Talk:Identitarian movement

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

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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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: [2]. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2016 (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)

White supremacy

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)

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)