Talk:White nationalism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White nationalism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 180 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Julius Evola#Tradition|Evolian Traditionalism]] The anchor (#Tradition) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Europe Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

should Notable organizations that were governments be highlighted in bold text[edit]

should the text in section "Notable organizations" to be highlighted as bold of its significance among the other entries as governments just as parliamentary representation is highlighted here by italic text, this was the long term consensus until User:Mitch Ames changed it Gooduserdude (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant edits: [1][2][3]. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. ~~MOS:BOLD~~ MOS:NOBOLD is clear on this: "Avoid using boldface for emphasis ... use ... {{em}} ...". Note also that "... {{strong}} [which usually renders as boldface] ... is generally not appropriate in article text".
I don't even think {{em}}/italics is the right approach here. It would probably be better to separate those entries into separate lists, eg, "(former) governments", "(former) parliamentary representation", "other". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that MOS:BOLD only applies for article text not lists Gooduserdude (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changed to strong then Gooduserdude (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My initial comment incorrectly referred to MOS:BOLD, but it should have been MOS:NOBOLD, which has the text I quoted.

Per my initial comment, NOBOLD is equally clear on not using <strong>or {{strong}}.

In the absence of specific advice to the contrary, I think bulleted lists in an article are still part of "article text" - they are in article space. Is there something in MOS that says lists are not bound by MOS:TEXT?

I repeat my previous suggestion, that it would be better to split the list into three. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please make a draft proposal how that would look like at User:Gooduserdude/sandbox Gooduserdude (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No part of MOS:BOLD says that it does not apply to lists. At any rate, I've tried a slightly different tact that hopefully solves the issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i prefer the original version Gooduserdude (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: should Notable organizations that were governments be highlighted in bold text?[edit]

should Notable organizations that were governments be highlighted in bold text as bold of its significance among the other entries as governments just as parliamentary representation is highlighted here by italic text? Gooduserdude (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it looks better and was the long term consensus version Gooduserdude (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Looked better" is purely subjective. People's opinions differ on what is "better", which is why we have MOS. "Was the long term consensus version" - Silence is the weakest form of consensus and "evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No It goes against MOS:BOLD. See [4] for my attempt at a different solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Gooduserdude should withdraw the RfC for failure to follow WP:RFCBEFORE, which requires "a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC". The thread above on this exact topic was posted less than 24 hours ago, which is not enough time to establish if there is consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a valid point re WP:RFCBEFORE, but given that we already have three (other) responses (in this section) I propose that it would be better to let the RfC continue, rather than further complicating things. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This could probably be closed as SNOW anyways. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, per MOS:BOLD. And other organizations shouldn't be italicized, since it's not a sanctioned used of italics by [[MOS:ITALICS}]. In short, people need to stop trying to emphasize organization names. It's not how WP is written. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, per MOS:NOBOLD. CaptainEek's solution looks sensible. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - summarising my earlier comments [5][6], MOS:NOBOLD clearly states "Avoid using boldface for emphasis ... use ... {{em}} ... The <strong> ({{strong}}) markup [which usually renders as boldface] ... is generally not appropriate in article text". There is nothing in MOS to suggest that lists are exempt from "article text" and this guideline. I don't think even {{em}} is appropriate here. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No(Summoned by bot) per MOS:BOLD. Support the alternate proposal by Mitch Ames below. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alternate proposal by Mitch Ames below. Gooduserdude (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternative(s)[edit]

Combining CaptainEek's suggestion, with mine (separate lists), I propose this:

Extended content

Notable organizations

White nationalist movements have achieved prominence around the world. Several have achieved representation in the governments of their country, and three have led governments:

South African National Party during most of the 20th century
Rhodesian Front from 1965 to 1979
German Nazi Party from 1933 to 1945

Other notable organisations are:

References

^ "Council of Conservative Citizens". Anti-Defamation League. 2005. Archived from the original on 21 May 2008. Retrieved 14 February 2008.
^ "National Alliance". Anti-Defamation League. 2005. Archived from the original on 11 April 2008. Retrieved 14 February 2008.
^ Soufan, Ali; Sales, Nathan. "One of the worst ways Putin is gaslighting the world on Ukraine". NBC News. NBC. Then there's the white supremacist group known as the Russian Imperial Movement, or RIM, which the State Department designated a terrorist organization in 2020 (an effort led by one of the authors here, Nathan Sales). With the Kremlin's tacit approval, the group operates paramilitary camps near St. Petersburg in which neo-Nazis and white supremacists from across Europe are trained in terrorist tactics.
^ "CIDOB - "Russia for Russians!"".

The important points of this proposal are:

Two lists, with no overlap
No formatting (bold or italic) of any entry - parenthetical text where appropriate, eg "former parliamentary representation"

I'm not concerned with which entries are in the first list - feel free to move (but not format) any entry if appropriate. The intro text is copied from CaptainEek's suggestion - feel free to edit if appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming See Also sections[edit]

I trimmed some of the massive lists of related people, organizations and concepts at the end of the article, but it was reverted as non-constructive. Those lists were taking up a ridiculous amount of space, and many were only tangentially related to the topic of White Nationalism. A lot were also redundant to the Template:White nationalism at the bottom, or were already linked in the article body so shouldn't be duplicated in a See Also. Pinging @Gooduserdude to discuss. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you removed the ENTIRE list of organisations, please see above discussions there is a clear consensus to have a version of this list, also you removed sourced content in the hungary section that stated "Two days later in Vienna, he clarified that he was talking about cultures and not about race." all relevant facts should be included, the rest is constructive, and since you brought this up i can restore the trimming edits Gooduserdude (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the organizations I removed because they were wholly redundant with the navbox at the bottom. There are a ton of white nationalist/supremacist/etc organizations, and there's already plenty of argumentation at that template about which organizations should be included. Having a second (smaller) list here, but with no specific inclusion criteria different from the template, just creates another place for edit warriors to edit war over who should be on the list. Regarding the Hungary section and the other small edits, I double checked and I'm actually not sure how that happened. I only meant to work on the lists with those edits. Before trimming I was looking at previous versions of the article to see how the lists had grown, maybe I accidentally edited an old version instead of the current one? Either way, I have no objection to that content being included, I only meant to cut down on those huge lists of related items. By focusing on only a few of the most important ones, we can better guide the reader towards related topics they might actually be interested in reading about. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Council of Conservative Citizens". Anti-Defamation League. 2005. Archived from the original on 21 May 2008. Retrieved 14 February 2008.

[2] "National Alliance". Anti-Defamation League. 2005. Archived from the original on 11 April 2008. Retrieved 14 February 2008.

[3] Soufan, Ali; Sales, Nathan. "One of the worst ways Putin is gaslighting the world on Ukraine". NBC News. NBC. Then there's the white supremacist group known as the Russian Imperial Movement, or RIM, which the State Department designated a terrorist organization in 2020 (an effort led by one of the authors here, Nathan Sales). With the Kremlin's tacit approval, the group operates paramilitary camps near St. Petersburg in which neo-Nazis and white supremacists from across Europe are trained in terrorist tactics.

[4] "CIDOB - "Russia for Russians!"".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]