the most accurate.

Here is the definition of Nativism: opposition to immigration for the purpose of safeguarding a national, ethnic, cultural, and religious identity.

2. The 'white genocide conspiracy sentence.' "With many in it believing?" please name members and find quotes. Furthermore the article linked for "white genocide conspiracy theory" contains references that implicate anti-semitic standpoints which has not been proven to be true with this organisation. The term Great Replacement would be a more accurate fit, as this is the phrase they themselves use and could therefore be cited.

3. Lastly when it comes to citations, many are abysmal, please find objective sources that include information to what you're referencing to. This article needs work expanding and verifying but until then remember to remain neutral.

--FactChecked1 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, the latest of which I've reverted, you clearly don't understand our sourcing policy. You need to read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. When you've read them, come back here with specific issues about text and sources. I'm not quite sure what an objective source would be, one that doesn't care about whether racism exists? We don't need names of members and quotes, and it's rare that we would use names of members unless they'd been mentioned in several reliable sources. I've added ethno-nationalist to the lead. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the group as being ethno-nationalists. I've read all terms and I'm confident that the corrections I have amended are indeed both reputable and factually representative. Hopefully you can agree with the new sources I've provided for such corrections? Thanks. --FactChecked1 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you removed at least one reliable source and made major undiscussed changes. Please stop now and gain acceptance for your changes here. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll discuss what I want to change then, you've regarded the group as being white nationalists. There is simply no evidence for this, white nationalism is the belief in a white only homeland on the basis of being white with many supremacist beliefs used as justification. This group advocates against mass immigration on the bases of being native therefore preserving culture and heritage. Furthermore under the guidelines of this own organisation all members must fully accept the concept ethnic pluralism. If this group advocated for anything differently it would lay those policies clearly, or at least have its leading members being quoting as promoting such ideas.

I suggest that the white nationalist part be immediately removed from the article, or only remain as a quoted opinion from whoever decided to brand them as such. Thanks. --FactChecked1 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecked1 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is simply no evidence for this - Sure there is: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Welcome to the internet. That took about two and a half minutes.
• leading members being quoting as promoting such ideas - We don't care what they say about themselves... even a little bit. What we care about is what reliable independent published sources have said about them.
• white nationalist part be immediately removed from the article - No. GMG^talk 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1. The majority of the articles you linked were pertaining to Identity Evropa a self declared white-nationalist group in North America, please don't confuse the two. Secondly the publications quoting that the group operates 'under white supremacist ideas' are sourced from left-wing media reports and the evidence is instantly recognised as false the moment that any research is conducted. Evidence of promoting such things as ethno-states or racial science is laughable and dangerous inaccurate. There are journalistic outlets that tout the British labour party as being socialist or even communist. Are we to assume this is fact because a few political/news outlets say so?

It should be noted that IE is NOT self-declared white nationalist, it is "the" self-declared "American Identitarian movement", and that has been its goal from the beginning. Say what you want, but at least let's agree on what it calls itself Liamnotneeson (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

2. What the movement sells itself as is important for two reasons. Number one, if they're not honest about their motives, people joining will be immediately discouraged to find about their true intentions and such instances would be swiftly reported. Secondly there's no reason to not trust their assertions unless you are skeptical of their position and are therefore bias. Wikipedia is a site that must remain neutral. Thanks. --FactChecked1 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. What the movement says about itself is meaningless. That isn't an Identitarian thing, or a race relations thing, or a politics thing. That's a Wikipedia thing, because Wikipedia is automatically skeptical of what anyone says about themselves, and requires that information come from independent published sources. GMG^talk 18:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

So the British labour party IS socialist? it doesn't need research, it doesn't need policy analysis, as long as enough independent sources say so it must be the case? --FactChecked1 (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Labour Party is whatever the preponderance of reliable published sources say it is, and we don't very much care about Labour's own opinion on the matter. GMG^talk 18:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's an insane standpoint, journalistic outlets operate on a wide array of political spectrums and have vested interests in all sorts of ideological motives. There is no such thing as media consensus only cherry picked statements that can be used to broadly bolster an argument. This is faulty however because there's just as many outlets arguing against an opinion than there is stating that said opinion. The only way to determine a fact is to either qualify data from the source or find an action that supports your original accusation. Without this it will never be considered factual. --FactChecked1 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Wikipedia deals with what is verifiable, not what is true. If the sources are wrong, Wikipedia will be wrong until the sources fix themselves. The way we judge sources is on their reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking, not on their political leanings, and where there is serious disagreement among reliable sources, we record that disagreement. What we do not do is weigh the opinion of the subject itself in any special way when making that judgement. You may consider it insane, and you may not consider it factual, but that's the way it works. GMG^talk 19:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You and I both know that this fact is not correct. You and I both understand that these statements are being cherrypicked. Yet now you're saying this biased editing can be justified through a loophole in wikipedia's editing policy. We need to stop overly aligning ourselves with political motivations and come to a mutual agreement here. How about saying "many media outlets have described this group as being white nationalists. However Martin Sellner the leader of Generation Identity disputes these claims."

This is more intellectually honest and offers up both sides to the argument. --FactChecked1 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aligning myself with Wikipedia's policies. "Many media outlets" implies that there is some substantive disagreement among reliable published sources, when the only substantive disagreement that I can see so far, is between what the preponderance of published reliable sources say, and what this one person's personal opinion is. That's not a controversy. We don't particularly care if this person self-identifies as a white nationalist; we care what independent sources identify him as. If you can produce sources of equal reliability that contest this, then that is relevant for the purposes of Wikipedia. If you cannot, then it is not. GMG^talk 19:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GMG. I agree with you. FC got blocked for 24 hours. They reverted after a 3rr warning and then again after I reported them. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not totally sure how many different ways I can say pretty much the same thing, but I suppose we'll see. GMG^talk 20:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Everybody knows that when you say independent sources that you just mean that this site is a mouth piece for left-wing anti-European organizations. You are not fooling anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5643:FB00:165:C1C3:F2F1:1390 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"White nationalist" to "anti-immigration, counter-jihad" with description on "ethnocultural identy"

As much of the discussion on this page seems to reflect, I've taken it upon myself to hopefully reflect the movement better by editing the introduction. Firstly, while the Identitarian movement does want to preserve ethnic identity in each of its respective countries, it is not the main objective of the movement, and not the most outspoken thesis, if you will, of the movement. As one who is involved somewhat with the movement itself, I can say that it is nearly a single-issue, anti-immigration movement, which as now grown rapidly in response to the European migrant crisis. Thus is why I labeled it as an "anti-immigration, counter-jihad movement".

Since much discussion about whether wanting to preserve an ethnic/cultural identity is white nationalist, I added to the beginning paragraph a quote from GI UK & Ireland about their aim to establish a priority on "ethnocultural" identity. Upon writing about this, I will include a bit about how the movement is labeled by many as white nationalist, but the movement itself tries to stay away from the title (which I think we all can agree that it does). Liamnotneeson (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

They don't want immigration from countries that happen to be majority non-white. It doesn't matter if they're trying to pretend they're not white nationalists, we're going with how independent sources (rather objectively) describe them. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The only interpretation of "ethnocultural identity" I can think of, at least in this context, is as an awkward euphemism for "white people".

Neither GI nor Lauren Southern are reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping people (white nationalist or otherwise) spread their personal ideas. Instead, the article should offer a reliable, independent summary of the movement. This is done through sources, which naturally must be reliable and independent. Grayfell (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The video contains many interviews and that is why I sourced it. The purpose is simply to show that the main objective is anti-immigration, not white nationalism. How is GI not a reliable source? It's the literal movement itself Liamnotneeson (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, how is Lauren not reliable? She clearly has an opinion, but her mini-documentaries in isolation seem to pretty unbiased. Liamnotneeson (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters, it's a primary source that covers the views of only one author of one group in the movement. Reliable sources are typically secondary or tertiary professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we use sources from the movement itself?

New topic because I felt it necessary.

Why doesn't this page take what the movement says about itself? GMG in an earlier section said "We don't care what they say about themselves... even a little bit. What we care about is what reliable independent published sources have said about them." But why is that? Aren't the people that have the best understanding of the movement going to be the ones leading it? If the movement was white nationalist, at some point in its 15 year history, somebody at this point would have said they want to create white ethnostates in Europe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamnotneeson (talk • contribs)

The movement, like the rest of the Alt-Right, uses dishonest euphemisms to obfuscate their positions. And really, what sort of ethnicity do they want in their nations? Their narrative is that immigration from countries (that "coincidentally" have non-white majority populations) are the source of problems, so how is that not white nationalism?

We're not here to promote Alt-Right politics, we're not going to put up with Identitarian apologists trying to whitewash the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What dishonest euphemisms? If you listen to what the leaders have to say, they don't use niche terms or big words. They just talk in everyday language (plus many don't speak very fluent English). Read their websites, listen to interviews. If you listen to what they have to say, they'll tell you that the ideological differences between that of the Islamic countries the migrants are coming from, and that of the Christian (except for Czechia) European nations, is the root of the problem, not race or ethnicity. Surely a man or woman living in China that wants his or her country to remain majority Han is not "yellow nationalist"

Calm down and get off your high horse. No one is trying to promote the movement, simply accurately describe it. If doing so promotes the movement, you say that the movement is right. No one is apologizing, no one is whitewashing. Liamnotneeson (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like you're trying to promote it in this comment. This is not the venue to debate the merits of anything except changes to the article. Anyway, on Wikipedia we don't take claims at face value, we only use reliable sources. This means we don't need to debate about whether people are being dishonest or not. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You might be right. That is not the intention, however. Could the same logic be used against any medium, though? We could have the same debate over whether an otherwise reliable source labeled the movement incorrectly? Liamnotneeson (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We could have that debate, we have similar debates all the time, but that debate would itself need to be based on other reliable sources. GMG^talk 16:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Surely a man or woman living in China that wants his or her country to remain majority Han is not "yellow nationalist" -- They're worse, because there's more to China than just the Han. Even if they wanted China to remain "Chinese only," but the only immigrants they complain about are those from outside East Asia, then it'd be a lie for them to pretend it isn't racism. At any rate, the idea of "white countries for white people, black countries for black people, etc" is old and well-known white nationalist rhetoric, favored by the likes such as Klansman David Duke. I'd like to pretend you didn't know that, but it's pretty clear you're here to push a white nationalist agenda (and if I'm wrong, prove me wrong by backing away and re-thinking the bullshit you've been spewing).

Calm down and get off your high horse. Quit promoting white supremacist bullshit.

No one is trying to promote the movement, You are trying to present their euphemisms as truth and hide what their beliefs actually entail. You are presenting their views sympathetically. That and your other edit history make it clear you are promoting the movement.

If doing so promotes the movement, you say that the movement is right. That sort of non-sequitor would only make sense to one of the Identitarian movement's followers. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

the idea of "white countries for white people, black countries for black people, etc" is old and well-known white nationalist rhetoric, favored by the likes such as Klansman David Duke. Black nationalists use it too. You should know that an idea is not inherently bad simply because of who supports it.

it's pretty clear you're here to push a white nationalist agenda (and if I'm wrong, prove me wrong by backing away and re-thinking the bullshit you've been spewing). I'm not. If I was trying to push a white nationalist agenda, I would be arguing why white nationalism is a good thing, not that the movement isn't white nationalist. I'm not going to apologize for you misinterpreting what I'm saying by "backing away"

Quit promoting white supremacist bullshit. So I'm promoting white supremacy now? That's funny

You are trying to present their euphemisms as truth and hide what their beliefs actually entail. You are presenting their views sympathetically. That and your other edit history make it clear you are promoting the movement. I, just like you, are trying to accurately describe the movement in this article. You not liking the edits I made, and you clearly having a bias against this movement, make you believe that I am promoting the movement. I am not.

That sort of non-sequitor would only make sense to one of the Identitarian movement's followers. No, it made sense. If you say that describing the movement accurately, promotes the movement, then you say that the movement is correct. But of course you resort to associating me with them as an insult instead of actually responding to my point. Liamnotneeson (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Listen, you are not the first person to raise the issue, and you're not going to be the first person to be told that we call things what they're called in reliable published independent sources. If that's white nationalist, or neo-nazi, social activist, or human rights advocate. This isn't an identitarian thing; it's a Wikipedia thing, and we do it the same for Martin Luther King Jr as we do for Adolf Hitler. If you want it changed, then you need to show that what has changed is the consensus of reliable published independent sources. If you cannot do that, then it won't be changed on Wikipedia. Trying to change it otherwise, including by arguing that we should value their self-descriptions above those of independent sources is a waste of your time as much as it is ours, and we may as well go do basically anything else instead. GMG^talk 18:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Black nationalists use it too. And it's racism then, too.

I, just like you, are trying to accurately describe the movement in this article. You are trying to give their twisted euphemisms priority over how all independent reliable sources describe the movement. That's a PR job and nothing more.

If you say that describing the movement accurately, promotes the movement, then you say that the movement is correct. No, because you're not describing the movement accurately, you're using their euphemisms and obfuscations instead of what everyone outside of the movement objectively sees. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

their twisted euphemisms What euphemisms have I used? The only one I can think of is using "ethnocultural identity" in quotations, to describe what the movement itself tries to achieve. I haven't used that term on this talk page Liamnotneeson (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrespective of whatever the points to be made in the debate actually are, can you please follow WP:BRD when requested to bring an edit to the talk page for discussion. Your revert of my revert, while within WP:3R was not very conducive to open editorial discussion and improvement. You made a number of edits, some of which did not fall within your somewhat misleading summary and it would have been better to discuss the proposed changes point by point. Also please sign you posts. You (incredibly) undid a revision on this talk page by a robot designed to help you sign your posts in the event that you forget to do so. @Liamnotneeson: Edaham (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I did? My apologies then. I was not aware that I forgot to sign my post and that I undid and edit by the bot. I haven't done that before, but I will try to not do so in the future. Also, how was my edit not following BRD? Aside from undoing the edit, of course Liamnotneeson (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

BRD (Boldly edit, Revert disputed content, Discuss on talk page) is a recommendation that editors after having been reverted, then take their proposed edit to the talk page of the corresponding article to discuss it with other involved editors. If no discussion ensues, or a version cannot be agreed upon as a result of consensus, then additional procedures facilitate dispute mediation. Edaham (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Term 'White Genocide'

White genocide is an ant-Semitic belief literally blaming Jewish people for committing an intentional genocide against white populations.

Literally not. There are lots of people that believe in white genocide, but not that it's being done by "da Joos" Liamnotneeson (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory has never been supported by Generation Identity, who in particular have a very hard line against any anti-Jewish rhetoric. Their belief actually stems from the teachings of Renaud Camus, who coined the term 'The Great Replacement' referencing significant ethnic changes over time due to mass immigration. This is a small correction but an important one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TownsfoIk (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The white genocide conspiracy theory is a white nationalist and supremacist conspiracy theory that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation. Doesn't matter if they call it a different name, it's still white nationalist bullshit. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not the case, genocide implies deliberate culpability which is often exclusive to those with anti-semetic beliefs. Furthermore it also implies intent, something which Renaud never discussed. This is also the term used by GI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TownsfoIk (talk • :::contribs) 18:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The opinions on Semitic people of those who typically believe in one or the other is 100% irrelevant to whether those Identitarian movement believe in the white genocide theory, or something else.Liamnotneeson (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing Help

Hi there, I'm trying to add this contribution:

'An online petition that calls for Sellner, Pettibone and right-wing journalist Lauren Southern to be allowed entry into the United Kingdom has reached over 10,000 signatures and is currently awaiting a response from the UK government.'

Though the only sources I have to this are either from Breitbart or Twitter. Any government websites are blacklisted. Anyone got any advice?

Thanks. --FactChecked1 (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to look for other sources. Reliable sources generally include professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. That's why Breitbart and Twitter aren't acceptable. We don't blacklist government websites, but that would be a primary source that doesn't prove that it's actually noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the response, currently only Breitbart have reported on it. Does that mean the info is impossible to reference? Because on the reliable sources page it mentions citing dubious outlets as acceptable as long as 'there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity.'

Thanks. --FactChecked1 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not only its authenticity (although Breitbart does have a poor track record for this), it's also that it's not necessarily significant or interesting enough to include without context. Context would have to be provided by reliable sources. If a reliable source explains why this is significant to the entire topic, we can evaluate what that source has to say and go from there. The Breitbart source barely even mentions identitarianism at all, and this passing mention is not directly connected to the petition, which is also barely mentioned. Even if it were a reliable source, it would be of limited use for this purpose. The source also doesn't mention how many signatures it got, nor does it explain why this number is significant. This isn't the article about Martin Sellner, this is about the movement, and Wikipedia isn't the place to promote this petition. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, either way I imagine it would more appropriate to include after the UK government responds as the verdict would absolutely have an impact on identitarianism in the UK. Not that we don't already know what the verdict will be of course. Thanks for the clarification though. --FactChecked1 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

sources like the petitions pages of the UK parliament, while reliable for verifying that a petition exists, do not demonstrate the notability of the existence of such a petition. This particular organization, as a matter of procedure, displays accepted and rejected petitions for public notification purposes, whether or not they are notable. To understand why this is insufficient for Wikipedia’s sourcing purposes, imagine a scenario in which a politically motivated editor wishes to create the undue appearance of a substantial opposition to a position which has been written about in an article. All that person would have to do is lodge a petition and then go grab the source from the site. That’s why this source is unable to demonstrate one of the three legs of the Notable, Reliable and Verifiable tripod on which reliable sources are based. (Not to mention the fact that the information contained there is by its nature, inherently biased toward whatever petition it happens to pertain to)

You could make the case that the 10,000 signatures make it notable but then you’d sort of be saying that any opinion demonstrably shared by 0.02% of the British population (as is the case here) merits a mention on Wikipedia, which ought to be an obviously bad idea.

Edaham (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Protection

I have increased the protection level as semi-protection was insufficient to stop the edit-warring. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue paper has this to say (p 10):

‘Generation Identitaire’ were founded as a youth splinter-group of the French ‘Nouvelle Droite’. The group are part of a broader pan-European movement called Identitarianism, which focuses on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture. They can broadly be described as white-nationalists and are nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and antileft-wing. The Identitarian movement has spread throughout Europe with groups in Austria, Germany and Italy, and is starting to make headway in the United States. International figures and movements in the extreme right also have ties to Identitarianism, with Richard Spencer – the founder of the alt-right movement - subscribing to the ideology.

I recommend we use similar language in the lede, something like this (refs omitted):

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a European and North American movement which focuses on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture. They can broadly be described as white nationalists and are nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and antileft-wing. The identitarians began as a youth movement deriving from the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right) Génération Identitaire and the anti-Zionist and National Bolshevik Unité Radicale. Although initially the youth wing of the anti-immigration and nativist Bloc Identitaire, it has taken on its own identity and is largely classified as a separate entity altogether. It has since spread throughout Europe with groups in Austria, Germany and Italy, and is starting to make headway in the United States.

I think this gives a better idea of what the IM is all about (as the source says, preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture) while not burying their white nationalism. -FenceSitter (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

POV

This article has no information whatsoever on the movement. By reading it you won't know when the movement was born, who are its chiefs, where it is based, what are its goal and structure, ... It is just labeling in a very POV way. What is its aim? To explain the movement? Or just to smear its name, without even speaking of it? The article could be summerised in just one sentence: "we consider them nazis". That's just how it is informative. You can't even change it thanks to the protection of the page, that seems to suggest that we should accept such a badly written article as a positive for the encyclopedia. The sources listed are obviously very political and very questionable (very smeary adfirmations are based on the opinions of two individual very little-known left wing activists: what's their relevance or authority on the matter? They're painfully unencyclopedic). This article is a shame: it seriously need to be rewritten, because, as it stands, nothing of it is worth reading. 93.36.190.141 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if we can dig up some better sources. FenceSitter (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

More sources are always welcome, but if current sources are wrong, we need to be able to explain why. So what, exactly, is the problem with the current sources? That they are "obviously very political"? That seems like a positive trait for an article on politics. I see many more than just "two ... activists", also. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw a source before which talks about how they are kind to kittens and regularly form action groups to hand out lollipops to children in impoverished areas, but I can’t find it now... Would it be ok if I add it to a section on humanitarian activities and pop in the citation later? Edaham (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Edaham, please assume good faith. FenceSitter (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I always do, even when just the other day I noticed a new user with an edit count in the teens, who seemed to be well versed in policy and wiki-jargon, make 95 percent of their edits on a single, politically loaded page. I distinctly remember being polite and leaving a welcome message on the user’s talk page under the assumption that they genuinely were a new user. Edaham (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you assume that said new user is also acting in good faith. I think it will make progress on this article much easier. FenceSitter (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to see more academic sources and fewer opinion pieces. But actually, I think the bigger problem is that we are not representing the sources we do have fairly (as I said in the previous section). For example, the IM is principally concerned with "the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture", in the words of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a source that is not at all sympathetic to the movement. It's also better described as ethno-nationalist rather than white nationalist (i.e., culture rather than race), though it can't escape the WN charge entirely.

There are other problems. Much of the article is a series of disconnected single-sentence paragraphs. It could also use more information on their anti-Islamism, connections with semi-mainstream political parties such as UKIP and AfD, and more generally which countries it's active in. FenceSitter (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Insinuating that there are too many opinions is not an actionable suggestion. Vague complaints aside, you're not giving us much to work with, here.

Your statement that the movement is "principally" concerned with yadda yadda yadda is a subtle form of editorializing. That line is context for a larger description which specifically explains the white nationalism and far-right extremism. When summarizing sources, we need to assess the entire source, and the blandest parts of a source are not automatically the most neutral parts.

Saying they are concerned with "the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture" may (or may not) be acceptable in the context of that specific source, but that is not a valid reason to include that here in a different context. "Traditional values" is loaded and euphemistic language which doesn't provide enough real information to be helpful. It's something a group might say in order to sound pleasant to those who are already primed to agree with them, but since Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, this is not appropriate here. Likewise, "European identity" is a pretentious way of saying "white people". Their repeated insistence that this is about "culture" instead of "race" is laughable, and is rightly ignored by reliable sources. Sources generally don't accept any of this wordplay, and Wikipedia isn't obligated to either. Grayfell (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think distinguishing between the original European movement and the American groups would be helpful here. Identity Evropa, for example, is pretty much plain white nationalism in a way that Generation Identity is not. GI's notion of identity is essentially cultural, and especially anti-Islamic, something this article barely mentions. This still puts GI in the broad locus of white nationalism, of course, it's just not their main motivation, as ISD points out.

Generally speaking, it's better to give more weight to the in-depth sources such as ISD and academic articles over short articles in minor non-local newspapers, just as we would for a less contentious subject. FenceSitter (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think something like this would be more accurate and balanced, based on the sources:

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is an ethnonationalist movement originating in Europe which focuses on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture. They can broadly be described as white nationalists and are nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and antileft-wing. The identitarians began as a youth movement deriving from the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right) Génération Identitaire and the anti-Zionist and National Bolshevik Unité Radicale. Although initially the youth wing of the anti-immigration and nativist Bloc Identitaire, it has taken on its own identity and is largely classified as a separate entity altogether. It has since spread throughout Europe with groups in Austria, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and the United Kingdom, and has influenced the formation of white nationalist and white supremacist groups in North America.

That said, I do agree that "preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture" sounds excessively promotional and could be improved. FenceSitter (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The linked Vejvodová paper ("DRAFT DO NOT QUOTE", oops) actually has a much more balanced view of the movement:

The Identitarian Movement represents an entirely new phenomenon in contemporary European radical right which has gained visible support both outside anti-system movements (we can call them as protest movements) and within the extremist camp and, in some countries, directly in the neo-Nazi movement. It should first be noted that lively discussions are underway among scholars as to how to classify the Identitarian Movement in a democratic context and how close it lies to extremism. The Identitarian Movement is also shaped by the context of individual countries, especially in terms of the type of person actively involved in it. The following section provides a more detailed explanation.

Simply put, the Identitarian Movement represents a stream whose aim is to draw attention to the threat of the Islamization of Europe and to renew the identity of European nations. It originated in France, where it attracted its first supporters in 2003. In recent years, it has been gradually spreading to Germany and Austria (where it has been operated since 2012), as well as to Spain, the Netherlands (since 2012), Scandinavia and the Czech Republic (Barenakedislam.com 2013). The newest groups were recognized during the year 2014 also in Slovakia. It uses the Greek Lambda letter as its symbol depicted in black and yellow.

The Identitarian Movement defines its ideological approach as one of ethnopluralism. It recognizes freedom of every nation and the opportunity for self-realization of every nation and culture, but never at the expense of another nation. It demands the separation of individual nations and hence rejects immigration. Externally, towards the public, members offer the following slogan: “0% racism 100% identity.” The Identitarians’ vocabulary includes the term “Alter-Europeans” which they use to demand a unified but not standardized Europe (Délský Potápěč 2013a). The group is critical of the European Union and calls for an alternative Europe composed of free European nations. They reject the European Union bureaucracy and also ideological setting which promotes liberalism, capitalism, globalization and universalism. Based on ethnic nationalism and euroscepticism the movement opposes the European Union as a source and active supporter of globalization which is understood as the moving force for multiculturalism and immigration. The European Union causes by this melting of nations and national identities.

Again, the IM is not principally about white nationalism (a phrase Vejvodová never uses), it's anti-immigrant and anti-Islam. Can you see how Vejvodová gives a wealth of information and background about the Identitarian Movement that isn't in our article? I think we could use some of her language in the lede. At the very least, I'd like to see more of the "lively discussions" "underway among scholars" represented in this article, if we can find them. FenceSitter (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we reading the same source? That source, judged in whole, makes it very clear that Identitarianism is principally about white identity and the shared neurotic fixation on white status. Whether or not this is "nationalism" or "supremacism" or some other euphemisms for racism... the important part is that we do not pretend this is something it is not. The concepts matter more than the specific terms used to describe those concepts. The source, unquotable as it is, points out the movement's aversion to openly saying they are white supremacists is unconvincing (see p. 2, 1st paragraph as one example) The connection to Benoist's "ethnopluralism" starts from a place of racism, is only superficially understood by most Identitarians and alt-right types, and us understood only through a filter of race, as the racists themselves seem to agree.

Is Identitarianism anti-Muslim? Yes, of course, and we should mention that, but the reason it is anti-Muslim is, according to sources, because Islam is cast as a threat to white identity. It is perceived as a threat to the "white" races, and is treated as a de facto race, regardless of the demographic reality. Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to stress again the difference between the European and American groups. The latter, your "most Identitarians and alt-right types", which the New Yorker is discussing, are pretty much plain white nationalists, reflecting particularly American racial divisions. For the European groups it's more complicated; their racism is 'cultural' rather than 'biological' in flavour (p. 5), and is always bound up with cultural notions, as your "de facto race" effectively admits.

Rather than synthesizing ("Identitarianism is principally about white identity and the shared neurotic fixation on white status", "It is perceived as a threat to the "white" races, and is treated as a de facto race", etc.), we ought to be using language from the most reliable academic sources wherever possible. If the sources summarise the group as "a stream whose aim is to draw attention to the threat of the Islamization of Europe and to renew the identity of European nations", or "the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture", then that's the kind of language we should be using when we summarise the group in the lede. We can't just dismiss it as "loaded and euphemistic". Maybe the sources are actually being fair and precise when they use those particular terms?

I appreciate that it's tempting to just throw the whole thing in the "white nationalist" bucket, but the sources paint a more nuanced picture, reflecting some important trans-Atlantic differences. FenceSitter (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Their own PR is not factual. We cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that they aim ... to draw attention the threat of Islamization of Europe and to renew the identity of European nations. If you don't know what I mean when I say this is loaded language, I unsure how I could explain it to you. Non-fringe sources do not accept the "threat of Islamization" in Europe. A few might arguably support something superficially similar to this as a trend, but never in the ultra-simplistic way used by Identitarians. This supposed threat is used as an extension of white supremacist conspiracy theories like Eurabia and white genocide, and has no basis reality. I hope the problems with saying "renew" are obvious, also.

Using this kind of alarmist, pseudoacademic language without qualification is lending credence to WP:FRINGE concepts. We could explain this through attribution that this is what they claim they are about, but we are not here to give them a platform to spread fringe theories, nor to provide free advertising. If we summarize reliable source for what they are about, instead of what they say they are about, we are going to describe them as racist... because they are, even if they won't or can't admit it. Again, this is according to sources, including the ones you have cited. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't coming from their own PR, it's coming from reliable academic sources. To be clear, it's not that "the Islamization of Europe" is a real thing, it's that that is what the IM is trying to draw attention to, that is its focus. But it is important that we avoid original research and undue weight, and use language that's close to reliable sources rather than coming up with our own interpretations. Simply describing them as "white nationalist" is a misleading simplification. FenceSitter (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It is an academic source which is providing context on how they describe themselves. We must be cautious not to strip away that context, because then we would be misrepresenting an academic source to prop-up their own self-promotion. As I said earlier, we need to summarize whole sources. I agree that "white nationalist" is simple, but that's not necessarily a reason to avoid it. Or maybe it is. However we handle it, racism should not be downplayed through euphemisms, nor should it be buried in pseudo-intellectual blather. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think we can agree that "white nationalist" is well attested by the sources, so that's going to remain one way or another. What I think best serves the reader in the lede is a summary of "what they're all about", that is, what their message is, what their activism is focussed on. Then we can get into motivations, etc.

To put a very rough gloss on it, the American identitarians such as Identity Evropa seem to be "non-Semitic white people yay, black people and Jews boo, we need racial segregation, maybe the Holocaust didn't happen". That particular group has been called neo-Nazi, and while one can quibble, they are at least close to that. But from the sources, Generation Identity seems to be more "Muslim and African immigrants are diluting our precious European traditions and culture, also rape and terrorism". AFAICT they carefully avoid anti-Semitism and even opposition to long-established Black communities, but at the same time, you can see the white nationalist aspect of that message. FenceSitter (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

New Book

José Pedro Zúquete, The Identitarians: The Movement Against Globalism and Islam in Europe, coming out in October. Once it's available I recommend we use it as a major source, and rely less on newspaper and magazine articles. Blurb:

The Identitarians are a quickly growing ethnocultural transnational movement that, in diverse forms, originated in France and Italy and has spread into southern, central, and northern Europe. This timely and important study presents the first book-length analysis of this anti-globalist and anti-Islamic movement. José Pedro Zúquete, one of the leading experts in this field, studies intellectuals, social movements, young activists, and broader trends to demonstrate the growing strength and alliances among these once disparate groups fighting against perceived Islamic encroachment and rising immigration. The Identitarian intellectual and activist uprising has been a source of inspiration beyond Europe, and Zúquete ties the European experience to the emerging American Alt Right, in the limelight for their support of President Trump and recent public protests on university campuses across the United States.

(Note also how Zúquete describes the movement as "ethnocultural", and positions it as a European movement that has inspired and influenced the American Alt Right.) FenceSitter (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares about jacket blurbs. As with all sources and all changes, it will have to be judged in context. Highlighting a specific phrase from the promotional copy for an as-yet unpublished book to emphasize a specific viewpoint is cherry-picking. Wait for the book to come out, read it, and then summarize the points it makes in proportion to due weight. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)