Talk:White nationalism

I have an easy, painless solution to all this

Why don't we just separate the article into pro and con sections (on the same page, or on different ones, it makes no nevermind to me)? That way White Nationalists can present their views as they see them (why this should be an issue of contention is beyond my ken), and those opposed or "neutral" or whatever can present the "mainstream" view of White Nationalism.

This would solve everyone's problems, I think, except of course those whose goal is to censor someone else's views.

Just to gripe further, I'm a bit disappointed that no one has yet responded to the issues I've raised with regard to the article's text. If this issue is so "controversial," if people are interested enough to remove my edits, then a response shouldn't be too much to ask for.

Better soloution

The people trying to keep links off the article page should be ashamed of themselves. Additionally anyone who can bring in knowledgable users should be commended, not harassed. If you do indeed suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, please review the respective ISP's. I find the way this page is being handled to be in defiance of common sense, intellectual honesty and wiki-policy. Please review your statements, actions and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Sam [Spade] 01:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When someone threatens to bring in an army to enforce their view on others we will look at their ISPs. In the meantime, no one is suggesting that anyone is a sock puppet. (Or even a newbie, IMHO.) I have no problem with my statements and actions. We merely disagree that slanting an article (or set of links) to one point of view is correct. Nor do I agree that it is in Wikipedia's interest to create tandem sets of articles with skewed POVs to each side. (Isn't that the goal of disinfopedia or one of the other wikis?) The best solution is to discuss these links on the talk page and gain some consensus on what belongs. After hearing your opinion and solution, this is my opinion and solution. - Tεx τ urε 02:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your solution is fine, and I am discussing. I would like to see more links (and more users involved here specifically, and in the project generally), not less. I do agree with evening the links out, but only by adding more links, not less. The above question by Svigor about the policy on him inviting others to the discussion was answered by an assault on his character, and severe assumptions of bad faith. I rebuke that response, and question the benefit of suspecting a new user of being an old one (that happened to me, and was rude enough to almost convince me to leave the project, BTW). Where is your proof against the gentleman, good sir? Produce such, or kindly cease all defamations of his character. Sam [Spade] 04:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How is it insulting or "an assault" that I am not suggesting that he is a newbie? (or a sock puppet for that matter.) I did not use that lack of assumption of newbie or sock puppet to make any accusation. Why do you leap to such a conclusion? I find your rebuke puzzling and rude. Instead I responded to two concepts: inviting numerous people who agree with one pov to force his view on the rest of us, and splitting the article into two (within this article or without). - Tεx τ urε 04:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cry me a river. Its quite simply a personal attack to suggest he is a sockpuppet or returned user w/o proof. Stormfront is by no means a single POV BTW, they have a fair amount of anti-racialist trolls who try to shout them down. Bringing in knowledgable users of all persuasions is always a good thing. Exclusivity is anti-wiki. Sam [Spade] 04:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Cry me a river" - I don't need to reply to that. - Tεx τ urε 04:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Texture, there's no point in discussing anything with Jack (AKA Sam). He's a troll who's only here to disrupt things. RickK 04:25, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

You refuse to answer what you have no answer to. You slander that which you do not understand. Every personal attack is another sign of your intellectual dishonesty. Next time, try logic. Sam [Spade] 05:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lets move on

I hope I speak for the group when I apologise for any misunderstandings. The important thing is to acheive NPOV and factual accuracy within this article. We can best acheive that thru mutual respect and determination, NOT thru personal attacks. Lets move on. Sam [Spade] 05:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Links

Great points, Svigor

The current definition is a great example of putting groups in a false light without actually slandering them. The omissions and hostile use of the " symbol alone are clear violations of the Neutral Point of View rule.

Prison comment: priceless.

And thanks for pointing out the abundance of friendly links provided in the Zionism article. I'll paste them here for a comparison with the one lonely link to Stormfront:

edit: In the interest of concision, I took the liberty of editing out FenrisSF's inclusion of the links, because I think I have a pretty good idea who he is, and I don't think he'll object. If he does, he can always change it back, and I'll apologize. Here's a link to the page & section in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#External_links Svigor 04:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By purely random chance FenrisSF's first and only edit is to this very talk page. - Tεx τ urε 15:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why would it be "by purely random chance," Texture? Do you have ANY comments to make here that don't fall under the ad hominem attack category, or any contributions to make other than hostile reverts contrary to Wikipedia guidelines? Svigor 04:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What This Article Should Be About

Here's my understanding of things that the term white nationalism can mean, and my opinions on what should be described here, and what should be mentioned but point to other articles:

White nationalism can mean support for separate white nations, or white areas within nations. This is better dealt with at white separatism, however, which is a fairly unambiguous name for that viewpoint, and mirrors black separatism.
White nationalism can be support for the idea that white people share a common heritage and ought to share a common identity as an abstract "nation of people" (not nation as in nation-state), and perhaps also have advocacy groups to work on their behalf, essentially white versions of groups like the NAACP (a group that works on the behalf of black people). I think this is primarily what ought to be described here, and it also parallels black nationalism closely, so we keep our terminology consistent.
White nationalism can also be white supremacism, in the same sort of sense that US nationalism can be US supremacism (belief that the US is superior to other countries). This should be mentioned, and critics of white nationalists that accuse them of being white supremacists in disguise should also be mentioned, but the primary documentation of the white supremacist movement itself should be at white supremacism. Note also that this must be done carefully: it is undoubtedly true that there are closet white supremacists who masquerade as white nationalists, but in the minefield of identity politics, accusations of racism are thrown around quite commonly in all directions.

--Delirium 19:53, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I find that generally agreeable, and would mention in response to your second point that there is just such an organization : N.A.A.W.P. Another reason for more links, not less, eh? Sam [Spade] 00:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes, even as a WN, I fail to see the forest for the trees. I agree with virtually all of what delirium has said above, especially his definition of white nationalism. He is perfectly correct that WNism is about white people thinking and acting as a political block, as people of other races do. Svigor 04:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent ban

Here is some important info regarding the recent ban, well said by a wikipedia:arbitrator [1]. Sam [Spade] 23:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Critique of page as of 6-11

(feel free to post commentary within the text if you wish, as long as it's signed) Svigor 04:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph as it stands now is a vast improvement

More extreme white nationalists may also support white separatism, the belief that white people should live separately from non-whites, either in separate all-white nations or in separate white areas of existing nations (see also racial segregation).

"More extreme" is probably not the best way to put it. "Many white nationalists" would be better.

White separatism is indeed characterized by the belief that white people should live separately from non-whites as stated above, but I still believe that the "(or at least be allowed to live)" clause should be included right after "should live." It is absolutely essential that the distinction be made, because otherwise the common assumption that white separatism demands an across-the-board separation of the races is not dispelled. A minority of white separatists do indeed seek such an enforced separation of the races, but in my experience the vast majority recognize that forcing a large population of anti-ethnocentric whites to live in a white separatist state would doom that state to failure. Most white separatists welcome a parting of the ways between anti-ethnocentric whites and ethnocentric whites. In fact, a great many WNs and white separatists identify the white anti-racist ruling class of the western world (safely ensconced in its limousines whilst traveling between its all-white gated communities and its cloisters) and white anti-racists in general as their most powerful enemies.

Historically, white nationalism has been connected to opposition to black civil rights and to white supremacism.

I think explication is needed here. How, why, and when has WNism been historically connected to white "supremacism" [sic] and opposition to black civil rights? Whether or not this connection still exists and, if different today, how so is also relevant.

Many modern white nationalists explicitly deny being white supremacists, arguing that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage, including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as racial supremacists do. However, many of their critics charge that white nationalism is simply white supremacism in disguise.

I'd like very much to find a way to express the idea that "many modern white nationalists explicitly deny being white supremacists," and the idea that many modern white nationalists indeed are not white "supremacists" [sic], without the writing seeming schizophrenic. I don't have any ideas on how to do that at the moment, I just wanted to point this out. Kudos to the author (Delirium?) on the "to be allowed" part, that really is starting to get to the crux of the matter, as it is congruent with the fact that most white nationalists do not seek to enforce racial separation across the board.

Are X vs.Y articles allowed, i.e. socialism vs. communism, libertarianism vs. liberalism? If so, I think white nationalism vs. white "supremacism" [sic] would make a capital addition to the collection.

The term "race", though according to some long dispensed-with in terms of any meaningful scientific value, still holds social value for many who (in part or in whole) base their personal identity upon genetic characteristics, especially those that affect outward appearance.

[old criticism] "Though according to some long dispensed-with in terms of any meaningful scientific value" - is this really the place to insert this information? Is this a definition of White Nationalism, or a refutation of it? [snip] As I stated above, I don't expect this entry to be a WNist tract, but I do expect an honest representation of what WNism is, and I do expect enough room for that representation to breathe. I'm sure the entry on race that is linked to has more than enough grist for the race-denial crowd. Even if this caveat does belong here, it shouldn't be included in the same paragraph that sets forth the WN beliefs concerning race, much less in the same sentence.
[new criticism] This statement is no better than its previous incarnation (which appeared sans the "especially those that affect outward appearance" addition), and demonstrably worse. There is absolutely NO basis for the idea that white nationalists base their personal identity vis-a-vis race "especially [on] those [genetic characteristics] that affect outward appearance." Generally, and especially among the WN intelligentsia, WNs see the surface differences between races as markers for race, not as the important substance of race. Of course, social identity theory tells us that these surface differences are important in and of themselves, but generally, they are held by WNs and race-realists essentially as race-identifiers, not as the significant part of racial differences.
In other words, contrary to the wildly popular delusion, it isn't all or mostly or even significantly about skin color. Skin color generally ranks near the bottom of the list of the average WN's "racial differences list," far below behavioral genetics, except as a race-marker. Try a post at Stormfront.org about how racism is all about skin color or surface differences, and enjoy the mockery you receive.
In all parts of the world, personal identity reflects the degree of awareness and connectivity to the outside world and foreign cultures, thus "race issues" tend to be seen as related to xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and other "culture clash" paradigms.
This still makes no sense. Can someone explain the significance and meaning of this passage to me? I still maintain that it's muddy and pointless.
Similar concerns that may be a catalyst for a distinction of personal identity are religion, gender, language, and differences regarding these issues are often manifested in conflict of one form or another.
This still has no direct bearing on the subject at hand - what in the blue blazes does this have to do with white nationalism, specifically? Doesn't this belong in some other entry, in "personal identity" perhaps?
Some of these groups have condoned violence in the past, and some have built up strong followings mainly in prisons.
There are many Republicans and Democrats in prison too, what's the point? It's also too general - which groups, when, and where are the references? Otherwise, it just looks to me like what it probably is - an attempt to pathologize white nationalism and associate it with criminality. I think I'd find an in-depth study of this issue very illuminating. As I said before, the National Alliance has a membership in which the highly educated and members of the professions are overrepresented by a factor of 7 compared to the public. This is still as relevant as the unsubtle prison assertion.
I mean really, many Hispanic identity groups are mainly prison societies, is that to characterize the article about Hispanic identity groups (if there is such a beast?). Many historically Jewish identity movements are mainly communistic affairs, should we slide that little tidbit into the section on Jewish identity or Zionism?
As a result of the violent and radical image of some of the white supremacist groups, a growing number of white nationalists have adopted less hostile rhetoric, and portray themselves as conservatives interested in maintaining traditional values, including white dominance in American life.
The growing strength of mainstream, non-violent voices in WN groups is not solely a result of the violent and radical image of some white supremacist groups, therefore I think this sentence should begin with "partly."
Many of these groups deny advocating white "Supremacy" and instead call for "Separatism" - often with the canard that 'mainstream' minority groups such as the NAACP and LULAC are "separatist" as well.
It is not only true that many of these groups deny advocating white supremacy, many groups actually do not advocate white supremacy. This sort of not-so-subtle phrasing is part of what I object to. Is this to be an honest presentation of WNism, or a refutation of WNism? As for the "canard" statement, this has little to do with WNist belief, even if true. I've never heard a WN refer to the NAACP as a "separatist" group. I have many times heard from WNs the complaint that advocacy groups for non-whites are publically supported and given positive press, while advocacy groups for whites are automatically classified as "white supremacists." This is a quite salient distinction, no?
Many also reject the label of "Racist" for "racialist", and point to studies which they contend show clear disparities in "racial" abilities.
The WN view on race and racial science deserves it's own paragraph, not just the second half of a sentence. It's also worth explaining why many WNs reject the term "racist," if it's worth mentioning the rejection itself. Some may object to my proposed rewrite (in archive1), but in my experience the word "hatred" does not appear in dictionaries in the definition of "racism," while it does appear in the definition of the term in the vernacular.
It would also be nice to dispense with the not-so-subtly disparaging quotes around the term "racial."
American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens are two leading examples in the United States.
They're two examples of what? This is poor writing. The only logical conclusion is that the examples being cited either are being cited to support something that hasn't been stated, or they are being cited to support the last applicable idea put forward in the previous paragraph (i.e., Amren and CoC include the "canard that 'mainstream' minority groups" are separatist. The former seems more likely since the latter is patently absurd and demands references.
In Europe, several far right political parties such as the British National Party, France's Front National, and the Austrian Freedom Party have won fairly wide support based on platforms widely seen as advocating racial separatism in addition to traditional nationalism.
I think the "widely seen" bit needs to be supported or withdrawn. Just because the press says it doesn't make it so - the American public feels the same way, if the latest Pew study on mass media credibility is to be believed.
Jewish and Muslim peoples are rarely considered "white", even if they appear to be European.
If this is to be mentioned, an explanation is required.
Hispanics, Portuguese, and Italian people may or may not be considered white, based on regional backgrounds (Basque Spaniards and Northern Italians may be accepted while Sicilians and Puerto Ricans aren't).
This passage is extremely problematic. First of all, Portugal and Italy are nations, not races, and currently neither nationality carries racially exclusive connotations. Swedish and Russian people "may or may not be considered white" too. So, the passage is nonsensical. Second, "Hispanic" is a very racially ambiguous term, and essentially includes a variety of racial groups whose membership in the group "Hispanic" essentially boils down to language and history, not to race. Third, the idea that Sicilians and Puerto Ricans are considered non-white by all WNs is simply wrong. Many WNs recognize that some Puerto Ricans are at least genetically white, and most accept Sicilians as white.
Put simply, this passage needs to go, it's far more wrong than right.
In white minority nations such as South Africa or some Latin American states, there are often arguments for a "white homeland" as well, and white Nationalism takes on a more literal meaning.
There are indeed arguments for white homelands in South Africa and some Latin American nations, but I fail to see how there WNism takes on a more literal meaning - explication is called for here.
Again, these aren't my only problems with the existing article, but I think we're moving in the right direction.
Regarding external links - deleting the links to WN and WN-sympathetic sites is simply reprehensible. I'm no expert on the anti-WN presence on the Web, so I'll leave those links to others (I'd be bored and irritated by the inevitable accusations concerning "softball" anti-WN links anyways). Before anyone removes the any pro-WN links provided, I'd advise a quick perusal of the number and nature of external links at the Zionism article for perspective: there are 21 of them (or there were as of June 10th), and fully two thirds of them are pro-Zionist.
Svigor 04:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dispute header
who is disputing what, and what needs to be changed/added/removed/discussed so that it can be removed. Sam [Spade] 20:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You added the header; please do explain why. —No-One Jones 22:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, seeing as there is no objection at this time (myself included, I believe...) I have removed the header. Svigor, would you like to start implemeting your suggestions? Sam [Spade] 00:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer that I receive some feedback about my commentary above first. Since I'm currently working on a WNist treatment of WNism at Wikinfo [2], I'm willing to be patient until it's finished. In fact, I'd be willing to settle for a prominently displayed link to my Wikinfo article and caveat that WNists find the Wikipedia article highly objectionable (assuming that the Wikinfo article is allowed to remain unmolested). Svigor 21:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
User:Svigor is working in a very hostile environment over at Wikinfo. It is Wikinfo policy that the editorial policy of writing from a sympathetic point of view does not apply to subjects such as White nationalism, totalitarianism, Marxism-Leninism, North Korea, Hitler, Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, Pol Pot, etc, where little factual basis for a sympathetic point of view exists. It is possible he may be able to write a signed article there eventually but the main article he wrote on the subject is clearly unsatisfactory. Fred Bauder 20:19, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, whichever. Sam [Spade] 21:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Prominent display may be a problem, external links are ment to be at the bottom of the page, in the "external links" section. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd be okay with putting the link with the others at the end of the article, say at the top of the pro links, or better yet in a separate section with a header like, "other definitions of WNism" or somesuch. As long as it's easily noticeable, and labeled something like "Wikinfo Internet Encyclopedia definition of WNism." I just want a good article from a less hostile p.o.v. readily available to people who view this article. Perhaps a link early in the text somewhere, in a sentence like "for a more sympathetic treatment..." etc. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Reading this article reases a few questions for me, that I would like to see addressed by someone who knows the answers:
What exactly is the difference between a white nationalist and a white separatist? The articles don't make it clear. If there isn't a real difference they should be run into one article.
If you don't like my comments interspersed, say so and I'll move 'em. White Nationalism and white separatism are related, but quite distinct. White Nationalists are people who want whites to start thinking like a group with a common identity and working identity politics like other races do. White separatists (practically by definition WNs) are those who want white people to be allowed to create their own monoracial nations. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We need some historical context of the term.

What do white nationalists think about things like mixed race marriages?
DJ Clayworth 13:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is no monolithic WN position on mixed-race marriages, but the overwhelming majority disapprove. If you ask a more specific question I can give you a more specific answer. I'm not aware of any links specifically about this, but a Google for "Jewish intermarriage assimilation" should find you a Rabbi or two whose opinions are congruent with many WNs in many ways. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
White Religion?
I think it's really ironic that white nationalists claim to believe in the promotion of the white "shared heritage" yet they almost excusively follow the middle-eastern/semitic religion of Christianity.
If white nationalists were really concerned about "heritage", then shouldn't they all be Wiccans/Neo-Pagans?
Just a thought.
--Corvun 01:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"yet they almost excusively follow the middle-eastern/semitic religion of Christianity"
Not true at all. A great many are odin worshippers. Have a look at websites like http://nazi.org/ , they hate christians. Sam [Spade] 04:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
nazi.org would be the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party for which there is still no referable evidence of them being other than a straight-faced joke ... - David Gerard 12:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
whatever, check out Ásatrú then, or this, from stormfront. Sam [Spade] 23:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I was completely unaware of this. It doesn't really surprise me, though. It seems inevitable that with such an emphasis on "white heritage" there would be those who would reject the Semitic religion of Christianity to reconnect to their "white roots" through the older Pagan religions of Europe.
--Corvun 03:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sure, but don't assume it only flows in one direction. See Mysticism in Nazi Germany, Thule-Gesellschaft, Germanenorden, Vril Society etc... for the flip side of the coin. Sam [Spade] 04:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- White Nationalism is not restricted to only christians. There are many atheists/agnostics, creators, Odinists, And christians.
Ku Klux Klan picture
On another note, I feel that the Klan picture is innappropriate. While the KKK are white nationalists, white nationalism is not only them. The Klan will promote images of White Nationalism to readers that aren't necessarily true to the concept of White Nationalism.
I confess to being the main author of the first two paragraphs of the article and the one who put the picture in the article. It illustrates the negative viewpoint. Originally there was a balancing picture which arguably illustrated a more modern and positive viewpoint, but that image turned out to be unavailable. I don't know a good image that could be put in but I suggest someone find one and use it to illustrate the article in a positive light, in so far as it is possible. Fred Bauder 11:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
The history of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan hang over any attempt to organize White people in a positive way, as a legitimate advocacy group. How a legitimate group could effectively distance itself remains an unanswered question. But censoring this article is not part of the answer. Fred Bauder 11:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Category:Nationalism
Why is white nationalism under the category heading : Neo Nazi? Whilst a small sub group of white nationalists could be desribed as adherents of National Socialism, the majority are not National Socialists. I think it is time for a new 'nationalist politics' category.
How about nationalism? Fred Bauder 03:27, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
The anonymous editor who posted the original inquiry did add Category:Nationalism to the article but it was reverted. I think they were right and put it back in. That category is relatively undeveloped and has not been used in a number of instances it should have been including Zionism and Hindutva. I have added the category to those articles also, (Why quarrel in only one controversial article which you can have three fights for the price of one?). There are probably other nationalist movements it could be added to. Fred Bauder 12:04, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with a nationalism category. Neo nazi is appropriate to the article and its contents. - Tεx τ urε 01:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Both are appropriate. Fred Bauder 03:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
It should be under Neo-Nazi, White Nationalism is racism. --Eurytus
Racism is a dead word. It has no meaning anymore. It's become so broad that it's useless; essentially, every man woman and child on earth is racist, at least according to this definition:
rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
and this one: n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.
since one of the definitions of discrimination is: dis·crim·i·na·tion Audio pronunciation of "discrimination" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn) n.
1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Now, if we come to sanity on the definition of racism, then we have a two-edged sword. On one hand, all of the saintly egalitarians are off the hook, but unfortunately, some of the diabolical White Nationalists are off the hook too. It is perfectly possible to be a WNist without being a racist, if racist is defined in a useable fashion.
National Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Nazism, whatever your favorite term for the Third Reich and its sympathizers, are NOT coterminous with White Nationalism. National Socialism was not intended for all white people, it was intended for Germans. It is pan-German racial nationalism. It is erroneous to refer to all WNism as Nazism or Neo-Nazism.
As an aside, this article is absurd. It's poorly written and schizophrenic; it's a broth that stinks of too many (poisonous) cooks. It reads like a Nazi-haters guide to what Nazi-haters hate. Its authors are ill-informed. Frankly, it's a circle jerk.
Regarding the category choice: I have come across editors who insist that White Nationalists are not neo-Nazis. Further, I believe that few groups or individuals self-identify as "neo-nazi". And other groups have no interest in Germany or Fascism. For example, the Council of Conservative Citizens is definitely white nationalist, but probably not neo-nazi. Therefore, I believe that there ought to be a separate category for "white nationalists", parallel to the neo-nazi category. -Willmcw 00:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RE: My most recent edit
Aside from visiting the International Spy Museum, I don't have much knowledge of White nationalism, nor do I aspire to. That said, the following statement, which I have removed from the introduction, does not belong on Wikipedia. Please do not attempt to replace it without consulting the talk page.
Removed: While the political and economic elites which rule the earth can (with the exception of the Japanese) fairly be described as "White", these elites do not rule exclusively for the benefit of White or Caucasian people as a group. These ruling elites have, on the contrary, extended civil rights and economic opportunities to those of other racial and cultural backgrounds who from a White nationalist viewpoint can be viewed as competing for opportunities with less favored members of the White race.
-- Alterego 10:59 12/2/2004
lincoln quote
I revised the introduction to the Lincoln quote. First, there is no evidence in the quote that Lincoln was opposed to the civil rights movement; any claim is an anachronism, any way. Second, as introduced the quote violates our Wikipedia: No original research policy. This quote is an example of a primary source; the way it is placed in the article interprets it a particular way. This is a perfect definition of "original research." If we can cite secondary sources that argue that Lincoln was espousing the same views held by White Nationalists today, then we can say "According to X, Lincoln himself espoused the same ..." and provide a proper citation. That is how to write an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein 03:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A new kind of Whte nationalism?
As I was searching through the internet I found a WN website that describes itself as "Pan Aryanism" and they call there organization the Pan Aryan National Front. In the past, WN's have only defined white as Germanic and Nordic people of Northern European decent, but this Pan Aryan WN group accepts non-European whites, such as Syrians, Lebanese, Turks, Iranians, North Africans, etc. The website for the Pan Aryan National Front is, http://www.panf.info/upload/index.php?styleid=1 , I thought this odd kind of WNism would be kind of interested for many people who work with this article.--Gramaic 19:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archives

I have an easy, painless solution to all this

Better soloution

Lets move on

Links

Great points, Svigor

What This Article Should Be About

Recent ban

Critique of page as of 6-11

Dispute header

White Religion?

Ku Klux Klan picture

Category:Nationalism

RE: My most recent edit

lincoln quote

A new kind of Whte nationalism?