Talk:White nationalism

The tone of this section seems very different to the rest of the page.

"Ever since the Confederate States of America's loss in the Civil War, the people who had lived in those states at the time—no matter what race they were—had to start the fight for jobs, power, and other more unimportant things against each other within their own states. At this point in the 18th century United States, the white population had felt an incessant need to be superior to, and more successful than, blacks—both from social and economic standpoints.[66] Before the war, whites were easily above blacks; however, now slavery was abolished. Although this did not mean that blacks were now equal to whites by any means, it was just the beginning of the many steps to achieving minority equality. For now, blacks were at least not considered property of the white man throughout the southern states. This, consequently, instilled fear in the white population—would their race not reign supreme forever? Whenever a group is afraid of losing its identity and power, especially if it is over another group of people, the former proceeds to make radical moves to keep its position over the former. Weakness was not an option."

The way this part is written is a departure from the mostly descriptive style of the article as a whole. It is not a quote from a source, yet it sounds almost bedtime story-like, as if trying to link together parts of a larger tale while "enticing" with things to come, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Note that the reference here, [66], is behind a paywall too, with no option to read even an abstract. This paragraph does not seem to convey any sourced information about historic white nationalism in the US, but rather seems like a mocking interlude. Observing the paragraphs above and below this quoted part, it could be removed and no relevant information would be lost. I would therefore recommend deleting this paragraph. 217.104.57.120 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Steve King

Please consider participating at Talk:Steve King#RfC: Most openly affiliated with white nationalsm. R2 (bleep) 00:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing publishers

After long discussions at e.g. User talk:Citation bot/Archive 11#Publishers being deleted & specific pages being changed to page ranges..., and reading the quote "Whether the publisher needs to be included depends on the type of work. Wikipedia:Citing sources suggest it should be for books, but not necessarily other works" at Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher I sense there is wide-spread wiki-consensus to remove publishers from {{cite journal}}. Also, for journals, the publisher changes over time and is generally not useful. There are no style guideline or reference styleguide that recommends including publisher for journals. Further discussions should be at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Removal of publisher and publisher location, and following WP:BRD, this seems to have further consensus. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: Beyond My Ken, AManWithNoPlan, Headbomb. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You "sense" there is a consensus, can you show an actual consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I've pointed to previous and current discussions where this has been discussed, as well as pointed to policies and guidelines which further supports my claim. Per WP:BRD it is now your turn to provide discussions, policies or other arguments for your view. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

But sure, howabout e.g. Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_1#Publisher_parameter_in_Cite_journal_documentation (that's in archvie 1 (one)), stating that publisher is not to be commonly used for {{cite journal}}. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding removal of URLs

I removed url's to e.g. doi.org, since the |doi= was added/present, which already links to the same place/to the index, which is preferable. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

FBI quote

Regarding this edit:

Saying this has been "linked" to white supremacy is, at best, an understatement, but also seems like it is implying a distinction. As was already explained, this distinction is fuzzy and contentious. Per currently cited sources, white nationalist groups espouse white supremacy. Highlighting a specific and obscure FBI quote in such a way that it contradicts other sources is cherry-picking. If a secondary source emphasizes this quote, or provides context for this quote let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

As you say, the distinction between the terms "white nationalist", "white supremacist" and "white separatist" is fuzzy and contentious. Therefor, we should give some of the different views, per Wikipedia policy. The article already notes that some journalists and analysts have used the terms interchangeably, and that some critics see them as identical, which is fine.
However, it doesn't give any other views, such as the quite common view that the three are alike but slightly different. Several of the sources already in the lead note that they're slightly different.

• The New York Times article says: "While white nationalism certainly overlaps with white supremacy and racism, many political scientists say it is a distinct phenomenon".
• The Colombia Journalism Review article says: "While many 'white nationalists' are also 'white supremacists' because they believe white people are inherently superior to other races, the terms are really not interchangeable".
• I also found an Associated Press article which notes the differences between the terms.

Likewise, the FBI report (which is already used several times in the article) says that white supremacy and separatism are subsets of white nationalism: "not all white nationalists are supremacists or separatists, but all white supremacists and separatists are white nationalists". Including this quote in the article isn't "cherry-picking", nor is it really contradicting the other sources – it's giving another interpretation, as Wikipedia articles should do. Also, there's no rule on Wikipedia that other sources must emphasize a quote for us to include it. ~Asarlaí 01:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, "linked" is worse than useless to describe this connection. It doesn't explain anything useful to readers. I've seen those sources. ...sometimes described implies "not always described", and the article explains that white nationalists espouse white separatism and white supremacy. This context describes what the "link" is, instead of just throwing it out there as more homework for the reader.

When the source is an obscure FBI photocopy issued via FOIA, then yes, we need a reliable, independent source summarizing it for us, per WP:PRIMARY. This is especially true for a quote being added to the lede. Emphasizing one opinion as more significant than the others is not NPOV, and while this source is usable, it's absolutely not WP:DUE for one editor to pick a quote from it as their preferred summary of the entire topic. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. What exactly is wrong with it or how does it go against any Wikipedia policies? ~Asarlaí 19:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about the SPLC source contradicts the following statement, since espousing an ideology already implies overlapping and distinct, but your edit presented it as a minority opinion instead of as an accepted attribute. Since these other sources also support this point, this is using attribution to imply skepticism, which is a form of editorializing. Additionally, "Other analysts see these three as overlapping but distinct concepts." is functionally redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph, but is using WP:WEASEL words to shift the emphasis to the other perspective. As for "dominate" this is a common white nationalist talking point, but this isn't the page to explain that. White supremacists only occasional admit to wanting to "dominate" other races, it's not clear what that "dominate" means in this context, (is genocide "domination"? is segregation?) and introducing this point here is only adding confusing to an already fuzzy concept. Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell,

• The first line says that some see "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" as identical and use the terms interchangeably – that statement is backed by the sources.
• The other line says that some don't see "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" as identical (but instead closely related) and don't use them interchangeably – that's also backed by the sources.

Why should one be included and the other not?

The SPLC source says "white nationalist groups espouse white supremacy and white separatism" but doesn't qualify that statement. It's unclear if they mean all, most, or some. While it's true that many or most white nationalists do seem to espouse these things, the sources also say that not all of them are separatists for example. Thus, we shouldn't give the statement in Wikipedia's own voice. We should write "The SPLC states that...", or even "it's a widespread view that..."

Lastly, most sources include "domination" (controlling, ruling over) in their definition of white supremacy. It doesn't matter that white supremacists might hide their wish to dominate non-whites, we should report what the sources say. ~Asarlaí 20:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is false precision which functionally whitewashes white nationalism. The gist of all of these sources is that the line is blurry, and further, it is made intentionally blurry by white supremacists as a way to make their ideology more palatable. The AP source you've added specifically says 'Another recent area of confusion is the degree of overlap between the terms “white nationalist” and “white supremacist.” For many people the terms can be used almost interchangeably. Both terms describe groups that favor whites and support discrimination by race. There is however a subtle difference, at least in the views of the groups involved' (emphasis mine). This is a summary paragraph for the entire article, not merely the most convenient paragraph. That paragraph, however, also says Critics accuse white nationalists of being white supremacists in disguise. It is very clear that these sources realize that emphasizing this supposed distinction is part of a tactical move by white supremacists/nationalists to present their ideology as more nuanced and more palatable than a plain reading of the facts would otherwise support.

More blatantly, this is poor writing. The statement attributed to the SPLC is fully compatible with describing this as "overlapping but distinct concepts", making this filler. By emphasizing one statement from the SPLC as a specific opinion (which it is not) and then introducing vaguely defined "other analysts" as saying something else, the article is falsely implying that this point is not accepted by these other sources. These source also support this point, although they may differ on where the specific lines fall. This is because the lines are largely drawn after the fact, which is not a problem Wikipedia can fix, but it's also one we should not ignore.

The SPLC is an authoritative source for hate groups and racist ideology. If it doesn't qualify its statement, that may be because it doesn't need to. The AP is an authoritative source for journalistic standards. We can use the SPLC for factual statements on ideology, and the AP for how these things are described by media. Both of these sources (as mere examples) support the point that emphasizing this distinction is only of limited utility in most contexts.

To put it another way, per sources, the existence of a white nationalist who isn't also functionally a white supremacist is strictly hypothetical. White nationalists are not presumed reliable, not even for describing their own beliefs, and these descriptions tend not to hold-up to any sort of scrutiny. The article should not imply nuance where none exists, and white nationalism is not a coherent ideology. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we should pay any heed to what white supremacists do. We should write this encyclopedia in a fair way based on what reliable sources say, and nothing else.

The SPLC statement ("white nationalists espouse white supremacy and white separatism") is true, but it's much too simplistic to be given in Wikipedia's own voice. Many white nationalists *are* also supremacists and/or separatists, but according to the sources not all of them are separatists for example, because they want to rule over the non-whites in 'their' country (think apartheid South Africa) instead of having separate white and non-white states. It's like saying "police carry guns", without any qualification. While that statement is true, it overlooks the fact that a few police forces don't carry guns.

As the New York Times article says, "many political analysts" see the three concepts as overlapping but distinct. I haven't seen a convincing argument why we should exclude that fact, and the SPLC statement doesn't cover it.

Your main worry seems to be that we're overstating the distinction. I agree we shouldn't do that, but we can avoid that by simply re-wording things a bit. ~Asarlaí 16:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

How are they "distinct" in this context? Emphasizing this distinction, when the sources are specifically explaining the overlap, is still a form of editorializing. These three different terms are presumed to be distinct by default, since, among other things, we have distinct articles for all three concepts. Isolating the SPLC quote still stinks of editorializing to me, since it's emphasizing this quote in isolation, dispute that the other cited sources largely support the underlying point, making it non-controversial. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Facebook Bans White Nationalism

This should be reflected in the article. Facebook is including "White Nationalism" and "White Separatism" as hate categories indistinguishable from white supremacism.

After speaking to these experts, Facebook decided that white nationalism and white separatism are “inherently hateful.”

“We saw that was becoming more of a thing, where they would try to normalize what they were doing by saying ‘I’m not racist, I’m a nationalist’, and try to make that distinction. They even go so far as to say ‘I’m not a white supremacist, I’m a white nationalist’. Time and time again they would say that but they would also have hateful speech and hateful behaviors tied to that,” Casseus said. “They’re trying to normalize it and based upon what we’ve seen and who we’ve talked to, we determined that this is hateful, and it’s tied to organized hate.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nexpbx/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-and-white-separatism https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/27/facebook-says-it-will-now-block-white-nationalist-white-separatist-posts/ https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18284174/facebook-ban-white-nationalist-separatist-content https://thehill.com/policy/436055-facebook-to-ban-white-nationalism-white-separatism https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/tech/facebook-white-nationalism-ban/index.html https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/27/facebook-instagram-white-nationalism-separatism-ban-hate-speech/

I know I know, some white supremacist admin-ass will lie and scream "sockpuppet" because they don't want this covered. Their action will be proof Wikipedia admins are white supremacists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a stupid statement. I'm a long time Admin and I was going to bring this here.[1] "Civil rights groups applauded the move. “There is no defensible distinction that can be drawn between white supremacy, white nationalism or white separatism in society today,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said Wednesday in a statement." Doug Weller talk 19:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a good quote. I've used that to help bolster the explanation of the overlap in the lede. Previously, finding non-specialist sources which fully explained the connection was a bit tedious, at least for me. These sources help, so I'm glad there's more to work with. I'm not really sure how handle these, though. For convenience, here's the sources I added to Facebook just now:

• Romm, Tony; Dwoskin, Elizabeth (March 27, 2019). "Facebook says it will now block white-nationalist, white-separatist posts". Washington Post. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
• O'Sullivan, Donie (March 27, 2019). "Facebook bans white nationalism two weeks after New Zealand attack". CNN. Retrieved March 28, 2019.

Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This line in the lede has the situation backwards. "White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations." It's the other way around, white supremacists (such as Richard Spencer) crafted the term because calling themselves white supremacists instantly makes them toxic even in conservative circles. The language inserted in the lede is misrepresenting the source based on the terms being used interchangeably by Hughey, who uses the term "white nationalist" and "white nationalism" to describe the KKK in the 1800s and white supremacist polices during Reconstruction and Jim Crow.