Talk:American Third Position Party/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

inappropriate intro material

It's not the right place to discuss Kevin MacDonald's theories. Removed. Slaja (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that the political ideas of the party's director are relevant, they should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
They shouldn't be in the introduction. 70.29.109.91 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to know more about what is appropriate for the lead section see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. It is not the right place to discuss his theories, end of story. Slaja (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the A3P website Kevin Macdonald is only one of multiple "directors". If you want to include his theories make a section or subsection in which you discuss all of them and all of their relevant ideas. You can't cherry pick here. Slaja (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I've started a new section on leadership, moving the current material out of the lead and adding back the MacDonald information. As I did that, I realised that the fact that he's published his ideas and even that he has those ideas wasn't enough to make them significant for the article - that would require showing that they'd been discussed by third party reliable sources, so I copied over relevant material from MacDonald's article. That's not cherry-picking because it has received a lot of attention. If other directors' ideas look significant for the same reasons, then they can be added, but not just a list of directors' ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is suitable material for the article, my issue was that it should not be in the lead. Slaja (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

2009 vs 2010

Um, how can a party which according to the infobox "Founded: January 5, 2010[1]" and the article "was founded in 2010" have "In November 2009 the American Third Position Party filed papers"? Is this article confusing when they were official formed as a recognised political party with the founding date? Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's confusing the launch date with the fact it existed in some form in 2009. Its website existed in a test form in late 2009 (and seems to have vanished right now). Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm never giving up

You can inject your POV all you want hordes, now that I see what a corrupt entity wikipedia really is I'm in this until the end. I'm here to follow the rules and uphold objectivity. Anybody who wants to go against that can go away. Slaja (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(Changed comment header to elininate shouting) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Labelling

On what basis is A3P a white supremacist group? The ADL and SPLC are not reliable sources (they are self declared to be biased in the interests of Jews), and the other sources given are all echoing the SPLC's and ADL's biased opinions of the party.

Here is a list of some media pieces which do not give that erroneous label to A3P:

All of these articles from respected sources call the American Third Position "White Nationalists" and or "in the interests of White People". It is much more fair to characterize them as such than with the "white supremacist" label that is currently listed.

Slaja (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected it. This page was clearly under the influence of POV editors. Slaja (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Um, even if your statement about Jews was correct (which it isn't for the SPLC), what's wrong with Jews? We have multiple independent sources that it is white supremacist - I know it describes itself as white nationalist as a couple of your links above show, but we don't accept self-descriptions at face value for what should be obvious reasons. White supremacists groups, at least in the US, have a tendency to prefer not be be recognised as such and prefer to be called white nationalist which I guess seems to them more moderate and more likely to attract support than white supremacist. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Dougweller, incorrect. White Supremacism, White Nationalism, and White Separatism are all different ideologies within the White activism umbrella. Some 'pro-Whites' are strictly one, two, three, or a combination of those. White Nationalism is the most popular form, and (even under wiki's White Nationalist page), supremacism is a mere subgroup in which a small minority adhere to. To make a blanket statement such as "all White Nationalists are supremacists" is false and an agenda-ridden lie. Are all liberals Communist? Or are all Communists liberal? Not necessarily, and such is my point. Also, side note, using ideologically-opposed sources, such as the ADL, SPLC, etc, (who also make profit out of identifying 'hate groups' by scaring donations out of people) is why nobody takes wikipedia seriously due to the heavy and blatant bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
And where is your proof that these groups labelling them white supremacist are not politically biased? If the A3P does not claim to be a white supremacist group, nor advocates the dominance of whites over non-whites. How can you label such a group a white supremacist group? Just because some "scholarly" schmuck says so? -AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.56.86 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The comparison with liberalism and communism is not apt. White nationalism and white separatism are (politically correct, ironically) euphemisms for white supremacism. That the party is white supremacist is well sourced, and Slaja, I've changed it again. Nolan135 (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
They are a euphemism to you and to certain politically motivated groups. What gives them the authority to decide what is supremacism and what is nationalism? There is a conflict of interests and they are not an unbiased authoratative opinion. And frankly, I don't see why these groups are allowed to decide what the A3P defines themselves as, as the A3P website does not mention "supremacism" anywhere on their webpage. Lastly, "white supremacism" is a pejorative and poorly-defined subjective word. If you want you can add a criticism section and cite what other groups consider the A3P to represent. Malv (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I've decided I'm going to do was was resolved to do on the golden dawn page. If anybody messes with my edits again I'm taking this to arbitration. Slaja (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


The American Third Position Party (A3P) is a third positionist American political party. The SPLC and ADL and some media sources have described it as white supremacist[1][2][3][4], although the party rejects that label and considers itself white nationalist[5], which some media sources have described it as.[6][7] It was founded in 2010 partially to channel the right-wing populist resentment engendered by the financial crisis of 2007–2010 and the policies of the Obama administration[8] and defines its principal mission as representing the political interests of white Americans.[9] The party takes a strong stand against immigration[10] and globalization,[11] and strongly supports an anti-interventionist foreign policy.[12] Although the party does not support labor unions, they do strongly support the labor rights of the American working class on a platform of placing American workers first over illegal immigrant workers and banning of overseas corporate relocation of American industry and technology.[13] The party chairman is Los Angeles attorney William Daniel Johnson. Long Beach State University professor of psychology Kevin B. MacDonald has been named the party Director, and is also a principal contributor to The Occidental Quarterly.[14][15]

- Slaja (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


The American Third Position Party (A3P) is a third positionist American political party. The SPLC and ADL and some media sources have described it as white supremacist,[16][17][18][19] although the party rejects that label and considers itself white nationalist,[20] which some media sources have described it as.[21][22] It was founded in 2010 partially to channel the right-wing populist resentment engendered by the financial crisis of 2007–2010 and the policies of the Obama administration[8] and defines its principal mission as representing the political interests of white Americans.[23] The party takes a strong stand against immigration[24] and globalization,[25] and strongly supports an anti-interventionist foreign policy.[26] Although the party does not support labor unions, they do strongly support the labor rights of the American working class on a platform of placing American workers first over illegal immigrant workers and banning of overseas corporate relocation of American industry and technology.[27] The party chairman is Los Angeles attorney William Daniel Johnson. Long Beach State University professor of psychology Kevin B. MacDonald has been named one of the eight party Directors, and is also a principal contributor to The Occidental Quarterly.[28][29]

-Slaja (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


The user Dougweller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller) incorrectly edited the introduction. You can't change back my legitimate edits, which are factual and follow the guidelines perfectly. This format of handling the labels question is exactly what was resolved to do on the Golden Dawn page. Do not alter it again. Slaja (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

White Supremacy is a pejerotive

"White supremacy" is a pejeroative term for specifically white nationalist movements that do not refer to themselves as such. There is no clear definition widely accepted definition of what "white supremacy" is. Groups that hold similar nationalist views for other races are rarely referred to as supremacist groups.

White supremacy is a term used by political-activist groups that masquerade as scholars like the SPLC and the ADL. Both the ADL and the SPLC are not unbiased organizations, as we rarely hear from either group on the topic of Israeli nationalism. They do not claim Israel to be a supremacist state despite the fact that it grants automatic citizenship for Jews, and is currently in the process of deporting non-Jews. Each of these groups has a direct conflict of interests with these white nationalist groups, so their opinions cannot be taken as unbiased and authoratative. Malv (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the sources say what they do is not up for discussion; what they say is what we must say, according to our policies on verifiability. The issue has been talked to death on this page already, and going through the archives (and the above threaded discussions) should help clear up your concerns. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You have no business changing that to "supremacist" because you found some politically motivated impartial source article that claims it is something that IT ITSELF DOES NOT DEFINE ITSELF AS. Why are you even in charge of controlling this groups definition? You are clearly politically motivated and should not be in charge of moderating this article. This is an absolutely absurdity and you need to be blocked from making edits to this page. I cited a more authoratative source than your poor unscholarly Yahoo article: the groups own mission statement. -- Malv (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia must report what is in reliable, secondary sources. It does not matter what the party itself calls itself; while it might be worth mentioning that "the party denies it is..." etc., the repeated removal of secondary, reliable sources and replacement with the party's own website as a source is edit warring to the point of becoming vandalism, and you have a I didn't hear that attitude to the matter. Malv has been blocked for 24 hours; it's up to others if any other editors need sanctioning for WP:3RR. Either way discussion needs to be done on the talk page before any other changes of this sort are made to the article, or it will be full-protected so that discussion will happen. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
White supremacists hate being called what they are. P.S. It's spelled "pejorative". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Malv's contributions, they fit the pattern of someone's alternative account -- that is, a sockpuppet. My money's on User:Slaja (see above), but it could be someone else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
They might be two guys who are of one mind, if you'll pardon the irony. One possible clue: see if Slaja tries to use the term "pejorative" anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Slaja seems to have reverted himself with his last edit, apologising -- note that Malv is blocked for 24 hours now. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually he didn't, if you look at the diff he just looked for another primary source to use and inserted it, added some WP:WEASEL similar to User:Malvs 2009edits to Holocaust denial, and once again changed white supremacist to white nationalist. Heiro 05:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If we all take a look right here at Wikipedia, at "List of Political Ideologies", we can all read that "White Supremacy" is not listed and using the term "Supremacy" is de facto cyber-bullying of an organization, when in fact, "White Nationalism" and/or/both "Pan-European nationalism" would be better suited for the purpose of ideology here to be proper and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.68.91 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What on Earth do you mean by ""Pan-European nationalism" when you're talking about an American political party with no sympathy for European interests; or are you re-defining non-white Europeans as "not real Europeans" and then using "European" as code for "whites"? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Pan-European nationalism" means anyone who is of European blood, whether they live in America, Europe, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc regardless of nationality (place of birth) or citizenship (place of living). The same that "Pan-Africanism" refers to ALL blacks, whether they are Carribean, Islander, African, etc regardless of nationality (place of birth) or citizenship (place of living). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.33.188 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Better and more sources are needed. Relying on biased radical SPLC does not conform to Wikipedia policy. Please review WP: Policy.

Continuing

Either way, they're right. Wikipedia is nothing more than a mirror off which information from outside sources is reflected. No matter how biased they may be, wikipedia reflects what they say. Coming to the conclusion on one's own that they aren't "white supremacists" because it isn't in their charter or expressed by party members is original research. Adding original research to wikipedia will result in deleted edits. If you want to do something about it, find secondary sources that say something else. 闇甦兄 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is maybe the biggest load of BS I've ever read on wiki. Wikipedia "reflects what they (sources) say" by citing it as their opinion, not stating it as fact. So any objection to them being branded as supremacists is original research because they don't have a "We're Not White Supremacists" page on their site? Christ, I hope no "reliable source" comes along and calls them child molesters or leprechauns. No one writes articles about what somebody isn't, so the burden of proof is damn-near insurmountable. Only on a page for a right-leaning group would this not be in a "Criticisms" section with the names of the accusers mentioned. Thanks to our freedom-loving lefty friends, this slander is at the first thing that comes up when you Google the group. -AT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.186.12 (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources would only report them as "child molesters or leprechauns" if they were in fact "child molesters or leprechauns", that why they are WP:RELIABLE sources. Heiro 00:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
But that's just begging the question. We're arguing over whether the SPLC, et. al's designating this group as white supremacist is accurate. If it is, they're reliable; if not, they're not. We don't decide, ex ante, that they are reliable and therefore everything they say is reliable. On virtually every other page dealing with political groups or persons, the person/group's self-identification is laid out at the onset. Challenges to that designation go below. For example, the Socialist Party USA gets this: "...is a multi-tendency democratic-socialist party in the United States. The party states that it is the rightful continuation and successor to the tradition of the Socialist Party of America..." Even the Nazi Party gets an opening description they'd probably be alright with. This is simple stuff people. -AT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.186.12 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If you don't think the SPLC is a reliable source, you're welcome to take that arguement to the reliable sources noticeboard; be prepared to be disappointed. In the meantime, until there's a finding otherwise, we consider the SPLC to be reliable, and that information will stay in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Mr IP, you are not realizing that this is an encylopedia, not another avenue of promotion for the political party. We use reliable sources to describe the subject of the article, and do not rely on the subjects website to tell us what should be written about them. Hespan style="color:darkBlue">iro 04:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The complainant is actually doing a pretty good job of proving why "White Supremacist" fits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is starting to feel like a Beckett novel/Twilight Zone epidode. The reliability of the SPLC is not even the issue. The A3P is the ONLY political party I've come across for whom the opening line of their entry is a statement with which they would strongly disagree. Moreover, if "white supremacy" is a definable concept, statements or actions made by the party should meet the criteria. These statements should be referenced as proof the label holds. To describe the party as white supremacist in the opening line conveys that a desire for white people to assume hegemonic control of the government and disposses all non-whites (or whatever) is the overarching aim of the party. If nothing in their literature or the actions of their members, qua members, supports this, then the claim is, at the very least, not first sentence-worthy. This is not original research; it's prioritizing.-AT
(ec) You probably meant "Kafka" and not "Beckett", since Beckett is known primarily as a playwright and only wrote a handful of novels, and it's Kafka whose novels are known for having innocent people become victims of a faceless bureaucracy; hence "Kafkaesque."

BTW, please learn how to indent. The procedure should be obvious from looking at the editing page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Epidode"? Anyway, "white nationalism" is code-talk for "white supremacy". There's just no getting around that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The party's own literature is not a reliable source for information about the party per criterion one of the section titled "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" in WP:V:
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1) the material is neither unduly self-serving..."
In other words, we cannot trust the party to present an accurate picture of itself in its own literature, which is essentially promotional and apologetic in nature, and thus unduly self-serving. That is why we must rely on independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Their website is listed, so anyone who wants to read the organization's viewpoint of itself is free to look it up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Proceeding to indent, as requested (see, I'm not unreasonable). And no, I didn't mean Kafka (thanks for the etymology lesson though), I meant Beckett, as in the guy who wrote the Malloy trilogy in addition to his plays. Kinda important works. Please don't strawman your way through this by impugning my intelligence. No, we don't trust the source, and always find 3rd party confirmation/disconfirmation. But we always document the important/identifying things that people and groups say, even if they lie. Normally, we let people/groups speak for themselves/self-identify and only then bring in outside sources. This is the basic format for basically every other political page on wikipedia. And no one's addressed my other point: nothing on the page expands on the white supremacy claim, which, by virtue of being the first statement, should be heavily addressed, just as Magic Johnson being "...a retired American professional basketball player who played point guard for the Los Angeles Laker..." is in his entry. Correct designation or not, it's just bad writing to have it there. -AT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.186.12 (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No strawman here, and no real argument either: the source is reliable, and the information will stay until that changes. There's really no need for additional commentary, since your complaints have been rejected by consensus, and it has been explained to you why a number of times. (Oh, and I fixed your indentation for you, no problem.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus? 100% of the people contributing to this talk page (besides me) agree? And no, it hasn't been explained why such poor ordering of information is being so heavily insisted upon. Lots of reliable sources say lots of things. Do we just copy+paste the whole SPLC article just because it's reliable? No,we, the readers, decide what to include and in what order. The question of ordering, far from being "explained a number of times" has not been addressed at all. Now I'm being told not only not to change it (which I was never going to do), but not even to discuss it anymore, because of the imaginary consensus and non-existent replies to my simple objection to the layout. Congrats, you get to maintain an epithet at the top of a tiny and influenceless political parties Google search page. -AT
Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So then "'according to consensus' is a weak reason to reject a proposal" still applies? Can some please actually address the claims by myself and others, rather than just repeatedly claiming to have? "SPLC is reliable" has very little to do with what I've said. -AT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.186.12 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no "proposal" here, just a run-of-the-mill content dispute. Take a look at WP:IDHT as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Independent source states A3P is nationalist, not supremacist. http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_e8a0137e-cf47-11e0-bba5-001cc4c03286.html

A balanced Wiki article would give views from serveral opposing sources. The Arizona East Valley Tribune article states A3P is a White nationalist party pushing candidate for Mesa council. It weakens the quality of the content on Wikipedia to only cite one source to brand a group.The term "White nationalist" is used by the independent, non-biased, Arizona East Valley Tribune.

Website

The website for the organization is http://american3rdposition.com/

The article still has it as a .org, which is no longer operative.

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added the "edit requested" template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. The scariest part is how close they are philosophically to extreme Republicans and teabaggers and the like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Changed the website in the infobox and the external links. GB fan 04:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not correct.

The A3P is not a white supremacist organization. That is incorrect. White supremacy implies that one thinks the white race is superior. That is not what the A3P is about. The A3P is a political party that is designed to defend white people and their civil liberties as our country becomes more "multicultural". Since this nation was created by white people and their culture, we are looking at a huge cultural shift along with rampant demographic change. And this is why A3P is needed, to protect the culture and identity we had and to some extant still have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.87.24 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

White supremacists know that to say they are white supremacist is unpopular, so call themselves white nationalists, etc. This is why we don't accept self-definitions of such groups on their own, and show how reliable sources describe them. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Even the SPLC considers A3P "white nationalist" rather than "white supremacist". "White supremacist" is simply an incorrect label, as the Wikipedia article on "white supremacy" doesn't even match up with the views of the A3P.Keepwikitruthful (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh look, a group of someones coordinating on Stormfront to change this article [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t916979/]. The thread there ncludes these gems "Jews run Wikipedia - esp any article remotely connected to stuff like this. This page is protected by an admin "WilliamH" for "Content Dispute"." and "I placed my comments in the talk section under the title "Not Correct"." Heiro 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I am not involved with whatever dispute lead to full protection, I am just populating the Category:Westminster, California category. This organization appears to be based there, so could someone please add the city cat to this article? Aboutmovies (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done, though I'm a wee bit confused; the infobox says Westminister, but their contact page cites a Las Vegas address... but their contact phone number is a 213 area code. If this turns out to be an incorrect categorization, just let me know and I'll fix it or remove the category. EVula // talk // // 23:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

POV

This article is laughably biased, stating that the party "promotes white supremacy" in the first sentence? Also note the tone of this selection: "A 2006 article in The Nation magazine reports that MacDonald's 2004 Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism "has turned MacDonald into a celebrity within white nationalist and neo-Nazi circles."[17] Writing in the Journal of Church and State, Professor George Michael noted that MacDonald's work "has been well received by those in the racialist right, as it amounts to a theoretically sophisticated justification for anti-Semitism," and that on the far right MacDonald "has attained a near reverential status and is generally considered beyond reproach"

The goal of the article seems to be to slander rather than accurate representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabyzus (talkcontribs) 23:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles are from respected authorities; like the rest of the article, it draws on appropriate reliable sources. What do you assert is inaccurate about the above? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
What I "assert" is that the use of (very flimsy) guilt by association ad hominem for context is characteristic of a hit piece, not an encyclopedia entry. Would you introduce Barack Obama by noting that his ties to William Ayers or Rev. Wright? Also The Nation is not exactly a dispassionate observer.Megabyzus (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Out, out, cursed sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The SPLC is a biased source when concerning political commentary.
The Arizona East Valley Tribune article states A3P is a White nationalist party pushing a candidate for Mesa council. http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_e8a0137e-cf47-11e0-bba5-001cc4c03286.html Use real unbiased professional journalists for independent, neutral, news sources, not a racially biased organization. Wikipedia starts to look like the Soviet censors when real world non-biased news sources characterize A3P as White nationalist, but Wikipedia mischaracterizes it as White "supremacist". Such prejudice and bias lowers the quality of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.201.122 (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"White Nationalist" is code wording for "White Supremacist". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
When you call the SPLC "a racially biased organization", 4.232, it's pretty hard to pretend that you're attempting to maintain a neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
And Baseball Bugs hit the nail on the head - white supremacists try very hard to stop people from calling them that and insist they are just nationalists or separatists. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
In order for there to be a "white supremacy," there has to be a multi-racial society. You really can't be supreme other any other races when they aren't in your country. The American Third Position Party advocates White Nationalism, not a "supremacy." Poached Turkey (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you identify as a "neo fascist". Surprise, surprise. Well, there's only two ways to achieve your all-white nation. One is to kill off all non-whites, as I'm sure you would dearly love to do, but that gets messy and time-consuming. The other is much simpler: Take your low-life nazi ilk to somewhere that's uninhabited, and set up your all-white nation. There's no anchor keeping you here in the USA. If you don't like it here, you're free to leave at any time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If people like the Turkey don't like it here in the U.S., they can go back where they come from. Of course, he won't like things in England or German or Alsace-Lorraine either; and they don't want his kind there any more than we do here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You can make all the "logical" arguments you want, Turkey, but we go by sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Your friends at SPLC call A3P a White Nationalist group. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-third-position The presidential candidate, Merlin Miller, calls himself a White Nationalist. http://american3rdposition.com/?p=6115 "In the last decade, he [Merlin Miller] has adopted a white nationalist ideology." There is also the article previously posted that you two have seemingly blown off entirely. http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_e8a0137e-cf47-11e0-bba5-001cc4c03286.html What more proof do you want? Poached Turkey (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
White "nationalist" = White supremacist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's an article in which a so-called "white nationalist" is quoted as calling blacks "sub-human".[1] That's the essence of white supremacism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
As I'm sitting here, looking through the A3P's immigration policies and other policies, it does seem like that they still want a multi-racial America. It doesn't seem to be out-right said, but implied. No doubt that if this were to occur, Whites would be at the top of society and government, which would lead to a White Supremacy. If they didn't have a multi-racial America, I would call them a White Separatist group instead, but this seems like it isn't the case. It looks like that they're putting Supremacy #1 on the docket, with Nationalism #2. So yes, you're right, it would be better to call them a White Supremacist organization than a White Nationalist. Poached Turkey (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :) And you may not agree with this, but I think the broad diversity of America is one of its greatest strengths. Not there aren't problems also. But I'm hard-pressed to think of any nation on earth that's more generous and willing to open its arms to others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Now, wait a minute. There is a problem with Poached Turkey's analysis. While it is true that the party does not plan to make America wholly monoracial (though intending to end significant non-White immigration), it does not advocate such disabilities on non-Whites that they would become second class citizens, like if they lost suffrage. The party wants America to maintain and strengthen its White majority, but their end is to make this a "White Nation" like it was before the 1965 Immigration Act, not to reenact restrictions on civil rights. Accusing the A3P of supremacism can only arise from personal speculation, whether on an editor's part or the writers in the "reliable" sources chosen.71.192.35.64 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: what positions make someone a white supremacist? Does the this party have those positions? I could imagine an encyclopedic sentence. "The American Third Party Position advocates white supremacist policies such as..." and then go on to offer some examples. When some one argues that something is a "code word" for something else, that is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.221.158 (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Except when it's true. So, how are things in Tennessee? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
In any case, we go by what reliable sources say about a subject, not our own analysis. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm not getting this. Wikipedians are free to buy the charge that "nationalist" is code for "supremacist" all they want. That the charge is frequently made with regards to the A3P should be duly stated in the article. But of the four sources for the all-important first line's summary, none come from the site; all originate in hostile organizations or media. This encyclopedia has separate articles on White Supremacism and White Nationalist, so it is inconsistent and misleading to label the A3P Supremacist when it denies being so. For disclosure, yes, I am sympathetic, but I think its in the interest of objectivity that the resident antifas back off and let the A3P speak for itself here.
Oh, and before you annoy me about the IP, it's dandy up here in the Bay State.71.192.35.64 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sites and publications by fringe groups are generally lousy sources for information about themselves, as they are inherently self-serving and apologetic. That is what we rely on independent secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a platform where we let fringe groups "speak for themselves". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)