Talk:White nationalism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Odd inconsistency

In the second paragraph, the first sentence is, carefully,

White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts.

The very next sentence is, baldly,

White nationalist groups espouse white separatism and white supremacy.

Should the second sentence be attributed, or else qualified? It seems odd to switch from "sometimes described as" to a direct identification in Wikipedia's voice. My assumption is that the second sentence is supposed to be an example of the interchangeable use, if so, that should be said. Or should it be some white nationalist groups? Alternatively, if there's enough sourcing for a direct equation, should we not get rid of "is sometimes described as" in the first sentence? FenceSitter (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah... How would you think one would go about forming a "white nation" if there wasn't a separation between whites and non-whites? And what would be the point of starting a "white nation" if whites weren't superior to non-whites? Are you suggesting that white nationalists want to start a white nation inside another polity -- perhaps we could put a state or two aside for them? -- or that the feel that they deserve their own nation even though they are inferior to non-whites?

No, white supremacists do not necessarily have to be white nationalists, since they could simply be the rulers of the non-whites in a country, and white separatists can advocate for "separate but equal", but it makes entirely no sense for a white nationalist not to be both a white supremacist and a white separatist, since those are necessary conditions for there to be a "white nation". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm... not suggesting anything? I'm just pointing out the weird incoherence between the two sentences. But if you're right, and "white nationalists are white supremacists" is something we can say in Wikipedia's voice, why do we hedge with "sometimes described as" in the first sentence? FenceSitter (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Both sentences were written by @Grayfell: here, in an edit which says he was "adjusting lede with sources", and both sentences are sourced, so, presumably, both represent what their sources say. They are not, in fact, in any way contradictory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, as to you "not suggesting anything"... I guess it's just a coincidence that pretty much all of your edits have been to articles about the indentitarian movement. You say on your talk page that you are "a single-purpose account narrowly limited to improving Wikipedia," but I think it's more likely that you're an SPA here to soften our coverage of identitarianism and other related subjects -- so, I really think you were suggesting something, the removal of the second "bald" sentence, because that would be beneficial to the coverage of your movement. Every little bit helps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you please, just for a moment, assume good faith? I'm saying that there's an inconsistency, or at least incoherence, between the two sentences. Either one could be fixed, but we should at least say something that reads clearly. FenceSitter (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll assume good faith the moment you show that you're an editor who's here to improve the encyclopedia and not on behalf of an ideology, which is what you appear to be now. AGF is not meant to be a set of blinders.

In any case, as I said above, the two statements are not contradictory, nor are they incoherent or inconsistent. One of them says what white nationalism is sometimes described as by some people, and the other says what white nationalism actually is. Absolutely coherent, absolutely consistent, positively not contradictory.

I will admit, though, if I were a white nationalist or an identitarian, I'd much prefer the first statement to the second. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, if, as you say, white nationalist is, or is a subset of, white supremacy, should we not get rid of "sometimes described as" in the first sentence? Why the hedging? FenceSitter (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As I say? You mean what the source says. No, we should not get rid of "sometimes described as" if that's what the source says.

You are aware of how we write and source articles, yes? That we don't make it up as we go along? That we report what WP:reliable sources say? In any case, again, there's no need for a change, as there is no "inconsistency", no "contradiction", no "incoherence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Do the sources, collectively, support the notion that white nationalism is a subset of white supremacy? FenceSitter (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The two sources cited after the statement "White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts" support the statement that "White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. But do the sources, collectively, go as far as supporting the notion that white nationalism is a subset of white supremacy? FenceSitter (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources support the statements they support.

You know, your devil's advocate pose does not hide the fact that you're a WP:CPOV with a clear agenda, or else a troll only wanting to prolong debate,. People typically bring stuff to the talk page in order to build a consensus for changes they think need to be made. You, in your "innocence", don't want any change at all, except to clear up an inconsistency which isn't, a contradiction which is not, and an incoherence which is perfectly understandable. So, I !vote "no change necessary", and leave you to use your debating techniques on someone else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm really just trying to clear up some confusion. I, at least, am puzzled by the two statements, as they appear to me, as a reader of the article, to be at odds, and in need of clarification, regarding the question of whether white nationalism is a subset of white supremacy.

To me, the second statement fairly clearly implies "yes", while the first hedges. If it's all clear in your head when reading it, that's fine I guess, though you don't seem to be able to tell me whether, per the sources, white nationalism is a subset of white supremacy. FenceSitter (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you edit with real account? [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's take a break

I don't like playing Devil's advocate, but I somewhat agree with FenceSitter (I must stress out - only that the sentences are inconsistent with each other). Yes, both of those are supported by reliable sources, but also - both of those are written without attribution; that is, in Wikipedia's voice. However, there's an easy fix:

White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts as white nationalist groups often espouse white separatism and white supremacy.

I'm not sure if that's grammatically correct, or if it adheres to the MOS, but at least it's not as contradictory. byteflush _Talk 03:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I went all WP:BOLD on this and changed it to the version I suggested above. I believe that it removes the inconsistency and still carries the same meaning. Feel free to revert, of course. =) byteflush _Talk 03:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

And it was reverted. As it probably should have, since my wording was not really great, and I believe I've missed a few subtleties about the topic. So, is the current version better than the one proposed above, or would anyone suggest some other version of the text in question? byteflush _Talk 03:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

References

When the specific wording of a part of an article is under discussion on the talk page is, in general. not a very good time to be WP:BOLD about changing that wording. It is best to instead let the consensus process work itself out -- make suggestions here, and see what find of feedback it generates. We have, at this point, at least two un-conflicted editors involved in the discussion (doing the best we can despite the out-group homogeneity [2] that everyone who edits in this area, sans one, apparently suffers from), and I'm pretty sure that others will join us as well in due course.

The primary problem with your edit is that it does not reflect what the source says. The SPLC doesn't say that "some" white nationalists espouse white supremacy and white separatism, it says that espousing those ideologies is a characteristic of white nationalism, period. Thus, watering it down, as you did, does not reflect the source provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I wouldn't object if that statement was altered to say "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center...". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think such attribution would solve the issue. FenceSitter (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not concerned with the opinions of SPA sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It's funny, but I'm just now realizing that I've had a couple of white nationalist apologists try and cite the CJR article to me in an attempt to legitimize their pedantic preferences. It's plausible that they got it from this article, so I guess we can call that Nazisplaining. Anyway...

I don't feel particularly strong attachment to the wording I added in February, and I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has unchanged. That said, I don't personally see any contradiction here.

The term is used broadly by many journalists as a synonym or near-synonym for white supremacy. Some sources will only use one, some use the other, sometimes interchangeably, and only sometimes do they each describe genuinely different phenomena. We should, of course, be precise in our language, but the way to do this is by documenting these differences, not by ignoring them and picking our personal preference. Wikipedia is, by default, descriptivist enough that this isn't a problem that we can solve. We can document this usage without passing judgement, and this was my intention in adding the CJR source here.

I was prompted to add this sentence because I observed is a tendency for some to read more into news sources word choice than was appropriate. As the CJR source explains, journalists often use them interchangeably, so fixating on a newspaper's use of one over the other is not as informative as it might otherwise seem. I think this is worth mentioning just to avoid confusion.

The CJR source also provides advice on how journalists should use these terms, but this kind of thing would probably need attribution. Advice is subjective. Documenting that two terms have been used to describe the same thing is not subjective.

There is also a lot of overlap with "alt-right", which has also been documented and discussed by sources. I'm guessing most people reading already know this, though. The goal in this article should be to provide clarity to readers, but absolutely not to legitimize euphemisms or weaselly PR moves.

I dislike the idea of attributing the SPLC's statement as though it were an opinion. This isn't really an opinion, it's an expert analysis of something commonly described with ambiguous language. I don't think the SPLC is disagreeing with those people who use the term interchangeably. They are merely trying to clearly summarize a term with an intentionally messy, euphemistic history.

The SPLC is strangely reluctant to use the term "white supremacist" in describing organizations, and perhaps this explains why. They sometimes do, but as an example, they don't tag organizations with the term in the Hatewatch or The Intelligence Report publications. Instead they use 'white nationalist'. It would be pretty absurd to infer from this that the SPLC doesn't believe there are any white supremacist organizations. Pretty much the only thing all of these sources agree on is that there is very close overlap. Most seem to agree also that the distinction is very fuzzy. Some might draw sharp lines in theory, but absolutely none that I have seen dispute this fuzziness in practice. My major concern is that we don't provide false precision to those apologists who try to emphasize a level of subtly that doesn't exist. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like two slightly different, but equally valid, uses of the term "white nationalist"? FenceSitter (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not sound like that at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'm satisfied with that explanation, though I feel like the sentence could use some tweaking, but hell, I have no idea how/what to change. =)

@Beyond My Ken: (re. SPLC, and the word "often"): I just took a look at the source again and noticed that somehow, in my mind, I changed the location of the word "often" while I was reading their opening sentence (sub-header). You are right, "often" shouldn't be used. As for SPLC attribution, I would've agreed to that, but I believe Grayfell is correct, so I'm not sure anymore. byteflush _Talk 14:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I feel the same way, and also don't really know how to adjust it.

There is a concerted effort by white supremacists to blur these terms' definitions when they are used by critics, and to sharpen the definitions when they choose to use them. To hear them say it, "white supremacy" means exactly what the "white advocate" says it means and and not what the social scientist or journalist says it means. This is not an accident, it has been a documented tactic for decades (they may be pretentious, but they are not subtle:[3][4][5]). After a few missteps, more recent news coverage seems to have gotten a bit wiser to this trick and have discussed the term's euphemistic nature more directly: [6][7][8][9][etc.] Unite the Right made it harder to ignore. Regardless, it's been there this whole time, and people noticed.[10] The tricky part is figuring out how to explain all this in a neutral, balanced way. Cautious is good, but there is a nasty cost to being overcautious, also. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

White people are NOT a race ???

"White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race..."

This first sentence has a really bad smell to it. It should be changed to read "White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which acknowledges the fact that white people are a race..."

I don't know and cannot imagine what wording in the book cited gave this editor the idea that the racial identity of whites is a belief and not a fact. But this sentence is nonetheless glaringly preposterous and requires a fix.Wikkileaker (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the scientific debates about race, Wikipedia simply cannot make such an "acknowledgement". It's not a fact. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see references to such debate. You can call them "whitish" and the term might allow for color grading, however that does not change the fact that natives of Europe breed less and are suffering planned mass immigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.160.138 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that later on in the text it says "demographic shift in the United States towards non-whites brings a new culture that is intellectually and morally inferior."

How can non-whites exists if whites don't exist? If they are not a race and do not share any common morphology, how come they can identify each other physically? Do blacks or asians exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.160.138 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-reported descriptive groupings for demographic purposes are not necessarily the same thing as the debatable concept of "race", which posits fundamental differences between different "races", while most modern scientists who have studied the differences see them as extremely minor, far, far less than the 2% difference in DNA which separates humans from chimpanzees, for instance. If such minor differences as distinguish human "races" were found in a species other than humans, they would not be divided into fundamentally separate groupings such as are ascribed to "race".

In other words, while there may be small, insignificant difference between what were once seen as separate "races", they are no big deal, not enough to ascribe such importance to, and the boundaries between them are extremely fluid and difficult to define. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

White nationalism is non-controversially a belief that "white" is a race. Whether "white" actually is a race is controversial. As such, the current rendering best serves neutral POV. 2605:A601:70E0:3100:B4A3:2905:44EB:ACEA (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In all actuality, White is not a race, it is a sociopolitical construct that was first used by American Colonist's Bourgeois class in the year of 1681. Before this, there is no record of the European calling himself such. He identified himself as either Christian or English. Theodore Allen's book, THE INVENTION OF THE WHITE RACE, will serve those who are truly seeking the truth. No one has black skin and no one has white skin hence, a sociopolitical construct.Sheik Way-El 04:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)

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)

This article needs to be completely rewritten

This article has the tone of being relatively supportive of this terrorist group. Theres maybe three sentences describing alleged criticisms of white nationalism and none of them describe it as a terrorist group or the atrocities committed by its members. A majority of the acts of terror in America are committed by white nationalists, and this page talks about it like its a cool club. I would revise it, but I have little expertise with editing wikis and I would want it done correctly so that it doesnt immediately get changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.99.97.206 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely rewritten

This article has the tone of being relatively supportive of this terrorist group. Theres maybe three sentences describing alleged criticisms of white nationalism and none of them describe it as a terrorist group or the atrocities committed by its members. A majority of the acts of terror in America are committed by white nationalists, and this page talks about it like its a cool club. I would revise it, but I have little expertise with editing wikis and I would want it done correctly so that it doesn't immediately get changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.99.97.206 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of the content here really seems unencyclopedic

Under the United States section, I read "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." This is unsourced and seems a lot like original research. In my experience, trying to clean up an article about such a controversial subject boldly can cause tension, so discussion is probably the best way to move forward with this. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 10:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that entire paragraph is unsourced, essay-ish, and should be removed. Leviv ich 16:07, 9 April 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.[11] "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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.155.212 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, could you expand on this, please?

Per the Hughly source: White nationalism has radically changed its tone ant timbre in an attempt to remain relevant. Today, nationalists widely shun their affiliation with formal white supremacy and hate-filled rhetoric. It later says A second tenet of white nationalist thought is their collective shunning of the titles "racist" and "supremacist." followed by some waffle from Michael H. Hart. People who espouse white supremacist views are more likely to call themselves, and their views, white nationalists/separatists (or "white advocate", etc.) I think that's the gist, and I don't think anyone is disputing this, right?

The article would benefit from a summary of the history of the term "white nationalism" (as distinct from it's many close cousins), but I don't recall having seen any sources for this. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to find how I can get a full copy of the book again. It looks like this was written from what is available at the Google Books link and that cuts out a number of pages that should help explain what definition of "white nationalism" Hughey is using that manages to encompass full-blown white supremacist organizations and power structures like the KKK and Jim Crow from before the term was ever coined (according to Merriam-Webster it was first used in 1970 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20nationalist and its definition is "one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation"). Compare with Anti-Defamation League definitions page "Defining Extremism: A Glossary of White Supremacist Terms, Movements and Philosophies":

"White nationalism is a term that originated among white supremacists as a euphemism for white supremacy. Eventually, some white supremacists tried to distinguish it further by using it to refer to a form of white supremacy that emphasizes defining a country or region by white racial identity and which seeks to promote the interests of whites exclusively, typically at the expense of people of other backgrounds."

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/defining-extremism-white-supremacy 208.84.155.212 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, here: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/16/politics/what-is-white-nationalism-trnd/index.html

"White nationalism is a "new buzzword," Johnson said, but the first time he saw the term was in "white supremacy literature." 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."

And an overview at https://mic.com/articles/183739/white-supremacy-vs-white-nationalism-here-are-the-differences-between-the-far-right-factions#.kQ2VyElpN. 208.84.155.212 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright I was able to get a friend at a university to look the book up and provide me the text. Page 197, not shown in the Google Books preview, shows the problem with using this source to back up the line in the lede. Hughey's definition of "white nationalist" is using "white nationalism" to essentially encompass white supremacy despite the term not being coined until 1970. I hope I'm not out of line posting the block as a quote.

Sociologists often subsume white supremacist and white hate groups under the umbrella term white nationalism¹ White nationalism applies to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), neo-Nazis, militia movements, variants of the Christian Identity Church (CIC), and more “refined” political organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP).² White nationalism encompasses a large array of ideologies and practices, yet many dispute white nationalism’s conflation with, or reduction to, white supremacy. “White nationalism” proper is a movement to create or maintain a separate white nation-state, whereas “white supremacy” relies on social Darwinist, biological, or theological doctrine to rationalize a belief in inherent racial differences and hierarchy. However, many find such distinctions quite dubious, as a great deal of social scientific analysis indicates a large overlap between the two camps in terms of membership, ideology, and practical cooperation.

While some might dismiss these groups as fringe or radical outliers, there is some evidence that their membership and/or influence is growing. From 1992 to 2000, the number of hate groups (largely white in membership) increased from 300 to 602, and by 2010 there were 1,002 hate groups. That is a 7.5 percent increase from the 932 groups active in 2009 and a 66 percent rise since 2000.³

In broad strokes, white nationalism can be traced to eighteenth-century European philosophers and naturalists such as Hume, Kant, Linnaeus, and Georges-Louis Leclerc. These figures engaged in a collective promotion of racial supremacist doctrine as various European powers colonized the globe.

— Hughey, Matthew (2012). White Bound: Nationalists, Antiracists, and the Shared Meanings of Race. Stanford University Press. p. 197. ISBN 9780804783316.

In terms of timeline, Johnson is more correct and knowing how Hughey backdates the definition of "White Nationalist" (which nobody before 1970 could possibly have used to self-identify) his quotes back up Johnson's analysis. White Supremacists started using the term "White Nationalist" as a euphemism because the term white supremacy had become toxic PR. 208.84.155.212 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is incredibly useful, thank you. I've reformatted this quote a bit to make it easier on my eyes and preserve attribution. There's a lot of work to be done here, and I have some ideas, but it will take some time. Grayfell (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that line should be reworded to read "White nationalists generally shifted after 1970 to identifying as "nationalists" because identifying with the term "supremacy" made it difficult for their ideas to gain traction." Include Johnson and ADL as primary sources. 208.84.155.212 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"White Nationalist" is just a rebranding ploy by the KKK. https://www.apnews.com/b0256e138327481ebcba6e23e2d03957 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6F3:11C0:616E:CE62:23F1:C24E (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Grayfell (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted "critics" text in Lede

I deleted the following line from the Lede:

Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence.

1) Because it is wp:weasel "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." 2) Because there is no citation to support the statement.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

See White nationalism#Criticism, where attribution is provided and this is explained with multiple sources. The lede is intended to be a summary of the body of the article, and sources can be provided in the lede, but this is not always necessary or desirable, for various reasons.

There are certainly many, many more sources which explain this perspective, also, so if you are sincerely disputing this, you have your work cut out for you. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a controversial statement in a controversial Article and I don't believe the onus is on me to explain to myself why it violates Wikipedia Policy when it seems obvious that it does. Nor why the first sentence in the section titled "criticism" needs to be repeated word-for-word and appended to the Lede, nor does this section name any actual critics that say this.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The onus is on you to gain consensus for this change, same as always. The lede summarizes the body, and there is an entire section of the body of the article explaining this. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, as an afterthought, the whole idea is nonsensical. "Critics" of what, exactly? Critics of the existance of White Nationalism? Critics of the people that believe that all WN's are really WS? Even the word "critics" is to ambiguous to lend any meaning, as it fails to describe exactly what it is these people are critical of.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that "critics" means those who oppose white nationalism. Specifically, those who actively oppose white nationalism as a concept, not merely as a term. I understand that this appears to be a WP:WEASEL, but the quantity of critics who point this out is almost overwhelming. Most analysts and academics who discuss this point recognize, at least in part, that the term is used as a more palatable alternative to "white supremacy", which is now less common as a self-description. It would be misleading to attribute this point to only a handful of critics, as this is more common than that. If you can think of a way to rephrase this, let's here it. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to be in the mood to educate a newb (and thank you), maybe you can give me a greater sense of both structure and process. If the RS is overwhelming on a particular topic like this, then the way the encyclopedia deals with the "minority" opinion is to either include some of what they say for balance, or reject their opinions completely as "fringe". Is this understanding correct, and if so, what is the status of White Nationalists? Are they allowed space in the Article to advocate their minority opinion, or are they shut-out completely as "fringe"? Please feel free to correct my language.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you arguing that this article should become more of a platform for white nationalists? If you want other people to listen to you and respect your opinions, I strongly encourage you to think carefully about what you are suggesting, and why.

As a tertiary source, Wikipedia is concerned with the academic mainstream, but this should not be confused with a popularity contest. White nationalism isn't merely a minority position, it is WP:FRINGE, and further, it is anathema to civil discourse and specifically to Wikipedia's mission itself. Wikipedia isn't a platform for sharing original research, nor for false balance.

With this in mind, white nationalists are not reliable sources for factual information, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. Therefore, we are not particularly interested in citing white nationalists, we are interested instead in citing reliable sources about white nationalism.

There are many reasons, so, so many reasons, why white nationalist sources are unreliable, even for information about the ideology itself. Just one simple starting point is that white nationalism is not coherent. Claims made by white nationalists about their own beliefs are constantly contradicted by other white nationalists. If you feel a specific white nationalist perspective is useful in explaining the ideology, I can almost guarantee I can find an equally unreliable white nationalist source which refutes that perspective. Usually some other reliable source can be found which explains how both positions are nonsense. If we start adding this kind of back-and-forth, we are falsely implying that these perspective are significant, or worse, that they are valid. We have to be very cautious about if and how we bother to mention this chatter. The way to do this is through reliable, independent sources.

The term was invented as a euphemism for white supremacy, and it's shifting foundation is a feature, not a bug. Without a self-consistent groundwork, there can be no real "advocacy" of the ideology which isn't also advocacy of white supremacy. We already have an article for that, and unreliable primary sources aren't welcome there, either. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources used to promote the euphemism viewpoint are all onegatively critical of white nationalists. There ought to be balance by including views of white nationalists, since the article is about white nationalism. As an example, if I was seeking information about evolution, I would first ask an evolutionary biologist. It would not make much sense to ask a Creationist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B100:AE13:34DF:96A6:2EF:4312 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice touch, equating white nationalism with evolution, but it's not going to fly. (Good try attempting to appeal to your audience, though.) White nationalism is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, and therefore giving it equal weight with mainstream views results in a false equivalence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2019 (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)

To obfuscate the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacy is to be intellectually dishonest. Two ideologies can share many characteristics yet still be different ideologies. In addition, it is possible to argue that possible to argue that white supremacy is a form of white nationalism, making it easier to understand why white nationalists often expouse white supremacist believes. Leninism and Stalinism our very closely related forms of Communism, but they are still different ideologies. If we don't specify that the white supremacy and white nationalism are different, we open the door to the claim that both of these ideologies are synonymous with Nazism as well. Yet America was essentially a white nationalist country during the 1930s to 1940s yet America fought Germany which was dominate by the Nazi ideology. I must state that I don't frequently edit articles or engage in conversations on Wikipedia talk pages so my argumentation technique and wording might not be up to par with many other Users on this sight.

--JRizzled (talk) 03:09, 14 July 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)

Recentism

A huge amount of text was just added to the article (within the last 12 24 hours), and much of it focuses on very recent events. I removed one paragraph and tagged the section, planning to at least reword other parts of the section (21st century subsection of U.S. section). My edit was reverted with no reason given, just that I bring the issue here. To be clear, the current (distended) version of the article is not the consensus/stable version. I am open to hearing what other editors here think.--MattMauler (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that rather than remove the information, it be moved into a section about recent events. We are living through a time when white nationalism is on the ascendant, and removing material from this article simply because it happened recently will fail to give the reader a rounded picture of just what is happening in the world in relation to White nationalism. It will also have the effect of whitewashing (no pun intended) the article of important information. WP:Recentism -- an explanatory essay and not core policy -- is no excuse not to cover the subject at hand adequately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand, and that sounds fine. However, I still think even that section would need some balancing. For instance, there are currently 2-to-3 paragraphs about Trumps most recent Twitter thread and this doesn't give the sense that this is just the most recent of many such inflammatory incidents. I think his comments immediately following Unite the Right (2017) and his refusal to disavow David Duke and the KKK (Feb 2016) should be explained (currently not even mentioned), while the most recent incident targeting the 4 congresswomen should be mentioned, but not discussed in near the kind of depth it currently is. This is why I posted the tag after removing the paragraph, the work that remains.
My removal of the other material came from a desire to focus the section on mass movements/demonstrations (events like Unite the Right; official organizations that have seen a resurgence/rebranding) rather than individual actions, but I definitely understand why you think it should stay, and, again, that's fine. The rest of the section, I think still suffers from WP:UNDUE on certain very-recent events.--MattMauler (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to individual actions being more succinctly presented, with fewer extraneous details, as long as the core of the incident is preserved. Also, similar incidents should be gathered together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Centralized discussion about possible bad information added to this article

Please see the discussion started by User:Pudeo here Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Necessity of a belief in a "white ethnostate"

This is not currently fleshed out in the body, but per NYT, believing in "maintaining a white majority" or "forging a white identity" is white nationalism. I do not believe there is warrant for raising the bar to advocating for a racially-defined or racially-exclusive state ("ethnostate"), which is a violent political expression of white nationalism. One needn't limit citizenship to whites to be a white nationalist; advocating for the cultural hegemony of "the white race" in a country, without additional political prescriptions, is white nationalism. Additionally, I fail to see how National Anarchism can be properly accounted for if the lede defines white nationalism as attachment to a polity. I am interested to hear further thoughts. Cherio222 (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As the article explains, the term was coined specifically as a euphemism for white supremacy. "Nationalist" was not added because it is nationalist, it was added because someone thought it sounded better. Some specific political ideas have been attached to the name since then, but the concept is fundamentally simplistic. The goal is white supremacy, but described in political terms. Attempting to find some deep nuance in white nationalism is false precision. Comparing and contrasting these different incoherent ideologies is WP:OR, among other things, but it is especially fruitless because of the far-right's love of infighting and sectarianism. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

White nationalism is inherently white supremacist because it is the promotion of whites to the exclusion of other groups. You are adding undue precision by adding that white nationalists are categorically attached to the idea of a white ethnostate -- without proper referencing beyond stating that it is synonymous with the concept of a "white nation," which is simply begging the question. To clarify: if a media figure were to say, "we should limit immigration because too many non-whites are coming in" -- Is that white nationalism? (Yes, it is, and the body is consistent with that). Now, is that "a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to white people and would exclude non-whites such as Blacks, non-White Hispanics, etc?" I don't think so. In raising the bar to the most extreme expression of an ideology, you are giving white nationalists an easy "out" to deny that they are white nationalists. (i.e., "X is not a white nationalist because they never advocated for a white ethnostate.") Cherio222 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

White nationalists don't need anyone's help to give themselves an out, or else they wouldn't have coined the term "white nationalist". The "less extreme" idea of restrictions on immigration based on ethnicity only appears reasonable in comparison to something even more nebulous. The degree to which something is extreme is merely how far along on the path it is. In other words, the entire purpose of these finicky labels is so they can give themselves an out. To hear them tell it, "white nationalism" means exactly what they want it to mean, and nothing else.

That said, the entire idea of a white ethnostate is equally shaky, and equally susceptible to these kinds of rhetorical games, and it would be good for the article to indicate this more clearly. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"white nationalism" / "white supremacy" distinction

I can think of two points that the article did not bring up, that help explain the preference for "nationalism" over "supremacy." I suppose these should be added. One is that "white nationalism" suggests parallels with "black nationalism," and other socially-acceptable forms of nationalism or ethnic solidarity. The other is from Philippe Rushton (going by memory here), who points out that on various biological or psychological measures (hormone levels, IQ scores, etc.), whites score in the middle of the spectrum, with blacks at one extreme and Asians at the other. He said something to the effect of, it is a strange form of "supremacy" that puts your own race in the middle! Of course there is still plenty of overlap, and a certain amount of this is just rhetoric. Thoughts? --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.230.69.175 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Catholic links to contemporary white nationalism

A reader may be led to believe that contemporary white nationalism in the US is consistent with the Anglo-Protestant variety of the past, which it most certainly is not. Anyone who's spent any significant time researching contemporary hate culture in the United States knows that it is virtually impossible to understand the white nationalist movement without acknowledging its conspicuous Catholic connections. The Occidental Quarterly, the most toxic white nationalist publication in the country, regularly pumps its readership with pro-Catholic, anti-Protestant propaganda. Protestantism, and especially mainline Protestantism, in their opinion, has "gone soft", become "too liberal", and -- well, less racist. The conservative publishing group "Regnery Publishing", founded by Catholic Alfred Regnery, whose cousin founded the alt-right, white nationalist National Policy Institute, is similarly overt in its publishing of books on "Western Civilization" and the Catholic Church (See, for example, Thomas Woods' "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization").Their goal appears to be the creation of a pan-European national identity for the United States with origins in the traditional Roman Catholic Church (pre-Vatican II, whose ecumenical efforts they associate with a "Jewish hijacking" of Western culture).

Unfortunately I can not find an RS as of yet. Only here have I found serious attention given to this subject, although I doubt that site qualifies as reliable under Wiki criteria.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The article (yes article, not definition) states "espouses the belief that white people are a race".

Are they not? If they are not, then the espousing of the belief that black, hispanic, asian etc. people are a race would therein also be invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added 9by 2605:A000:1124:41BA:0:0:0:1004 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anybody believes that "races" are real things, yo. "Racialization" is a process. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've Never heard of "races" NOT being a real thing... denying the existence of the white race or black race or asian race is like denying the existence of different breeds of dogs. Humans use the word "race" instead of "breed" like we see used with horses and dogs. We are all the same human species and can all reproduce with one another, but different races/breeds of people exist, none of which are better than another. We are all equal Wearetheresistance (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see Race (human categorization). But this is not the space to opine on the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to go all FORUM on this topic, either, but the statement that denying the existence of the white race or black race or asian race is like denying the existence of different breeds of dogs is pretty much a reductio ad absurdum of its own position, considering that breeds of dogs are created and maintained by the equivalent of Eugenics... Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Race as a social construct" is argued in the same way as "gender as a social construct". That is to say, it is argued that the ability to undo or overlap the biological realities of race/gender render it to be a political decision. Quietly however, modern DNA studies have verified traditional racial models beyond a doubt. The major racial categories formed during tens of thousands of years of post-migration speciation and are biologically very real, with no competing or alternative theories, "yo". The opening of the article appears to be a specifically "anti-white" blurb since articles on other ethno-nationalist movements do not open by questioning their existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CCD1:E9D1:195A:A6E3 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Throwing the word "eugenics" out expecting a programmed reaction of terror from American public school attendees does not constitute an argument. Major human genetic categories (as well as some dog breeds) formed via longterm allopatric and sympatric speciation. I believe you are feigning an interest in this topic just to forward a political agenda or personal vendetta & that the opening lines are non-encyclopedic (is anyone looking up "white nationalism" attempting to determine whether caucasians/white people exist?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CCD1:E9D1:195A:A6E3 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this article an hour or so ago, and this talk page section in the last few minutes. With that lack of grounding, I'll comment that the term eugenics seems to me to have been used here as not entirely appropriate shorthand for something like selective breeding (generally self-selective). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you disputing that breeds of dogs are created and maintained by the equivalent of Eugenics? I have reliable sources for that. My comment was in response to denying the existence of the white race or black race or asian race is like denying the existence of different breeds of dogs, which was an odd piece of dog whistling if I have ever heard one. Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No, and the focus of this article isn't re dog breeding, it is re the human society. I didn't think about this carefully, but I guess I take the term eugenics as including selective breeding to apply principles of Mendelian inheritance to achieve desired results, with the selective breeding generally not self-managed by the breeders. That would apply re dog breeding much better than it would apply re human society. That could evolve into a long discussion, but I don't think this is the place to have such a discussion. I was quibbling about the applicability of the term eugenics. Likewise, the question of white/black/asian/etc. as a racial classification of humans is better discussed at talk:Race (human categorization) than here, IMHO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

This is the reference made for the "Race" portion of Black Nationalism. race This is the reference made for the "Race" portion of White Nationalism race

Would like the references to match, since they are the same thing. Therefore would propose the current reference for "Race" be altered to be race

The full source for black nationalism can be found https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_nationalism&action=edit

It's clear that as it currently stands "race" is being referred to in a derogatory manner in white nationalism, and despite otherwise matching word for word in the sentences, black nationalism refers to the correct reference on race. There's enough negative stuff about being white in this wiki that there is no need to add additional derogatory statements where they don't belong. 2603:8081:2F06:5A2:A5EB:8220:FB78:71ED (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. The link was formerly to a redirect where the destination changed. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• For clarity, the article linked to Racialism (racial categorization), which is was made a redirect to scientific racism in November after this relevant discussion:Talk:Racialism#Which target? Racism or Race (human categorization). Since it is likely that whoever added that link intended it to go to 'race', this intention should be preserved pending consensus, although scientific racism is also perfectly valid in this case.

Nothing about accurately labeling this scientific racism is inherently derogatory towards white people. If you look for "negative stuff", you will find it. If you look for positive stuff, you will also find it. The balance of positive vs. negative stuff should not be determined by the sensibilities of specific editors. Comparisons to other articles about other ideologies are seldom persuasive, because that would ignore history and context. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

Far too many generalized terms like Many, Some, Frequently, Often, etc. It dilutes any factual basis you are attempting to establish. I think you should strive for specifics and use of statistics. As written, I can't honestly assess the value of what's in here. White nationalism is far too broad, has far too many facets as written. You attempt to attach pejorative groups to white nationalism. In the beginning, you define it as anyone would define Black nationalism, or nationalism any other ethnic group. If you stopped there, it would be alright. But you felt compelled to go on and connect the term with supremacists and other negative groups. 67.61.132.4 (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done – empty request, please make more clear what exactly you want changed. As per the edit request template: "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Ericfood (talk | contribs) 07:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"fallacy" of racial essentialism should be altered to "concept" or "idea" of racial essentialism

Citation doesn't support this characterization, nor is it a direct quote of someone giving their opinion, so the phrasing constitutes original research as is. Lolligag9 (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Racial essentialism redirects to Race (human categorization), which thoroughly cites that modern scientists do not take it seriously. Like creationism, geocentrism, or flat-earthery, obvious pseudoscience can be referred to as such - WP:BLUE. At any rate, you'd need to get consensus for a change like this, not just a single editor's agreement to make the edit. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The wikipedia article you linked to me has a single citation for your statement "modern scientists do not take it seriously.", phrased in the wikipedia article as "Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society."

But upon reading it for myself, they instead say "populations from a genetic perspective" and "where major ancestry originated" are important variables for scientific research. These euphemisms are exactly what the definition of race describes and that's problematic for determining scientific american as a reliable source in the future. Is there a source that I can cite to delegitimize the terms ancestry, population, and genetics as falling under an "essentialist fallacy"? Awaiting your or another editor's guidance to help me combat the evil of fallacious thinking in science being presented on wikipedia as if it were valid. Lolligag9 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

White in White people isn't capitalized, but the Black in Black people is. Perhaps this should be fixed? 176.237.131.247 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kofi Buenor Hadjor

Who really is Kofi Buenor Hadjor and should he be the only person on the page of white nationalism. It is much more diverse and extensive than kofi buenor hadjor. It has different layers and exstremists and falsification Nucle4r135 (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

please add this from the splc to the page , "views" section. "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites."

By https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist

Ty and have a nice day 86.57.58.244 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is already covered in the article, and your proposed addition has copyright issues. casualdejekyll 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrats

Question for editors here, as there is a current discussion on the Dixiecrat article that may involve this subject. Are there any citations or evidence that Dixiecrats would fall into this category (white nationalism)? They were mainly white supremacist and pro segregation, which from my understanding, overlaps with white nationalism. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitions of Whiteness section edit request

Please delete "yet white nationalists sometimes exclude Spaniards, Italians and Greeks." due to lack of a citation. 172.119.160.3 (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please delete "yet white nationalists sometimes exclude Spaniards, Italians and Greeks.

This is rather odd. Aren't Spaniards, Italians and Greeks European? Koopabeach12345 (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Throughout American history, European did not always mean white, take the Romani people for example. Irish people and Italians were also at some points considered nonwhite, I believe Irish people were also called the n word in the late 1800's America Chardowdude (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is speculation that they weren't considered white. By whom? Which nationwide poll was done? Prove it beyond a vague citation or two. 78.111.193.171 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't be daft... how do you do a nationwide poll of people in the 1800s?

The uncited part has been removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

White Christian Nationalism

Hi, I've done some extensive academic research on White Christian Nationalism for an academic capstone, a lot of it is relatively new, but does pass the sourcing criteria, I was thinking about adding it here, but I could also see it as an entirely separate sub article. What do you think?

Jmjosh90 00:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)