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

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)

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)

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 Nativsm 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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. 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)

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)

"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)

Identitarian movement, Donald Trump, and neutral POV

This article is currently phrased to say "The United States has seen a significant increase in people and organizations affiliated with white identity movements after the campaign and election of Donald Trump". There are two sources cited: https://newrepublic.com/article/138230/rise-white-identity-politics https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/03/how-political-science-helps-explain-the-rise-of-trump-the-role-of-white-identity-and-grievances/ Neither of these sources say anything at all about the identitarian movement or any white identity groups. Both sources say that the strength of one's white identity correlated positively with their likelihood to vote for Donald Trump. That is a completely different claim than the claim that "The United States has seen a significant increase in people and organizations affiliated with white identity movements after the campaign and election of Donald Trump". When I attempted to edit the article to reflect the fact that the sources did not back up the statements on the Wiki article, two clearly biased users, Ian.thomson and JzG both circled the wagons and reverted the edits, claiming that the statements were "well sourced" despite the fact that neither source comes close to substantiating this claim. This is clearly PoV editing. Moreover, JzG then protected the page to prevent the page from reflecting a more accurate and objective posture. JzG's user page indicated that he is a "rogue admin". I don't think this is a good look for Wikipedia. The page should be updated to a more neutral claim regarding Trump, such as simply noting that people with a strong white identity were likely to vote for him. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging user:JzG and user:Ian.thomson Meters (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, OP's inability to assume good faith leaves little hope for reasonable discussion, especially considering that they were dead set on removing information with undeniably reliable sources instead of adjusting the text to better fit the sources.

If anything, the phrasing as is is pulling the punches. Those sources could be summarized as "the rise of white identity movements in America contributed to the success of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian, the issue is not the reliability of the sources. The issue is that the claims in the article are not an accurate reflection of the claims in the article. You cannot make the claim that "the rise of white identity movements in America contributed to the success of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign", because one could have a strong white identity without being a member of any "white identity movement". The only accurate claim that you can make based on those sources is that the strength of one's white identity correlated with support for Trump. You are projecting by accusing me of assuming a lack of good faith. Any objective observer could plainly see that what you want the article to say is not supported by your sources. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. The sources outright state "The age of Trump largely exists because of a resurgent white racial identity" and that "both white racial identity and beliefs that whites are treated unfairly are powerful predictors of support for Donald Trump in the Republican primaries." This is not "the more truly white you are, the more likely you were to vote for Trump," but rather "people who hold white identity beliefs [i.e. identitarianism] voted for Trump." In your first and subsequent posts on this talk page, you misrepresent a joke on JzG's page as some sort of proof of sinister motives on his part -- if that's not a failure to assume good faith, nothing is. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Again Ian, I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources. This is a disturbing exchange because you're making clear that your logical reasoning skills are extremely weak. The conclusions that you are drawing do not logically follow from what the articles say. One can have a strong white identity without being an identitarian. Those are two completely discrete things that you are conflating for ideological reasons. You might not like me saying that but it's blatantly correct. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Try to think about it another way. Would you accuse people with a strong black identity of being affiliate with the Black Panthers or other black identity groups? I don't think you would. Try to reflect on that fact. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the sources in a way that demonstrate what your bias is on this matter. You may not be able to recognize it, but everyone else does. The sources aren't about people who simply identify as white, or even strongly identify as white, but specifically subscribe to "white identity" politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm misinterpreting the sources? You're the one who insists that even though both articles don't say anything about white identity extremist groups, that's what the articles are actually about if you read between the lines. If you have to read between the lines, you're pushing a POV. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Point of information: I am a WP:ROUGE admin. Ironic, really, the first time a POV-pusher mis-spelled rouge as rogue rather than the other way round. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you think your hijacking of Wikipedia to promote your PoV is such a hilarious topic. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You would have fit in well in the Khmer Rouge, that's for sure. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments like that are why people aren't going to listen to you. If you keep making them, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, please assume good faith and please do not bite the newcomers. It's unhelpful to refer to editors as "POV-pushers". Anon, please also assume good faith with regards to Ian.thomson and JzG's edits to this page (also, "rouge admin" is actually just a tiresome Wikipedia inside joke). I believe everyone here is trying their best. FenceSitter (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree we should probably delete that sentence. The focus of this article should be the Identitarian Movement, not "white identity movements" in general. FenceSitter (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's trivially easy to find sources which link identitarianism to Trump. Instead of repeating a Google news search, here is something else:

• Uyehara, Mari (8 May 2018). "How Free Speech Warriors Mainstreamed White Supremacists". GQ. Retrieved 22 May 2018.

While this source discusses identitarianism in some depth, it only uses the precise term a couple of times. This is a distraction, because many, many additional sources make this link crystal clear. The source quotes Christian Picciolini as explaining that "Identitarian" is part of a lengthy collection of vague euphemisms for white supremacy. Again, he's far from the only one saying this. Within the USA at least, the connection between Identitarians, Trump supporters, and white nationalists is intense and undeniable. Whatever terminology is used and whatever sources are used, downplaying these connections would be whitewashing. Explaining the connection to Trump is difficult, but ignoring it would be a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, so if "identitarian" really is merely a euphemism for "white supremacy", why do we even have this article? Shouldn't it then be merged with white supremacy?

What I recommend instead is that the topic of this article be the European movement and not the American groups (which are different in a number of ways). It would keep a clear focus for the article. FenceSitter (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not sure how I feel about merging this article, euphemisms can be encyclopedically significant in their own right. As long as the article explains that this term is widely regarded by experts as a sanitized form of white supremacy, there is no conflict about why the article exists. We can explain what the term ostensibly means, who uses it, and why they use it instead of other terms... that's actually the entire point of most articles, isn't it?

Sources do not support eliminating non-European coverage. The European Identitarians don't have a monopoly on the term, as much as they might wish otherwise. Far-right North Americans have also embraced the label for whatever reason. Since sources document this, the article should also, because otherwise the article would be conspicuously incomplete. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, re-title the article "European Identitarian movement" or somesuch. Are you seriously suggesting an article about a euphemism is more valuable than an article about a movement?

My own preference would be to keep the title as is, and add one of those This article is about the European movement. For other uses of "identitarian", see white nationalism things. FenceSitter (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that articles should be supported by sources, not by personal preference. Sources say this movement is a form of white supremacy, and therefore the name is euphemistic. A well-written article will reflect that. You do not get to decide that the European movement is the "real" movement. Sources discuss both European and North American "Identitarians". Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources actually make it clear that the European movement is the original movement, and the American groups, while influenced by the European movement, have significant differences. From the WIRED article:

Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa's founder, calls himself an identitarian, but his organization also has clear roots in the Ku Klux Klan

From the SPLC:

“I don’t see much of a future for the Identitarian movement in the U.S.,” said Cas Mudde, a Dutch scholar and long-time analyst of the European radical right who now teaches at the University of Georgia. The American radical right is built entirely around the idea of race, whereas the European version increasingly emphasizes local ethnic and cultural identities within a European framework — what one nationalist from the French region of Brittany calls the “Europe of 100 flags.”

Still, U.S. efforts are multiplying. At least four American groups are pushing versions of Identitarianism, often parroting the words and the flashy, youth-oriented style of the Europeans.

and, regarding a claimed American chapter:

But it was forced to change its name when Generation Identitaire insisted that the situation in America was different and therefore it would not recognize the group as a U.S. chapter.

Many other sources refer to the IM as "European". This should all be reflected in the article. In particular, if the basis of the "white supremacism" of the IM is American groups and not the European movement, this should be clear in the article. FenceSitter (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is misrepresenting sources. If the movement started in France, does that make it a French movement? No, because we already have Les Identitaires. We have If sources discuss the differences between European and American, so could the article, but nothing you've proposed invalidates existence of the North American adherents. It is fully possible to be both Identitarian and also KKK, which was the point.

U.S. efforts are multiplying, and emulating Europeans doesn't make people Europeans, as European racist will be happy to point out. Being Identitarian does however, make a person an Identitarian, so we know there are a substantial number of North American Identitarians.

This is about the "movement" not the Generation Identitaire organization. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the SPLC's term "versions of Identitarianism" is probably the best approach, while still mentioning the differences pointed out by Mudde and others. FenceSitter (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This has to be seen in context though. There are different "versions of Identitariansism" within Europe, so this isn't a contrast between the two continents. Many of Camus' ideas are totally at odds with what most other European Identitarians would want (although they might not actually realize it). Lumping all Americans together as having a common version would be a mistake, because, among other problems, there isn't a common European version to contrast it with. Identitarianism is loose, incoherent, and poorly defined even by its established proponents, so there is little basis for any strict compartmentalization. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Americans certainly have "versions" (plural) of Identitarianism, as the SPLC says: I agree it's not one common version. For the Europeans, though, I disagree with your opinion that it is "loose, incoherent, and poorly defined". The ISD gives a perfectly good description, and Mudde's European vs. American differences of emphasis are quite clear. Of course I would welcome more expert or scholarly sources on this. FenceSitter (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker article discussed above goes into some detail on this. Muddle's comment is fine for what it is, but the difference between "race" and "ethnicity" is ambiguous, to put it mildly, and attempting to fairly define these fuzzy divisions is fundamentally impossible. Even Benoist has had to admit that the layout of these "ethnostates" is entirely subjective. How could they be anything else? The specific ingroups and outgroups may differ, slightly, but the common threads are a fear of non-white outsiders, and a lot of wild speculation about how the world "should" be partitioned. These are things Americans and Europeans are equally capable of. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's a common thread to the European movement, it's not opposition to non-white outsiders, it's opposition to Muslim outsiders. From Patrick Boucheron, quoted in the New Yorker article: "So you see that behind identity there’s immigration, and behind immigration there’s hatred of Islam. Eventually, it always comes down to that." This is not to say there isn't also opposition to non-white outsiders, it's just not the central common theme as it is for American groups. FenceSitter (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and Muslims are perceived as being a different "ethnicity" by both American and European Indentitarians. Muslims are treated as a de facto race. This is why focusing on the distinction between race and ethnicity is counterproductive, because they are all treated as outsiders, which is the whole point. That's Boucheron's point, also, in that it all comes down to "identity" as some people chose to defined it for their own convenience. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that religion is generally a central element of ethnicity and identity. And, yes, the whole nationalist Right worldwide has "anti-outsider" as an almost defining theme. But your opinion that "Muslims are treated as a de facto race" won't bridge the gap between the European anti-Islam focus and American anti-Black focus. This is not to mention the European insistence that they're not anti-Semitic, in stark contrast to American groups. FenceSitter (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect most people are not going to have a single, usable definition of "ethnicity" to work with. "Identity" is so vague the answer would depend entirely on how you asked the question. It has become a common deflection among the far-right to claim they aren't racist, because Islam isn't a race. Well, if they treat it as a race while discriminating against it, it ain't exactly rocket science.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the American far-right is not fiercely Islamophobic, but that is completely wrong. You do know the US has been fighting decades-long wars in the Middle-East, right? To bring this discussion back to Trump, he is still trying to ban Muslims from entering the country, and his political rise started with a ridiculously Islamophobic conspiracy theory about Barack Obama's birth certificate. Anti-black sentiment is still common, but it's almost impossible to find someone who's exclusively bigoted against only one group. The supposed "threat" is not based on statistical reality for either continent, of course, but that's not really the issue.

Many European identitarians might claim they are not antisemitic (or are instead "anti-Zionist" which nobody seems to accept at face value) but we have reliably sources specifically linking the movement to neo-Nazism. I trust those sources more than I trust their materials. I don't trust a movement which pushes antisemitic conspiracy theories about white genocide to tell me they aren't antisemitic. Grayfell (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Reorg

I've reorganized and expanded the article. I've tried to bring out more detail from the sources.

For the lede, I've used the definition found in the Institute for Strategic Dialogue paper verbatim, as this seems to be the most reliable source, academic and focused on the subject. The very next sentence points out their white nationalism, which is well-attested. FenceSitter (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Widely considered" is WP:WEASEL wording intended to whitewash the subject. "Ethnonationalist" is euphemistic jargon which doesn't belong in the first sentence. No dice. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Ethnonationalist" is exactly what the source says. "Widely considered" is acceptable if it accurately represents the opinions of the sources, which I believe it does. From WP:WEASEL:

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.

Also, could you please not blanket revert? WP:ROWN is a good essay on when and how to revert. FenceSitter (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

...so given that, I'll go ahead and restore my edits. FenceSitter (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You do not have consensus for this. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change the article incrementally, you've already done so without challenge, but calling this a "blanket revert" ignores the substance of the issue. "Widely considered" casts doubt on this description, and that's unacceptable for many reasons. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting ideology, and you're going to have a very hard sell ahead of you if you keep trying to downplay the overwhelming number of reliable sources linking this movement to white nationalism. Subtly implying that reliable sources are wrong, or that their factual assessments must be fundamentally subjective, is evasive and deceptive. This is white nationalism according to both reliable sources, and common sense. Instead of a bunch of pseudointellectual filler, just use direct, plain language to summarize the movement according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it was a blanket revert: I made quite few changes, and you could have reverted just the part you object to here. Secondly, "euphemistic jargon" and "pseudointellectual filler" are your own opinion. The source says "ethnonationalist", and AFAIK it's currently the best source we have for a one-sentence description of the movement, coming from a paper from a well-respected think tank. You might not like the term, but that feeling shouldn't count for anything. Thirdly, to my ears "widely considered" accurately and fairly sums up the sources and even lends credibility, but if this is a problem, we can instead use language from the ISD paper. Here's the full paragraph (p10):

‘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 anti-left-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.

So drawing on this, our lede should look like:

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a pan-European ethno-nationalist movement which focuses on the preservation of European culture and identity, drawing on inspiration of the French intellectual far-right movement Nouvelle Droite. The movement can be broadly described as white nationalist and is nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and anti-left-wing.

or perhaps

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a pan-European movement which focuses on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture, originating from the French intellectual far-right movement Nouvelle Droite. The movement can be broadly described as white nationalist and is nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and anti-left-wing.

Besides being properly sourced, this gives a lot more information about the movement to the reader. That said, if there are other one-line descriptions from sources of similar academic weight, obviously we should consider those too. FenceSitter (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This was the edit I reverted. These changes remain intact. I don't think I could I have reverted "just" the part I disagreed with, and why would I bother? The burden is on you to establish consensus for changes you want to make, and burying controversial changes in with non-controversial changes will not fly.

If we have many sources describing them as white nationalist, and none directly refuting this, we should call them white nationalist. Focusing on the one source you prefer, because it's more flattering, is using your personal opinion to influence the article. Instead of focusing on our opinions, let's focus on sources. A large amount of sources discuss the movement's fixation on race and far-right extremism, including this one. The goal is not to paraphrase sources, it's to summarize them.

This specific source is not really the issue, because that source provides its own context for its own purposes. We have the luxury and obligation to look at many sources. Your edit selected wording without regard for the larger context, which is cherry-picking. This introduces editorializing and promotional wording which is totally anathema to Wikipedia's goals. Many sources absolutely refute that they "focus on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture". Which traditional values? Surely not Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Surely not Classical republicanism. The Warsaw Confederation? No, the main traditional value I've seen identified by sources is just "white supremacy".

I dispute that your close paraphrase (perhaps even a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE) is an improvement, for many reasons, and if you do not understand why this approach is a problem, this is going to be a waste of both of our time. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What is this "larger context"? I quoted the whole sidebar paragraph, but maybe there's more in that paper that somehow refutes it? And which sources refute that the IM "focus on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture"? And generally speaking, we should be prioritising scholarly sources over journalistic ones. For example, for "white nationalist", we have the ISD paper, and two newspaper articles. We should be prioritising the first over the second and third. FenceSitter (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

By larger context I meant the whole document. You quoted the entire sidebar paragraph, but that was, by design, intended to provide context for other content. That's why it was a sidebar. The sidebar was for information about Generation Identitaire, not the identitarian movement alone. The rest of that page is about the group's interference with humanitarian rescue missions, and the paper goes on to describe how the movement has become interwoven with other extremist movements in pursuit of a shared, far-right agenda. The paper's central purpose seems to be explaining the high degree to which modern, Internet-based far-right movements overlap and cross-pollinate. European far-right movements like Identitarianism have been extremely useful to even more extreme movements, like neo-Nazi groups and similar, since they have both directly and indirectly supported the same fringe positions in a more palatable form, and have helped normalize fringe ideas and conspiracy theories.

This is what the source is saying, so using it for a flattering description of the movement while ignoring the substance of the source is absolutely cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That may be what the source is saying, but it also gives that description of the Identitarian movement as a whole, and a similar description in the glossary. Nothing in the rest of the paper changes the meaning or intent of those descriptions. That it is "flattering" is mere opinion. On the other hand, if we have descriptions from similarly scholarly or expert sources, we should use those as well. FenceSitter (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I admit I was not aware of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Here's an attempt to summarize in my own words:

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a pan-European nativist movement to oppose Muslim and other immigration, in the name of preserving European cultural identity. The movement originates from the French intellectual far-right movement Nouvelle Droite, and is broadly white nationalist.

It is still based on the ISD descriptions, though. But it gives a much better sense of what the movement is about than the existing lede. As ever, if there are descriptions of the movement from other scholarly or expert sources, we should certainly combine them. FenceSitter (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(I also found another source describing the movement as ethno-nationalist, albeit a news article in passing.) FenceSitter (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree to these changes. You say it gives a much better sense, but what are you basing that one? That proposal is slightly better than the previous one, but the shift in focus to dramatically downplays the racist connotations and ignores the North American element, which is not consistent with sources. To be blunt, the whole thing sounds like something a public relations team would come up with. Yet again, the Europeans do not get to decide that the Americans are "too extreme" or whatever to join their club. As an example, sources label Identity Evropa as identitarian, so we have a specific counter-example of a prominent, white supremacist, North American Identitiarian organization. They don't define the "movement", but we don't ignore them, either. We cannot ignore the sources that discuss this aspect just because one academic source doesn't.

The Independent source is not about the Identitarian movement as a whole, either, it's specifically refers to the Generation Identitaire organization. If we needed to explain, in an article, the organization in passing, well I think we could do better than "ethno-nationalist", but that would probably work. This is a defined organization with a specific leadership and the ability to set a specific agenda. It's reasonable that the article calls it a movement, since it is a passing comment as you say, but we know what they meant.

Regardless, we have many sources which define this movement as racist in some form. Summarizing this as "white nationalist" is directly supported by enough sources that I think we can say, in Wikipedia's voice, that it is a defining trait. Shifting towards a description that downplays this isn't neutral. The ISD source is giving a description as context for a much longer article. That's perfectly fine, of course, and it's not a slam against the source, but it needs to be judged in that context. We have other sources which also summarize the movement as context for other things. Lacking a reliable, substantial source which is primarily focused on the movement, we're going to have a hard time deciding which source summarizes it "best". The burden is on us to summarize all of them according to WP:DUE, and downplaying the racial fixation is not going to work here at all. Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Independent source refers to "the ethno-nationalist Generation Identity movement", not the French organisation. Again, the European movement is referred to. Indeed, the sources are pretty consistent in describing the movement as essentially European, more anti-Muslim than race-focussed, anti-immigrant, and having some kind of influence or effect on American movements, but with differences.

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the Generation Identity movement (strictly European) from "identitarianism" as an phenomenon or self-description. FenceSitter (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Only if you can find a source which makes that distinction. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, fine, but we do have sources that describe the movement as "European" or "pan-European" and refer to its influence on American groups in secondary terms, pointing out differences. This is what needs to be reflected in the article. FenceSitter (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We do not have sources which describe "its influence on the American groups", because that is still subtly implying some sort of formal separation. This isn't "influence" it's movement and expansion, or diffusion, if you really insist. This is not a formal organization, it's a movement. Descriptions of specific groups within the movement can be tied to their locations, but the movement as a whole exists within both Europe and North America according to sources. Saying it "originally started in Europe", sure, okay, but that's already made clear, so I don't see what needs to be changed. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources describe the movement not only as "originally started in Europe", but as "European" or "pan-European". "Pan-European making headway in the United States" would better reflect the sources. The other problem with the current lede is that it simply describes it as "white nationalist", suggesting a racial rather than anti-Muslim focus. It misleads the reader.

I get that you don't want to downplay their racism. But given that the rhetoric and activities of the main European movement are focused on opposing Muslim immigration, and not on race, describing them as nothing but "white nationalist" in the lede is undue weight and quite misleading. We'd be better off summarizing them as ethno-nationalist, as indeed a couple of the sources do. This covers both race and religion. There's scholarly consensus on their cultural rather than racial focus:

"It is important to note that Identitarians are largely motivated by cultural narratives, are not supportive of violence, and do not usually utilise explicitly racist or racialist language." (IDS)

"The American radical right is built entirely around the idea of race, whereas the European version increasingly emphasizes local ethnic and cultural identities within a European framework — what one nationalist from the French region of Brittany calls the “Europe of 100 flags." (Mudde)

This needs to be reflected in the lede.FenceSitter (talk) 16:27, 27 May 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)

Links to violence

The section "Links to violence and neo-nazism" only talk about links to neo-nazism. It should be renamed to "links to neo-nazism". 93.36.191.161 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)