Jump to content

Talk:List of white nationalist organizations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article improvement efforts

In an effort to improve this article, the lead was strengthened with more context and descriptions/sources are being added to individual entries. For the most part the descriptions and sources are direct from individual entry articles with slight modifications to remove redundancy and have consistent formatting. Additionally, the list is being added to See also sections in individual articles to satisfy the Orphan issue.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Use of British Isles

HighKing (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional edit

An IP geolocating to Elmhurst - in Queens, New York City - appears to be using the article to promote a radio station run by a Joseph Adams. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Turk Nazi Party

Regarding this material. I can't find any sources, although maybe language is an issue. This list isn't meant to contain redlinked groups. Please discuss here before readding the material. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"well-known?"

quote: "The following is the list of well-known white nationalist organizations, groups and related media:"

I'm not sure "well-known" is a sufficient criterion. If it is, the term (or that sentence) should be better defined. Reading the list it is often impossible to differentiate a tireless obsessive kid on his mom's computer, (or say, a radio talk show host, or an expired group,) from a group with hundreds of paying members, periodic meetings, or political actions etc. So either "well-known" should be better defined, or (my preference) the descriptions expanded to include (say,) the above criteria. IOW, within this context, why is each notable? IOW, it seems that the most very basic and general Wiki intentions for a Wiki article's lead section should also weakly apply to list entries. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

This is not to imply that (say) a tireless obsessive kid on his mom's computer, MUST be removed, but if kept, that info should be there. For example the U.S. listing for the Occidental Quarterly seems ok, but the National Vanguard description does not:
  Compare: "National Vanguard, was an American National Socialist organization based in Charlottesville, Virginia, founded by Kevin Alfred Strom and former members of the National Alliance." to "Occidental Quarterly, is a printed far-right quarterly journal with a web segment, TOQ Online, including interviews, essays and reviews on the website"

I think rephrasing the lede is a good idea. 'Well-known' is extremely vague, but it does at least establish a minimum base-line. If you would like to expand some of the descriptions of these entries, that would be much appreciated, but I don't think we need comprehensive details of every entry. I think National Vanguard, for example, should be included for the simple reason that it has an article with ample sources. The entry links to other articles for context, and that seems like plenty. For smaller lists, or ones on more obscure subjects, the idea of write the article first is applicable. However, for lists like this that are fairly large and well populated, my feeling is that either a couple of reliable sources, or a wikilinked article is sufficient for inclusion. It might also be worth mentioning that an organization having 'expired' (if I'm understanding you correctly) doesn't mean it should not be included, per Wikipedia:Recentism. You might also want to look over MOS:LIST, by the way. - Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. I might be off base. I didn't mean to suggest that an expired group nor National Vanguard or any other should not be on the list, but that it's description was weak or too vague. If expired, it should say; not active. Simply adding that National Vanguard is, or how it is well-sourced might be enough. (Actually I meant the two more as general conceptual illustrations rather than specific cases or criticisms. I was looking only at the descriptions, don't care about what might or might not be behind them.)
Lists have different uses to different readers. In some cases following a wikilink might be perfect, —but if say the reader is using the list to get say; a quick overview of the main topic, (that's me) link-following would be counter-productive. But even an overview requires knowing the blanks from the bullets...or; there are no blanks.
...Granted I may be in the minority in thinking that in some cases (such as so-called self-contained lead sections and perhaps; lists,) that utterly unpredictable, always (by definition) out of context, often time-chomping linked articles should be used as optional enhancements for the reader, not as crutches for the writer.
You raise some good points. It is far too common to find articles that assume too much prior familiarity with the topic. It's a difficult line to walk with lists, especially because they are intended to be concise. I am not clear how familiar the KKK is to a general audience, especially outside of the United States, so adding a bit more detail is a welcome effort. Even more so for a group like National Vanguard, actually. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

National Front

You need to have sources for Front National being a white nationalist organization. And if it is not commonly agreed upon or just historically, this must be precized in text. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a source and adjusted the wording. I found plenty more sources, but that one seemed the most respectable and comprehensive on the subject, at least of those in the first batch that came up when I started searching. Grayfell (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is EURO really "white separatist"?

This article describes EURO as being "white separatist". However, EURO's 8 principles, listed in the Ideology section of the WP:EURO article, do not appear to advocate "white separatism", let alone "white supremacy". It is unclear that it should even qualify as "white nationalist", if the definition of that term is analogous to the definition used in "black nationalism". Frysay (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

See also the copious comments on Talk:European-American Unity and Rights Organization. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Except that nearly all of the 'copious comments' EvergreenFir is referring to came from ME, not others. And for the record, I should note that EvergreenFir blocked me from editing for a few days in January 2015, with the clumsy comment of claiming that I wasn't using the WP:EURO talk page for the discussion of the subject. Quite to the contrary, it was EvergreenFir herself (and her buddies) who had been failing to use that Talk page. EvergreenFir was not part of the original discussion; she was brought in as a 'torpedo' when those buddies were unwilling or unable to defend their position(s). She didn't defend her actions other than in conclusory statements. Notice that EvergreenFir doesn't try to defend the idea that EURO is a "white separatist" organization. To do that, she would have to show that EURO actually advocates separation of races. But apparently, the position statement made by EURO (quoted in the WP page) says nothing about racial separation. This is significant, because no doubt there are many different organizations which do (even proudly) advocate racial separation, or even supremacy. Frysay (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Discuss the article, not editors. Also, WP:DROPTHESTICK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your last comment here violates your own instruction. Your having cited the 'copious comments' in the Talk page ISN'T discussing the article, it is discussing something other than the article. You had no basis or reason to comment here; and you fail to defend your position, because you know it is indefensible. I am pointing out how you came in, at the request of others, to maliciously lock me out of editing. And I will discuss the misconduct of editors and administrators (abusing their positions) anytime I like. I'm tired of the 'Wikipedia Cabal' who push Political Correctness. EvergreenFir hasn't apologized for abusing her authority, so I will warn others of her continuing propensity to abuse others on Wikipedia. The fact that she even noticed that I had commented here strongly suggests that she maliciously 'stalked' me (via tools designed into WP). Frysay (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to EURO in the list. First, EURO may not be active, so it must be removed. Secondly, the archived website for EURO showed that it doesn't advocate "white separatism" (actual separation of the races) nor "white nationalism" (a nation dedicated to one race). Further, listing EURO is a WP:BLP violation, because anyone who is a member of EURO has a right not to be libelled by deliberate misrepresentation of what EURO stands for. That appears to be what has occurred here. I therefore follow the instructions from WP:BLP to remove the libel. Anyone who reverts this edit is equally responsible for the libel. From WP:BLP: Attack pages[edit] Further information: Wikipedia:Attack pages and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10 "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking." Frysay (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"EURO's 8 principles, listed in the Ideology section of the WP:EURO article..." No, this is incorrect. How to independent secondary sources characterize the group? We care very little how they describe themselves. If we do not name any individuals, describing an organization as white separatist is not a BLP violation. Why do you think whether EURO is active or not is relevant? VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it IS correct! The "Ideology" section of the "European-American United and Rights Organization" was lifted, directly, from the EURO website, which itself may now be inactive or defunct. (Although, the source of these eight statements should be made clearer, I think.) None of those principles establish "white supremacy", "white separatism", "white nationalism". And you just raised an interesting comment: You said, "How to [sic] independent secondary sources characterize the group?" One problem is, beginning in late December 2014, a large number of media sources began using the term 'white supremacist organization'. Yet, doing a Google search, in the many years previously, I was only able to find one (1) source using that term ("white supremacist", in regard to EURO) on Google search. What had happened is that one leftist blogger wanted to discredit Congressman Scalise, and to do so he dug up 12-year-old history that Scalise had attended a meeting on a specific day, and decided to label the group as being "white supremacist". However, there were other meetings at that location on that same day, and Scalise's staff (presumably inadvertently, given it was 12 years previously) acknowledged the meeting. (But later news suggested that this was the wrong meeting, contributing to the confusion.) However, characterization of the EURO organization as being "white supremacist" was essentially begun at this time, and was mindlessly duplicated by a leftist, compliant, and even malicious news media. Some biased people have used this confluence of misrepresentation to, itself, justify calling EURO "white supremacist". The problem is, you need to notice that your comment above referred to "INDEPENDENT secondary sources". When a person drops a lit match in a large, dry forest, the whole thing burns. It is not a million independent fires: The full fire was dependent on the initial lit match. Likewise, nobody can seriously argue that the flood of media references to EURO as being "white supremacist" constitutes actual INDEPENDENT sources. They are like an echo chamber, an initial claim is endlessly repeated.
Also, you are forgetting that this is a matter of libel, a violation of WP:BLP. (Anyone who belongs to the group has a right not to have it misrepresented.) Merely claiming, as you do, that "We care very little how they describe themselves.", may very well be a proper recitation of YOUR philosophy, but libel laws exist, and WP purports to not to run afoul of them. The fact that dozens (hundreds) of media organizations only began to refer to EURO _AFTER_ late December 2014 as being "white supremacist" is a strong clue that their statements were far from "independent": In fact, they were virtually all quite dependent on one wild and irresponsible allegation of a single blogger, repeated hundreds of times. (The error was the idea that Scalise actually attended the EURO meeting itself, rather than another meeting at the same location, separated in time.) Any court case, involving libel, would require the libelers to answer reasonable questions, like "Was the fact that the [archived] EURO website did not contain any indication of "white supremacism" considered in your news report?". Any journalist should have known that it should check these allegations against available facts; failing to do so is irresponsible. The hundreds of media organizations that repeated that allegations were, indeed, irresponsible.
As for your last question: This is not labelled as the list of white nationalist organizations that have ever existed throughout history. If EURO is currently defunct, it has no place here. Start a new list if you'd like, labelled "Former white nationalist organizations that no longer operate..." Frysay (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is still ongoing? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you are asking if you and your cronies were unsuccessful at shutting down the discussion of the issue, on a different page (EURO), in part by employment of your ham-handed authority to shut me down for a few days, which you did 6 months ago. No, you were not successful. In part, this was also due to the fact that your cronies failed to actually address the issue: They were apparently so enamored at their power to call you in to abuse your authority, they didn't find it necessary to actually present winning arguments...you know, DEBATE. You, yourself, were unwilling or unable to participate in the debate, too. But that means that there is no basis at all to allow you to give your input, in any way, into this matter. You must admit to these people that you really weren't interested in the subject, you were just brought in to be a thug, a torpedo, to shut down the debate. You must also admit that you were stalking me on WP: Tell them what mechanism you used, so they know what you did. (The fact you used that mechanism will show them how illegitimate your motives were.)
The reality is (remember reality?) that according to the remnants of their archived webpage, EURO did not argue for "white supremacy", "white separatism", "white nationalism", or any other "ism" I can imagine would be relevant. The problem is, Political Correctness rears its ugly head, yet again, and persons who display less-than-sufficient obeisance to the fascistic-left will be shut off, shut down, and maybe even shut away. If you want to legitimately do anything more, find people (other than your cronies) willing to debate the issue. I raised my question, months ago, and so far nobody is disputing what I asked have said: they have not appeared, let alone have they contradicted it. You don't have some sort of automatic, default 'win' authority, at least according to WP rules. I proceeded to edit, and I have done so. Frysay (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You haven't provided a single source yet. Your walls of text are amounting to disruption. Please, if you know of secondary, reliable sources that say EURO is not a white separatist group, share them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oy, what a wall of text. WP:BATTLE; WP:DEADHORSE; WP:GREATWRONGS. Let's move on; you appear to be the only editor interested in lawyering this. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should 'move on': I've made the edit that I proposed 5 months ago, and nobody has opposed it. Therefore, I claim a consensus, through lack of credible opposition. However, I should point out that you (presumably) don't know of the history of this, mostly in late December 2015 and January 2015. I can see that you're trying to make it sound like I'm "lawyering" this. Actually, I was the victim of harassment by EvergreenFir, and others, who didn't like my edits on another, related page, but nevertheless didn't want to actually argue against them. I claim, instead, that it is actually EvergreenFir who is beating the seemingly-dead horse: The only reason she showed up here was because she was stalking my edits (or, perhaps the term "wikihounding" is better?). I asked the innocuous question, 5 months ago, why EURO should (still?) be labelled as "white [fill in the blank], and didn't act until 5 months later. EvergreenFir's immediate, pointless response a day later, and her more recent responses, show that's she's "wikihounding" me, for no reason. 67.5.208.241 (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir: Your use of the term "disruption" constitutes extortion: to anyone who knows what you did 6 months ago, blocking me when _I_ was the only person genuinely debating the issue, your comment today is a not-so-subtle way of saying, "Keep it up and I'll harass you by blocking you again". My text may bother YOU, but that is solely because I have already destroyed what little argument you ever made. As for your claim that I haven't provided "a single source yet": I can show you how to see hundreds. Here's how: Google-search for the words 'EURO white supremacism' (or 'ist', or 'acy', or separatist, etc), and limit your search to references dated prior to about December 15, 2014, just before the controversial article came out. What you will see is the nearly complete lack of ANY news media organization that referred to EURO as a "white supremacist" organization. I say "nearly complete", because when I did this search approximately January 1, 2015, I searched through many YEARS of results, at least as far back as 2006, and as I recall I found one (1) such reference, maybe it was in 2008. I think I should clarify that I _didn't_, for example, find numerous cites that had these three text strings, but didn't _quite_ apply "white separatist" to EURO. Rather, I found essentially nothing applicable at all, save one url.
Another person on the Talk:EURO page cited a different source, a book. Because the search criteria were so broad, any news or political organization that had ever referred to EURO as being "white supremacist" would have been found and displayed. In fact, there are certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of (even) left-wing, bleeding-heart, or even ultra-radical organizations that SHOULD have appeared if they EVER called EURO "white separatist". You are already aware of this, of course. So, your request that I provide sources that say "EURO is NOT a white separatist" is actually silly: My search would have found BOTH cites that EURO 'is' or 'is not' some version of that.
Logically this means that virtually nobody referred to EURO as being a "white supremacist" organization prior to December 15, 2014. So in fact, I provided evidence that would be even better than if I had provided 100 references claiming that EURO WASN'T being 'White separatist': I have shown how to learn that essentially nobody thought of EURO in the context of being 'white separatist' prior to about December 15, 2014. Now, you may not understand the details of logic, but the burden is on you (and your allies) to establish that EURO was (and is) 'white separatist', or 'white supremacist', or anything else you'd care to do. It must not appear on the list if it is defunct, and it must not appear on the list unless there is actually visible confirmation of its policies. And no, you can't use the flood of references after the late-December 2014 as if it somehow proves your case. If anything, it proves that hundreds of sucker-organizations were willing to blindly copy, without virtually any proof at all, one guy's 12-years-too-late assertion that EURO was "white [fill in the blank]). I dare you to argue otherwise. Further, you and your ilk are still obliged (under WP's anti-libel policies, including WP:BLP) to show that EURO itself advocated "white supremacist" or "white separatist" or "white nationalist" policies. EURO's (possibly defunct, now) policies do not appear to be 'politically correct', of course, and certainly anyone enamored of EURO would strongly oppose your likely opinions, but that doesn't make them "white [fill in the blank]". Stop trying to avoid the issue. Your one-sentence replies merely show that you know you don't have a case. Frysay (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't block you. I'm not harassing you. You appear to have no conception of how Wikipedia works. Blp doesn't apply here. We have reliable sources that say it's white nationalist. We report what those sources say. If you continue to remove sourced content because you don't like it, you may be blocked again. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yet another threat, typical from EvergreenFir. And you'll yet again bring in your buddies to do the block, should you desire to do so. I would put up my reasoning against yours any day. Problem is, you'll fail and yet again call in your buddies to block me. You should either admit that dirt was done to me, perhaps by others, or deny it and we'll have the debate on that matter. But you didn't help yourself by claiming that my own statements on my own Talk page were violations of WP:NPA. Huh?
It is insufficient for you to say, "We have reliable sources that say it's white nationalist.". That is arguably enough for the WP:EURO page, because there the references are phrased like "[x] says that EURO is a white nationalist organization". THAT is acceptable, because it is a verifiable fact that [x] made that statement. Here, in White Nationalist Organizations, however, is merely a list, claiming to be of "White Nationalist" organizations. The mere presence of a name on this list announces that it is beyond dispute that EURO is hereby deemed BY EVERYBODY to be a "White Nationalist" organization. No dispute. No challenge is allowed. 'We've already made up our minds, so go away!!!'. See the problem? Do you ADMIT you see the problem? If EURO actually claimed 'We are White Nationalist', it would certainly be okay to list it. If there was a line in their policy statements that fit the "white nationalist" issue, that would probably be sufficient,too. But the 8 listed policies quoted by WP:EURO simply don't rise to that level. Equal rights for white Americans? What's wrong with that? Stopping school busing? Nope, not a problem. Welfare reform? Where's the "white nationalism" in that? Tougher sentencing for violent crime, and removal of the 'hate crime' label? Is that a problem? And EURO may be defunct. Is it proper to list it, NOW, even if at some point, hypothetically, it would have been proper? Tell us. Frysay (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss content, not editors, on article talk pages. As I noted above, we do not much care what the organization says about itself. What do the secondary sources say? Has there been some previous consensus that groups should be removed from this list if they become inactive? If so, can you please link to that discussion? It seems counterintuitive. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of white nationalist organizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of white nationalist organizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of white nationalist organizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

List of BLACK nationalist organizations?

Have you got a list of THOSE, or do the Blacks all prefer to live in WHITE countries, generously pre-built for them? Ditto for the Asians, the Southeast Asians, the Chinese, etc., etc., the Hispanics... Do you have LISTS OF NATIONALIST groups of THOSE races? Please link them, if you do. If not, please start some lists on them, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.106.102 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Serbia

There are much more organisation in Serbia, those i found just in some minutes:

unsigned comment added by 84.254.84.173 (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

um país pequeno com mil grupos quantos membros por grupo 10 kk esse neuland era insignificante um grupelho isolado ate o site valhalla 88 e white power sp tinham mais influencia mesmo sendo so virtuais — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.181.142.31 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_white_nationalist_organizations/Archive_1&oldid=1183264238"