Talk:David Lane (white supremacist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

White supremacist vs. White nationalist[edit]

Greetings, anon IPs! Many of you come here, change Lane's description to "white nationalist" from "white supremacist", and run away. The thing is, reliable sources describe Lane as a white supremacist, and so, that is how Wikipedia describes him. Such edits will be reverted, time and again, no matter how many times they are made. Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

he was neither. he was a separatist. in fact his own essay tells you this. he wants his own white civilisation. (or wanted) it's funny if an arab does this they are called what they are, but a white man does it and he is called a racist. saddens me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No reliable source would state that he is a supremacist. He was an admitted white separatist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Can someone explain why this article is categorized under terrorism since it does not appear that Mr. Lane was convicted of terrorism? Perhaps the article is just not clear about this, but how does "racketeering, conspiracy and violating the civil rights of radio talk show host Alan Berg" equal terrorism? What specific terrorist acts was Lane involved in or convicted of? If there is information on this can someone add links or better references than what we have please-- JJay 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lane was involved with "the most violent and notorious domestic terrorist group of the 1980s"[1] according to the Nizkor Project as well as the ADL. The book The Silent Brotherhood listed in the references basically details their attempt at overthrowing the US government, and after they were all convicted, they are still seen as extremely dangerous, hence Lane's incarceration at Supermax. Unfortunately, fans of The Order (group) have turned that entry into pure fancruft, so it is not really representative of the group at the moment. I guess it is terminology semantics: Is someone a terrorist if they don't produce a high body count before they are caught by law enforcement? Obviously, the government thinks so. WeniWidiWiki 20:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The ADL link does not support your argument. While it calls the Order a terrorist group twice in passing, it does not provide any proof. As for the Nizkor Project, that looks to be a blog and as such is not a valid source. I have no doubt that I could find blogs that call Mr. Lane a patriot; it is not on such proof that I would try to classify him as one. My concern is that we should not use these types of labels without serious proof such as a criminal conviction or being placed on a terrorist watchlist. That goes for the article text and the categories. If you look at our Yasser Arafat article, you will see that the Terrorist category is not applied. While your point about body counts is well taken, intent does not equal crime or conviction and we should not let our mindsets influence the :way we treat the subjects of articles here. Semantics matters and should always be borne in mind by us-- JJay 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Domestic Terrorism as per US Code Title 18, 2331(5) Also in the text of the Patriot Act (Link goes to PDF)

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
 (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any          
 (B) appear to be intended—
   (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
 (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
 (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 

Nizkor is not a blog, and under current US legal statutes Lane is a domestic terrorist. There are copious sources which say Lane is a terrorist and identifies the Order as a terrorist group. Please list your sources which state that David Lane is not a terrorist, or even anecdotal evidence which could indicate that his actions did not fit the criteria of terrorist, as commonly used.

They did fit the criteria of a freedom fighter, however! 08:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Gardell, Matthias (2003). Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Duke University Press. ISBN 0822330717. 
Gardell explains the motivations and terrorist actions of David Lane and the Order to great length Ch.5, pp.191-204
"Matthews and Lane along with eight others started what, in essence, was a terrorist group. He called it "Bruder Schweigen" (the Silent Brotherhood), which came to be known nationally as "The Order."
"But it was his role as a founding member of the terrorist organization The Order that won him notoriety — as well as prison sentences totaling 190 years on racketeering charges and civil rights violations, the latter stemming from the 1984 murder of Denver talk radio host Alan Berg."
"The Order was the most violent and notorious domestic terrorist group of the 1980s"

WeniWidiWiki 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to waste my time telling you that the sites you are quoting from could easily be viewed as partisan and could just as easily be offset from quotes from equally partisan websites. Furthermore, your quoting a law and telling me that Mr. Lane's actions fit the definition of the law is irrelevant as you know. It would have been nice if you had pointed me to a page that said that Mr. Lane had been convicted for terrorism or charged with terrorism. It would have been nice to provide a link to a news source that called him a terrorist. Apparently being a rascist serving a long prison sentence for Berg's murder is not enough and semantics would seem to matter a great deal for you. With that in mind, good luck working on the article. -- JJay 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


I really don't think that this particular man deserves his own David Lane article when there are clearly other notable David Lanes in the world. I propose that thsi should be turned into a dab page. Disagree? Agree? Hbdragon88 01:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed: David Lane is now a disambiguation page. -- The Anome 08:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I dont agree. Mourn the martyr.///sam donaldson///

I've moved it to "David Lane (white nationalist)", since "nationalist" is the term we use in the article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And now the first result returned in a search for any David Lane produces this entry on David Lane, white nationalist. Not really much of an improvement for the other Lanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

His weight[edit]

I noticed in the article that it stated Lane's weight as 450 kg. This would be over 900 lbs, quite a feat for a professed vegetarian/vegan who advocated an intake of around 1800 calories per day. Yogensha 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


This article should be moved to David Lane (nationalist) according to this. I will go ahead and put a tag on it, so anyone who sees it in the future will know. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is (nationalist) better than (white nationalist)? The terms aren't synonymous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

This talk page is on the David Lane (dismabiguation) article, as well as on the David Lane (white nationalist) article. Could someone please remove it from the disambig page, whilst keeping this talk page on the WN article - I don't know how to do that. F W Nietzsche (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He wrote books about gematria?!?[edit]

Why the heck was he, of all people, interested in Kabbalah (Jewish) numerology? That doesn't make any sense at all, but it's what the article claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Did he have any? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


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 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Propose a move back to David Lane (white supremacist)[edit]

Multiple reliable sources refer to Lane as a white supremacist - the only sources I've found that refer to him as a white nationalist are websites associated with the white nationalist movement. "White nationalist" appears to be being used as a whitewashing term here, at least. I propose the article be moved back to its original title of David Lane (white supremacist). Thoughts? Rockypedia (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For better or worse, I made the move - after reading the guide to page moves, I believe this to be the correct title. If this creates a dialogue on the talk page, I'm all for it. Rockypedia (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

even though he was a white separatist. he never killed coloreds or wanted to. actually he was convicted of killing a white man. yet now he is some sort thrown in with the neo nazi crowd. he be turning in his grave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot add to the article the opinion that he is turning over in his grave without a reliable secondary source. Rockypedia (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Lane (white supremacist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Getaway driver[edit]

Many sources state that Lane was the "getaway driver". This is probably not a crime in of itself. However the result was conviction for racketeering, conspiracy, Jim1138 (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As this article is supposed to be unbiased, I am removing the claim he was the getaway driver for the Berg murder.

The court case against Lane never included him being a getaway driver. This was an alleged claim that was unprovable; in fact nobody was ever charged for Berg's murder.

If somebody wanted to include a section of all the "alleged" claims against him, this is fine, but the article should be based on fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what wp:reliable sources state. There are many that call Lane the "getaway driver". That he was not convicted as being such is not relevant. Jim1138 (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant; articles should be based on facts. I have edited in that the claim was "alleged" against him, although he was never convicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Was never convicted"? Perhaps you should read the article, specifically the section: David Lane (white supremacist)#Convictions and incarceration. He was sentenced to 190 years in prison. Is there a law on the books making it illegal to be a "getaway driver"? I don't think so; it's called "conspiracy". Jim1138 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No, conviction of being a getaway driver falls under aiding and abetting, not conspiracy. The conspiracy charge was thrown at people because there was no actual evidence linking them directly to the murder, although they had talked about it; hence the "conspiracy" charge instead of "murder". By no means do I support Lane, but the article should at least be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2017‎

Legal definition of conspiracy[edit]

Before undoing edits, please first understand the difference in legal terms, and what conspiracy is:

Is a good start. David Lane was charged with conspiracy, because he and others had discussed things they had planned to do to Berg.

IMPORTANT: the actual charge was "conspiracy to take away the rights of Berg", not "conspiracy to commit murder" of Berg.

The case against Lane was not murder, nor was it aiding and abetting, nor was it conspiracy to commit murder. Personally, I think that Lane probably did have something to do with Berg's murder, but this was never actually proven in a court.

The only people who are injecting their personal opinion here are the ones who are trying to allocate a role onto Lane that was never substantiated in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2017‎

Annoying edits being made by an IP[edit]

IP keeps adding unsourced information that sounds biased while trying to start an editing war. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) it is not unsourced information. The sources state clearly the charges laid against lane. I updated the article to reflect that. Check the definition of conspiracy above, and the talk above that for more information. (2) I am not engaging in an edit war, you came in undoing edits without listing any reason. I clearly asked you on multiple occasions to take it to talk so we can discuss it. (3) I am not biased, you probably just think that because you are biased yourself and don't like the facts. As stated before, I in no way support Lane, and I think he likely had something to do with Berg's murder, but that is personal opinion, not fact. If we are to be truly objective, we need to stick to the facts. Just because someone has a despicable ideology does not give us a free pass to include unverified information just to try and make them look even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2017‎
Your opinion notwithstanding, you are edit warring without reaching consensus here. Please read WP:CYCLE before you re-engage in this conversation or edit the article again. Understanding that page is critical to the editing process on Wikipedia. In any case, I agree with SparklingPessimist that you are adding unsourced info. If you continue, you can expect a block. Rockypedia (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Great. But, you can't just go around adding controversial information without having consensus to do so, your edits have been reverted by several different editors who all agree that your change needs to have consensus first. So, please stop. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The sources are slightly ambiguous because the legalities are technical to the point of being a distraction, not because his guilt is disputed. Wikipedia accepts that people are guilty of a crime when they have been convicted unless we have a very good, well-sourced reason to dispute this. Fudging around with the difference between being a getaway driver and conspiracy doesn't make the article any clearer. It only adds confusion. Doing this to paint Lane in a more favorable light isn't neutral or appropriate. Newspapers, such as the Denver Post, often over-use alleged out of habit, but this is not an allegation by reasonable standards. He was convicted of a crime according to the Denver Post article. There is a good case to be made for improving how this is explained, because the details are not clear from either the article or the two accessible sources. The way to fix this would be to encorporate new sources specifically about Lane's role, not unrelated introductory reading about law terms. Whitewashing is never appropriate, and it's painfully obvious that's what's going on. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)