Talk:Identitarian movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Generation Identity)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (I will be improving it, it is a huge movement across europe and has an international headlines, is a hot topic within anti-fascist organisation, see Searchlight Magazine article, I will be gathering the links. But you you spend a little time researching it you'll see) --AWT (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the references on the page. Also, it had a german wiki article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitäre_Bewegung and https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Génération+identitaire

needs work[edit]

article either needs expanding or deleting.

info links comprise almost as much as the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talkcontribs) 23:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I, too, don't see a well-sourced article unlike Bloc Identitaire. Either someone fixes it or we should consider deleting it. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

what is the movement about[edit]

This article says where the movement is derived from but has zero description of what exactly it *is*. What do Indentitarians believe? Presumably someone looking up "Identitarian" would like to know this. The articles on Fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) and Anti-Fascism both do a decent job of explaining these movements.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to re-write the introduction section, but I think someone who feels up to it should.

ZeroXero (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Today there was in Deutche Welle a documentary about German Far Right and they presented Identarianists, too. It was the first time I heared about them, so I looked up in the WP. This is why the WP articles are for. "It is on the TV, therefore is encyclopedic". Some more material can be found here [1] if someone wants to enrich the article. I don't think the word itshelf can be related to a particular race/nation/religion. It has more to do with the question "Yes or No to cultural identity". (from Greece). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.7.124 (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yea the article definitely needs a rewrite and to include that info. I know what to write somewhat, but I dont have any sources. I would have to research it.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Far Right Youth Group?[edit]

Inapproprpriate description to call them a far right group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C400:8AD0:74F9:6A9B:EA1E:AB52 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So, what would you call them?  — Myk Streja (who?) 19:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Reactionary conservative youth group" or something of the likes. The term "far-right" implies a radical fringe right ideology, whereas the Identitarians' positions of opposition to mass-migration and Islamization is very mainstream in modern conservatism. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ECPR conference link[edit]

A recent Washington Post article recommends this paper as a primer on the Identitarian movement.

I'm adding it to the article on WaPo's vetting. The DRAFT VERSION language makes me think there should be a newer version somewhere; however, in reading this version it seems to need just an english-language copyedit. I suspect news sources will corroborate most of it. / edg 18:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

White supremacist?[edit]

Under the section "In North America" it says
The head of the white nationalist National Policy Institute Richard B. Spencer is a self-described identitarian and promotes white supremacist views
There are 3 references, none of which seem to make mention of the claim. The fact that 3 templates were created for the references made me post here, rather than make the edits. --2601:CD:C104:17A0:A54E:4F52:B527:7AF3 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at Talk:Richard B. Spencer and multiple other talk pages. The sources (and several others) do support that the NPI promotes white supremacist views. We could add more, but we should avoid WP:CITECLUTTER, as it could itself be interpreted as form of editorializing. The overlap is very close, and these terms are often treated as euphemisms of each other. They should be weighed accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dutch Identitair Verzet[edit]

The Dutch far right movement Identitair Verzet is part of this movement. Their website tells it all: [2]. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Christoph Gurk[edit]

The article mentions Christoph Gurk as some sort of authority without identifying why he is relevant and whether he is a critic. Anyone can claim anything about anything, that does not mean it should be mentioned. I am not opposed to mentioning his statement, just that it be qualified to show its relevance. Unfortunately, I dont read German well, so I cant look at the citation.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He is a München/Buenos Aires based journalist who works on and off for various German news outlets. This is his web page. The source cited in the WP article is an interview (and not a neutral one at that) with Alexander Häusler, a German social scientist who focuses on islamophobia and right wing populism at the Hochschule Düsseldorf. Apparently, Christoph likes cats. Cheers! 201.214.75.200 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

White supremacy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Completely discounting all votes by single purpose accounts and per the extensive persusive arguments by Doug Weller, there is a weighed consensus to support inclusion of the term.Whilst the procedural objections to the RFC are valid, discounting reliable sources for perceived bias and indulging in original research are not valid arguments.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a discussion to arrive at a consensus as to whether the terms "white supremacy" or "white supremacist" belong in this article, especially as to whether the definition is imposed on the Identitarian Movement or not.

Allow - either or both of the terms should be allowed in the article, with reliable sources included
Disallow - neither of the terms will be allowed to interfere with the article  — Myk Streja (who?) 07:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Another editor who seems to be more familiar with Wikipedia and handling consensus has stepped up to take over. Good luck and happy hunting.  — Myk Streja (what?) 05:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Disallow - This is a separate movement from white supremacy and white nationalism, even though they all share some common ground.  — Myk Streja (who?) 07:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Waste of time comment - I did not know about the group till I saw this article, so I feel I'm not educated enough to vote. But- a) do reputable news outlets list them as white supremacists?; b) do their primary sources ID themselves as white supremacists; c) do their tenets involve believing the white race is superior; d) etc, etc. In sum- we can't say "they are far right so therefore they are white supremacists", but we can say "they believe that the white race is superior, so we can call them white supremacists." Does that make sense? For people who know about the group, the answer to this should be the final answer. We can't call a group white supremacists unless they ARE. And we shouldn't NOT call a white supremacist group as such because it is a charged term. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Can't see why you called this a "waste of time comment." You make rational, cogent arguments and come to logical conclusions. Even though I started this topic, that doesn't mean I believe in it. I believe in accuracy. If Identitarians are white supremacists, it needs to say so. If not, then that needs to be made clear, too. My opinion is based on what I feel is credible.  — Myk Streja (who?) 15:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per reliable sources. Carl Fredrik talk 12:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Include How can we not if we are going to follow the sources. I deliberately didn't look at sources such as Slate or Salon, but let's see what the conservative National Review had to say a year or so ago: "“Identitarianism” is a newfangled euphemism for white supremacy. Coined around the start of the 21st century by the intellectual wing — such as it is — of the French far right, it has since been adopted by white nationalists the world over. Last October, I attended a conference in Washington convened by the identitarian movement’s American division, the National Policy Institute (NPI)."[3]. And note that he says both "the world over" and links it to rather than distinguishes it from "white supremacism". A North Carolina newspaper (yes, it's using the SPLC as a source, that just means they think it's a good source) pointing out the growth of the movement in the US and linking it to white supremacism.[4] CNN discussing the term and others and quoting a domestic terrorism specialist:"The far rightists used "white nationalism" to appear more credible and patriotic, Johnson said, and the term detracts from the stereotypes conjured by white supremacy. But make no mistake, he argued, white nationalism is a euphemism. "They want to distance themselves from white supremacy," he said."[5] That's an important point and part of the broader picture of white supremacists doing everything they can to hide their real beliefs. CNN again, quoting an academic with a specialist in the field:""They're racist, but they have fancy new packaging," said Brian Levin, director for the Center of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino. "They learn to downplay the swastikas and get a thesaurus, so instead of white supremacy they use words like identitarian. It's just a repackaged version of white nationalism.""[6] Again, note the emphasis on re-branding. The founder of the One People's Project quoted in Wired: ""If you know the buzzwords, you know what you're dealing with," Jenkins says. "Someone saying they're a 'race realist' or 'identitarian'? That's code for white supremacist."[7] The The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles discussing Identity Evropa and calling it white supremacist.[8] And isn't Identity Evropa, which is white supremacist, part of this movement? Why isn't it included in this article? There are more sources but that seems enough for now. By the way, the language of this RfC isn't exactly optimal. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Your claim that Evropa is 'part' of the Identitarian movement sounds like original research. Linked loosely - perhaps, because they are both arguably part of the alt-right, but nothing more. 81.157.84.167 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC) 81.157.84.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I asked a question. It's founder describes himself as idenitarian. No original research involved. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow The French Wikipedia article makes no mention of it, where the Identitarian movement started and is more mainstream. Same with German. The 'movement' is not prevalent enough yet in the English-speaking world to quantify the term, I can't find much discussion of it where the author hasn't just looked at what has been written by French or German authors and rephrased it. I'd argue that applying loaded and unfounded terms to the article will just drive on the movement in their aims. 81.157.84.167 (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC) 81.157.84.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Disallow - regardless of what fake news articles are released, I can confirm that no racism or white supremacy is accepted in right wing identitarian politics, this is coming from a member. 109.145.113.182 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 109.145.113.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Bold text isn't a substitute for consensus - Why is this so rigidly framed? Any IPs or other new editors need to be aware that this isn't a ballot, and Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Other comments and options should be discussed or proposed, and neither is a valid option. Please review Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Including the phrase "cast your vote" in the RFC is likely to cause needless confusion. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Despite what the initiator of this RfC claims, this is not a vote as polling is not a substitute for discussion. Accordingly, I have refactored this section to remove the unsigned instructions regarding voting and to unseparate the voting subsection. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include – As Doug Weller said, we have to follow the sources. The sources appear to be leading in one direction based on the above discussion and no opposing argument has been made that is rooted in the available sources. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include (summoned by bot) – There are clearly sources that support this interpretation, as Doug Weller notes. If there are other reliable sources contesting the characterisation, then the article can report that there ae differing interpretations. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow As I've said elsewhere, it's difficult to maintain accuracy in a time of political turmoil. There's alot of bias and distortion out there, even in seemingly reliable media sources, and it's important not to let it creep into an encyclopedia. The term 'white supremacy' is a very loaded label which obscures what the identitarian movement is about. To my understanding, this is not about racial ideology; this is a populist/ethnonationalist backlash against globalism, neoliberalism, and open-door immigration policies. I think what is most important is striving to be factual and accurate, rather than unquestioningly paraphrasing easily available sources. Bigdan201 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC. This RfC is contrary to Wikipedia policy and frankly, completely bogus. We don't decide whether a particular term should be blacklisted from an article. We decide whether it belongs in a particular place in the article, with a particular wording, supported by particular sources. When it comes to our core verifiability and neutrality policies, context matters. Without context, the RfC is meaningless. If I have to choose between these two ridiculous options then I choose Allow because I don't think a term should be summarily blacklisted without considering context. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, context does matter. If the article mentioned that they've been described by certain commentators as white supremacist, that would be fine. The article directly supporting that statement would NOT be acceptable. Bigdan201 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Bigdan201 - What you said is spot on and 100% true. Identitarian politics is not predominately about race, although white culture is important. Black members are also allowed to join and are encouraged. At the moment Identitarian politics is against neoliberalism and open-door immigration policies. The movement strongly encourages intelligent, non violent and mainly young people (teens-30s) to get involved and are strongly against racist and biased views as it incredibly damages the image of the movement and is generally very wrong. As I said before this comes from a member associated with Generation Identity. ThePlane11 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: ThePlane11 (talkcontribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
  • Include - As Doug Weller has referenced well, there are many reliable sources. Wikipedia should be about reliable sources, not the spin that some editors find in vogue at the moment. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow - or more accurately, the terms should be allowed in the context of explaining that identitarianism is not about white supremacy. Great floors (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead needs to be rewritten[edit]

I've started by making it clear it's an international movement, not a European integrationist one. I don't think that " it has taken on its own identity and is largely classified as a separate entity altogether with the intent of spreading across Europe. The Identitarian movement advocates the preservation of national identity and a return to traditional western values." is correct and it appears to be original research. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Identitarian/ism[edit]

If you look around, you'll see that this term is being used as a term for the ideology of identity politics. This one is new to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist? The sources don't prove this[edit]

Intro says: "The Identitarian movement is a white nationalist[1][2] movement". One of the sources doesn't say this at all. It just says that the group "Defend Europe" is both white nationalist and identitarian. (Defend Europe is also a non-profit, does this mean all non-profits are also white nationalists by similar association?) The other source does make a mention of "he white nationalist “Identitarian” movement", but one journalist's casual comment doesn't really create enough weight for such an accusation/attribution.

If I wanted to start the Micheal Jackson article with "Micheal Jackson was a racist[1][2] who sang...", I'd need a lot more than just a guilt-by-association comment and a throwaway comment by one journalist.

I'm sure there's plenty of overlap between white nationalists and identitarians. In particular, I'd guess the white nationalists are usually also identitarians. But that doesn't mean identitarians are all white nationalists. I'm sure many identitarians want nothing to do with white nationalists and distance themselves as much as possible.

There's overlap, but they're two separate groups. Great floors (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(A discussion of the relation between the two groups would be a great addition to the article. But a flat "Identitarians are white nationalists" is just nonsense.) Great floors (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
"A discussion of the relation between the two groups would be a great addition to the article" - If such a thing were available in a source perhaps. Wikipedia doesn't permit speculative discourse on it's talk pages, let alone on the article namespace. There are lots of sources which identify this movement as white nationalist. Some of them are in the body of this article. Are you suggesting that the statement requires more citations? If so, let me know which further citations you wish to add and I will create a link bundle after the statement so as not to create a cite kill effect. Edaham (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Does it need more citations? Of course it does. There are only two and one is off-topic and the other is a casual mention in an article about something else (it's about an action, not about classify the group). Yes, if there are sources please cite them. Great floors (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Quibbling over the use of sources in the lede for statements which are well-supported in the body is counterproductive. If you think these sources are unreliable, explain why. Dismissing them as "some journalist" is deeply misguided about how sources work on Wikipedia. If a cite-bundle would solve this, it would be helpful, and there are so, so many sources that could be added to such a bundle. It is a ridiculously simple thing to source, and it's very clearly a defining trait of the movement. From past experience, I suspect a bundle will only help a little, though. We would still likely have to deal with a constant stream of nit-pickers who reject some of the sources as insufficient, while ignoring the larger picture. We've seen this so many other places with white nationalist/identitarian/race realist/white supremacist/racialist/white separatist/alt-right/new right/etc... If a bundle simplifies the discussion or slows down the stream, it's still worth it. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't edit any of the article types you mention. This isn't a topic I'm into. I stumbled on this article and noticed the content is poorly and incorrectly sourced. The body is also disorganised, but I don't care enough to dig into that problem. A casual comment by a journalist is not WP's gold standard. You surely know this. If the article really has good sources about the identitarian movement being *part of* the white nationalist movement, then add these sources, and be clear: use the "quote" field of the cite_web tag to show what part of the article you think supports the statement in the article. I've been clear in my edit summaries and explanations here.
Please don't grab a source about Mr. X saying he's a white nationalist and an identitarian, and use this to support a claim that the identiarian movement is part of the white nationalist movement. Or a source about Identitarian Organisation X having dealings with White Nationalist Organisation Y. That's just overlap.
Now, if you do have good sources, then that's great! Add what the sources say. I don't care what WP says about identitarians (as long as it's accurate and backed up). Great floors (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't care if you've edited these articles before, because I have, and I've seen this exact discussion played out multiple times before. Your edit was whitewashing, and the Miami Herald source is absolutely not a passing mention. If a reliable source, such as the Miami Herald, say this as a fact, we do not need to couch this in layers of WP:WEASELish quotes. Many sources say, both in passing and substance, that this is a white racist organization using whatever the in-house euphemism is for it. This a simple and straightforward description. You have made your request clear. Demanding specific standards of placement and formatting for these citations is disruptive. One of us will add the bundle when we get around to it. Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

White supremacy - implement the RfC?[edit]

On September 6th the RfC was closed, I don't have the time right now to implement it. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The 4 references for "white nationalist/supremacist"[edit]

To make the references clear, we should use the quote field of the cite_web tag. However, when I try to do this I find only wafer thing support and some contradiction of what the intro claims. But if I change the intro to accurately reflect its references, I'll get reverted because some people seem to think the references say something else. Below is what the references say. If you think I'm missing something in the references then show me your quote. Otherwise the intro has to be fixed to reflect what's in the references. (More references are surely required - I find it hard to believe that these articles are the only or most thorough ones that discuss identitarians.)

  1. Miami Times: "White nationalists charter ship to catch Muslims in the Mediterranean... Generation Identity, whose members call themselves Identitarians"
    (This journalist calls Generation Identity a white nationalist group and says they call themselves identitarians. He doesn't say anything about whether identitarians are part of the white nationalist movement.)
  2. snopes.com: "The Defend Europe group, which is part of the white nationalist “Identitarian” movement..."
    (That's the only mention of "identitarian" in the article. The sentence is about one group and mentions they call themselves identiarian. And snopes is a website, its authors aren't journalists.)
  3. LA Times: "In diverse California, a young white supremacist seeks to convert fellow college students... He said called himself an “identitarian,” not a white supremacist."
    (One dude says supremacist things and calls himself identitarian ...and In November 2007, he had been ... suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, paranoia and flashbacks, court records show. He's the proof?)
  4. politicalresearch.org: "The group cloaks their White nationalist message in language of identitarian pride in European heritage"
    (That's the only mention of "identiarian" in the article, and it's to say that racist groups sometimes abuse the "identitarian" name. Nothing about identitarians being white supremacists.)

That's the evidence that identitarians are racists???

If anyone thinks these references are up to Wikipedia's standards as being representative and authoritative of what the identitarian movement is, please show me the quotes. Great floors (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's the evidence. And that's enough. There's also more out there, but this is actually sufficient. Volunteer Marek  11:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The evidence for references to this being a "white nationalist" movement is at least existent in the first two sources, but the sources used to justify the "white supremacist" label are clearly insufficient. Nowhere on those pages is the Identitarian Movement referred to as "white supremacist." God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Are we reading the same material? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
'His answers to the students’ questions about his views were long-winded and complex. He said called himself an “identitarian,” not a white supremacist.' - Source #3; distinguishes between the labels of 'identitarian' and 'white supremacist.' Never calls the Identitarian Movement 'white supremacist,' and never labels Identity Evropa 'Identitarian.'
"The group cloaks their White nationalist message in language of identitarian pride in European heritage and softens it with a polished look." - Source #4; refers to the group Identity Evropa as being 'white nationalist' though they hide behind the language of identitarian pride in European heritage. This is not a reference to the Identitarian Movement, a distinct European group with distinct goals unrelated to Identity Evropa or white supremacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talkcontribs) 16:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
We had an RfC recently which was closed with the decision to call them white supremacist, but that wasn't implemented. Here's what I wrote there (a bit above, but it seems to have been missed) I deliberately didn't look at sources such as Slate or Salon, but let's see what the conservative National Review had to say a year or so ago: "“Identitarianism” is a newfangled euphemism for white supremacy. Coined around the start of the 21st century by the intellectual wing — such as it is — of the French far right, it has since been adopted by white nationalists the world over. Last October, I attended a conference in Washington convened by the identitarian movement’s American division, the National Policy Institute (NPI)."[9]. And note that he says both "the world over" and links it to rather than distinguishes it from "white supremacism".
A North Carolina newspaper (yes, it's using the SPLC as a source, that just means they think it's a good source) pointing out the growth of the movement in the US and linking it to white supremacism.[10]
CNN discussing the term and others and quoting a domestic terrorism specialist:"The far rightists used "white nationalism" to appear more credible and patriotic, Johnson said, and the term detracts from the stereotypes conjured by white supremacy. But make no mistake, he argued, white nationalism is a euphemism. "They want to distance themselves from white supremacy," he said."[11] That's an important point and part of the broader picture of white supremacists doing everything they can to hide their real beliefs.
CNN again, quoting an academic with a specialist in the field:""They're racist, but they have fancy new packaging," said Brian Levin, director for the Center of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino. "They learn to downplay the swastikas and get a thesaurus, so instead of white supremacy they use words like identitarian. It's just a repackaged version of white nationalism.""[12] Again, note the emphasis on re-branding.
The founder of the One People's Project quoted in Wired: ""If you know the buzzwords, you know what you're dealing with," Jenkins says. "Someone saying they're a 'race realist' or 'identitarian'? That's code for white supremacist."[13]
The The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles discussing Identity Evropa and calling it white supremacist.[14] And isn't Identity Evropa, which is white supremacist, part of this movement? Why isn't it included in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs)
See, this is constructive. If you want to use the National Review and SPLC sources to document actual instances in which people refer to this Identitarian Movement as "white supremacist," then by all means do so. But reverting to previous edits that reference bunk sources is not any way to go about editing an encyclopedia. Claims made on a Wiki page, especially claims this inflammatory and debatable, need to be backed by solid sources that provide direct evidence for those claims. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The four sources quoted at the top of this post never say identitarianism is about white nationalism, let alone supremacy. Refs 1 and 2 show that, according to a journalist, the term "identitarian" is used for some of Generation Identity. The journalist puts it in quote marks, never even saying that it's rightly used. Ref 3 says some crazy dude uses both terms for himself. And ref 4 says some racist group abused the term. These sources are nonsense. Great floors (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
We also have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is used as a source by a lot of people. It's very possible that someone would call identitarianism a white nationalist movement because they read it on Wikipedia. Then someone adds that as a reference and the circle of nonsense is complete. Great floors (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It should be highlighted that the Identitarian Movement itself does not espouse white nationalist or white supremacist goals or values. The term "identitarianism" could be used to refer to the blanket term 'identity politics,' which would of course include white nationalism and white supremacy. But this article describes the specific political activist groups in Europe, born out of the French group Generation Identitaire, whose only explicit goals are to stem the flow of mass-migration and to prevent Islam from replacing European culture. Using language like "it has been described as white nationalist and white supremacist" is absurd. Its the equivalent of me writing a blog post in which I label Daft Punk "racist" without providing any evidence to back up that claim, then edit the Daft Punk wiki page to say "The group has been described as racist." It gives the implication that these 'descriptions' are warranted or justifiable, even if they're clearly neither. Until someone can provide any evidence that the Identitarian Movement (that being the specific set of European organizations derived from Bloc Identitaire) is a white nationalist or white supremacist movement, there's no justification to include those labels in the group's encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talkcontribs) 04:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not "equivalent". You're not a reliable source. You're just a random Wikipedia account... well, not so random, you're a WP:SPA newly created Wikipedia account with 11 edits. But, hey, if you ever publish your opinions in a reliable secondary source, *then* we could use it. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Preventing "Islam from replacing European culture" is a statistically absurd conspiracy theory heavily popularized by white supremacists. Anyone who tries to distance this movement from racism by citing neo-Nazi talking points is unlikely to get much traction. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter at all whether you think it's an absurd goal or a viable one, it doesn't matter whether white supremacists share that goal, the point is that the goal itself has nothing to do with racial supremacy of any sort. Not once has this organization stated a goal or view of white supremacy or the promotion thereof, so it is grossly unfair to categorize them as white supremacists on their wikipedia page. This isn't a forum in which we get to let our biases determine how the public sees a particular political group. This is an online encyclopedia, and as such needs to be written from an unbiased and objective standpoint. You've failed to provide any evidence that this organization is in any way racist, white nationalist, or white supremacist. Saying that some journalist has described them as such is not at all sufficient to justify including those labels on the group's encyclopedia entry. It doesn't matter whether the author of an article is writing from an 'esteemed' source like the Washington Post or the New York Times or whatever, an opinion by a journalist is not factual evidence of the Identitarian Movement being white supremacist. Until you can provide a shred of objective evidence to back up your view, we can't let the biases of wikipedia editors define the identity of a political movement. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What organisation are you referring to that hasn't stated a goal of white supremacy? It's a movement (as your last sentence says), and movements can't make official statements. And we do use reliable sources for descriptions - I don't think someone with just a handful of edits is in a position to say we can't. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The organization I'm referring to is the collective of identitarian groups united under the lambda symbol and sharing common roots and goals, including: Génération Identitaire, Bloc Identitaire, Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs, Generazione Identitaria, Identitäre Bewegung Deutschland, and others. The Identitarian Movement described in this wiki is mainly limited to these groups and their supporters, and none of them espouse white supremacist goals or values. And I'm not refuting the "reliability" of these sources, I'm objecting to the use of journalists' opinions to justify labeling these groups white supremacist when the facts don't back up those labels. It doesn't matter whose opinion it is, it's not backed by any actual evidence and therefore isn't appropriate for use in an encyclopedia entry. God-Emperor Aaron the Great (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion is that none of these groups espouse white supremacist goals. My opinion is that pushing the false narrative of Islamic displacement is itself white supremacist. Without WP:RS, your opinion doesn't belong in the article any more than mine does. Like it or not, reputable journalists are considered reliable. This isn't stated as their opinions, this is reported as a basic fact. If you want to change the article, find new sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
But reputable journalists are only sources for what they say. If one says "I interviewed this one nut job and he said a bunch of racist stuff and then called himself an identitarian", then you can maybe add to the article something about the existence of a single nut job who calls himself an identitarian. Although I don't think that passes Wikipedia's requirement of not giving WP:Undue weight to small events.
What is not allowed, is seeing one nut job say something, and then accusing a few hundred/thousand/million/whatever of being white supremacists (i.e. racists). That's just POV and makes Wikipedia look like nonsense.
(Yes, I'm sure there are racists who cheer identitarian movements from the sidelines, and I'm sure there are even some who throw their money at it and turn up at their events because their own movements just get ignored, but that doesn't make the identitarian movement racist. It's specifically about identity, not race.) Great floors (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidelines for how we handle reliable sources. Reputable journalists distinguish between reporting and opinion. Opinion should be evaluated based on context, but should generally be attributed. Reporting is generally treated as factual unless we have some reason to believe otherwise. "Identity" is treated by both reputable journalists and reputable academics as a thinly disguised proxy for "race", and this holds regardless of how the movement's spokespeople see it.
As for racists who "show up", well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. The implication that no true Identitarian is a racist is unsupported by sources or reality. If you know of Identitarians who aren't racists, so be it, but that would do absolutely nothing to imply that no Identitarian anywhere is a racist, nor would that mean that the movement itself must not be racist. Reliable sources would be needed to even touch on a claim as bold as that. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the Identitarian movement really about?[edit]

Generation Identity, or identitarian movement is not a nationalist, or white nationalist movement. Generation Identity does not base their political views upon enlightenment era concepts (nationalism, concept of ideology). Generation Identity base their political views upon the ethno-cultural identity of the European peoples, which is in itself something completely different from the concept of ideology. Nationalism is a relatively modern concept as is ideology, therefore there is no reason for identitarians (the name is self explanatory) to be nationalists, or to have any form of ideology. Generation Identity sees ideology as universalism and are against the standardization of cultures and peoples. They have ethno-pluralistic view on the world. An English source can be found below.

https://identitarian-movement.org/generation-identity-faqs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2693:9400:25EF:C0A2:E277:29EE (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the tiny UK group's site. Neo-Nazi Scottish Dawn says GI has had an influence on them.[15] Everybody has some sort of system of ideals, even if they don't call it ideology. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)