Talk:List of white nationalist organizations

Article improvement efforts

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

Use of British Isles

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

• Resolved: see archived discussion. TFOWR 11:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional edit

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

RfC

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

Turk Nazi Party

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

"well-known?"

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

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

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

I think rephrasing the lede is a good idea. 'Well-known' is extremely vague, but it does at least establish a minimum base-line. If you would like to expand some of the descriptions of these entries, that would be much appreciated, but I don't think we need comprehensive details of every entry. I think National Vanguard, for example, should be included for the simple reason that it has an article with ample sources. The entry links to other articles for context, and that seems like plenty. For smaller lists, or ones on more obscure subjects, the idea of write the article first is applicable. However, for lists like this that are fairly large and well populated, my feeling is that either a couple of reliable sources, or a wikilinked article is sufficient for inclusion. It might also be worth mentioning that an organization having 'expired' (if I'm understanding you correctly) doesn't mean it should not be included, per Wikipedia:Recentism. You might also want to look over MOS:LIST, by the way. - Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. I might be off base. I didn't mean to suggest that an expired group nor National Vanguard or any other should not be on the list, but that it's description was weak or too vague. If expired, it should say; not active. Simply adding that National Vanguard is, or how it is well-sourced might be enough. (Actually I meant the two more as general conceptual illustrations rather than specific cases or criticisms. I was looking only at the descriptions, don't care about what might or might not be behind them.)

Lists have different uses to different readers. In some cases following a wikilink might be perfect, —but if say the reader is using the list to get say; a quick overview of the main topic, (that's me) link-following would be counter-productive. But even an overview requires knowing the blanks from the bullets...or; there are no blanks.
...Granted I may be in the minority in thinking that in some cases (such as so-called self-contained lead sections and perhaps; lists,) that utterly unpredictable, always (by definition) out of context, often time-chomping linked articles should be used as optional enhancements for the reader, not as crutches for the writer.

You raise some good points. It is far too common to find articles that assume too much prior familiarity with the topic. It's a difficult line to walk with lists, especially because they are intended to be concise. I am not clear how familiar the KKK is to a general audience, especially outside of the United States, so adding a bit more detail is a welcome effort. Even more so for a group like National Vanguard, actually. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

National Front

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

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

Is EURO really "white separatist"?

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

See also the copious comments on Talk:European-American Unity and Rights Organization. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that nearly all of the 'copious comments' EvergreenFir is referring to came from ME, not others. And for the record, I should note that EvergreenFir blocked me from editing for a few days in January 2015, with the clumsy comment of claiming that I wasn't using the WP:EURO talk page for the discussion of the subject. Quite to the contrary, it was EvergreenFir herself (and her buddies) who had been failing to use that Talk page. EvergreenFir was not part of the original discussion; she was brought in as a 'torpedo' when those buddies were unwilling or unable to defend their position(s). She didn't defend her actions other than in conclusory statements. Notice that EvergreenFir doesn't try to defend the idea that EURO is a "white separatist" organization. To do that, she would have to show that EURO actually advocates separation of races. But apparently, the position statement made by EURO (quoted in the WP page) says nothing about racial separation. This is significant, because no doubt there are many different organizations which do (even proudly) advocate racial separation, or even supremacy. Frysay (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not editors. Also, WP:DROPTHESTICK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your last comment here violates your own instruction. Your having cited the 'copious comments' in the Talk page ISN'T discussing the article, it is discussing something other than the article. You had no basis or reason to comment here; and you fail to defend your position, because you know it is indefensible. I am pointing out how you came in, at the request of others, to maliciously lock me out of editing. And I will discuss the misconduct of editors and administrators (abusing their positions) anytime I like. I'm tired of the 'Wikipedia Cabal' who push Political Correctness. EvergreenFir hasn't apologized for abusing her authority, so I will warn others of her continuing propensity to abuse others on Wikipedia. The fact that she even noticed that I had commented here strongly suggests that she maliciously 'stalked' me (via tools designed into WP). Frysay (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

"EURO's 8 principles, listed in the Ideology section of the WP:EURO article..." No, this is incorrect. How to independent secondary sources characterize the group? We care very little how they describe themselves. If we do not name any individuals, describing an organization as white separatist is not a BLP violation. Why do you think whether EURO is active or not is relevant? VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it IS correct! The "Ideology" section of the "European-American United and Rights Organization" was lifted, directly, from the EURO website, which itself may now be inactive or defunct. (Although, the source of these eight statements should be made clearer, I think.) None of those principles establish "white supremacy", "white separatism", "white nationalism". And you just raised an interesting comment: You said, "How to [sic] independent secondary sources characterize the group?" One problem is, beginning in late December 2014, a large number of media sources began using the term 'white supremacist organization'. Yet, doing a Google search, in the many years previously, I was only able to find one (1) source using that term ("white supremacist", in regard to EURO) on Google search. What had happened is that one leftist blogger wanted to discredit Congressman Scalise, and to do so he dug up 12-year-old history that Scalise had attended a meeting on a specific day, and decided to label the group as being "white supremacist". However, there were other meetings at that location on that same day, and Scalise's staff (presumably inadvertently, given it was 12 years previously) acknowledged the meeting. (But later news suggested that this was the wrong meeting, contributing to the confusion.) However, characterization of the EURO organization as being "white supremacist" was essentially begun at this time, and was mindlessly duplicated by a leftist, compliant, and even malicious news media. Some biased people have used this confluence of misrepresentation to, itself, justify calling EURO "white supremacist". The problem is, you need to notice that your comment above referred to "INDEPENDENT secondary sources". When a person drops a lit match in a large, dry forest, the whole thing burns. It is not a million independent fires: The full fire was dependent on the initial lit match. Likewise, nobody can seriously argue that the flood of media references to EURO as being "white supremacist" constitutes actual INDEPENDENT sources. They are like an echo chamber, an initial claim is endlessly repeated.

Also, you are forgetting that this is a matter of libel, a violation of WP:BLP. (Anyone who belongs to the group has a right not to have it misrepresented.) Merely claiming, as you do, that "We care very little how they describe themselves.", may very well be a proper recitation of YOUR philosophy, but libel laws exist, and WP purports to not to run afoul of them. The fact that dozens (hundreds) of media organizations only began to refer to EURO _AFTER_ late December 2014 as being "white supremacist" is a strong clue that their statements were far from "independent": In fact, they were virtually all quite dependent on one wild and irresponsible allegation of a single blogger, repeated hundreds of times. (The error was the idea that Scalise actually attended the EURO meeting itself, rather than another meeting at the same location, separated in time.) Any court case, involving libel, would require the libelers to answer reasonable questions, like "Was the fact that the [archived] EURO website did not contain any indication of "white supremacism" considered in your news report?". Any journalist should have known that it should check these allegations against available facts; failing to do so is irresponsible. The hundreds of media organizations that repeated that allegations were, indeed, irresponsible.

As for your last question: This is not labelled as the list of white nationalist organizations that have ever existed throughout history. If EURO is currently defunct, it has no place here. Start a new list if you'd like, labelled "Former white nationalist organizations that no longer operate..." Frysay (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)