Talk:Harold Covington/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Covington's first "nazi" period (1972-1981)

Covington's first period of participation in uniformed "nazi" groups seems to have spanned roughly 1972 to 1981, from the time when he was passing out pamphlets in the US Army until March 1981 when he resigned as leader of the NSPA. The section that covers this period bears the title "National Socialist Party of America." A few days ago that section was a mess. Yesterday I took the trouble of chronologically organizing it, and I added some material that filled out the chronology. This is an outline of what I see this section becoming:

1. Covington distributes "nazi" literature in the Army and is diagnosed with "paranoid personality disorder" (a fact which I think may be indispensible for understanding other facts about him). http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/little-big-man

2. Covington in the NSWPP (the authentic one led by Koehl).

3. Covington leaves the NSWPP and joins the NSPA.

4. Covington's relationship to the Greensboro shooting incident if any. (This was Elizabeth Wheaton's focus.) Covington's exoneration in the civil suit that followed (a fact that was not in the article until I inserted it).

5. How Covington became head of the NSPA (formerly deputy leader), and his involvement if any in the downfall of Frank Collin.

6. The alleged NSPA bomb plot. Six members of the NSPA were tried on the charge of plotting to bomb various sites. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=j6grAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Bv0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5711,44068&dq=covington+going-underground&hl=en (I am still researching this matter and have not posted anything about it.)

7. The alleged connection between John Hinckley and the NSPA (a connection alleged by Covington himself, but dismissed by law enforcement). http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AD8aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4414,3778065&dq=hinckley+covington+law-enforcement-authorities&hl=en (I posted this section last night. Apparently it alarmed somebody who then contacted me, which is why I am explaining things here now.)

8. Covington's announcement, immediately after the Reagan assassination attempt, that he had resigned as president of the NSPA and that the NSPA was "going underground." Covington claimed in the now-archived discussion page that a journalist invented the statement about "going underground," but those words are presented in a direct quote, and form a coherent picture with other statements that Covington made at the time. Covington seemed to be in a funk at the time over the bomb-plot trial and supposedly over the Hinckley shooting. He cited those events in his rationale for "going underground." http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=j6grAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Bv0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5711,44068&dq=covington+going-underground&hl=encovington+underground&hl=en

9. Covington leaves the United States. Wheaton offers a theory about this rooted in events during Covington's involvement with the NSPA. What she says may or may not be correct but it probably should be addressed. The current list of countries where Covington resided (vaguely alleging the ADL as source) leaves out Rhodesia. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to suggest we remove all content about the organization National Socialist Party of America to the article about it, we now have more content about it in this persons bio that we do at the actual article about the organization, its becoming imo undue here in this subjects biography to host excessive detail about the organization. You say about the disputed claims of illness, "(a fact which I think may be indispensible for understanding other facts about him) - there is the problem with original research - you think or want to assert that he does what he does because he allegedly has an illness - the is WP:OR and leading the reader if you assert it in the article. The claim of an illness is strongly disputed and comes in an interview only from his estranged brother to an activist organization totally opposed to the subject. Can we find other reliable sources for this alleged illness? Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me but your suggestion is ridiculous. There is very little in the section titled "National Socialist Party of America," as it stands, that is not about Covington. The section is frankly mistitled, because it is really about Covington's activities and events affecting him in his swastika-wearing phase. A complete article about the NSPA would be largely about Frank Collin, and it would span a decade. It would also mention Gerhard Lauck and some others. That would be a very large article. You say, about my view that the ppd diagnosis is important, that it's "leading the reader if you assert it in the article." Well, if you catch me doing that, say so! Why bring it up when I am not doing that? I think my wording is quite neutral. Many will assume that the ppd diagnosis was just a matter of political persecution. I certainly didn't tell them not to jump to that conclusion. It is not "original research" if I faithfully represent what a noteworthy source says. Normally the SPLC would be considered a credible source on Wikipedia. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/little-big-man An interview with a close relative, also a very credible source. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Supremacist/Nationalist?

Statement in opening seems kinda contradictory to me. Man is said to be "white supremacist activist", but is "active in white nationalism". So he's not active in supremacism? Why is he supremacist then? Or is it usual for such people to be secret (but still known to everybody) supremacist despite not being active in supremacism? Or could it be that someone active in nationalism simply a nationalist? 217.159.160.109 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You can be both. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the question is what is Harold Covington? I would argue that he is a white nationalist only.Haresandhounds (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived

Hi, I have archived the talkpage in an attempt for a fresh beginning. Please remember this article is about a living person and that our policy WP:BLP applies here just as much as in the article. Please only discuss article improvements and follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this archiving was absolutely necessary. I'll seek page protection for the archive from here. Thanks for your comments at BLPN as well. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Protected. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What was it that made this necessary? I consider it unfortunate because the dispute about content continues, but the background to the dispute, and the fact that it has been raging since 2006, has now been taken out of sight. Why is it good to have this dispute viewed without any historical context? Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You can still view the discussion that took place by clicking on the numbers next to the word "Archive". It helps protect the discussion that took place from being deleted, as was being done.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that "Your Buddy Fred Lewis" is not a legitimate Wikipedia editor. His choice of pseudonym is that of a living person, whom I have confirmed did not give permission for his name to be used, and who is quite irate over his name being hijacked for this purpose. The true identity of "Your Buddy Fred Lewis" is known to me, and he has established this Wikipedia identity solely for the purpose of posting false and defamatory information about me. His presence, knowing that he can get away with it by pretending to "objectivity" and civility which is far from his real game, and the continued toleration of his activities, says much about the ideological agenda and the lack of genuine scholarship and professionalism which has become the hallmark of Wikipedia. - Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.240.248 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for reversal of changes

• - Request for reversal of changes by Off2riorob

Off2riorob sent me a lengthy private message last night complaining about content that I had added to this article. His complaints, which I address in part above, make very little sense to me. Off2riorob has not indicated that any information that I posted was unsound, except, he suggests, the diagnosis of pdd of which we learn from Ben Covington by way of an SPLC interview. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/little-big-man. While Off2riorob has suggested to me that I should run my revisions past others on the discussion page before posting them in the article, Off2riorob has not been so patient. Within minutes of posting his criticism here, before I could finish writing my response, he had removed most of my work. Quite frankly I do not think that Off2riorob is making any attempt to be fair or objective here. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly your contributions are detrimental to the article, they are weakly cited and they are leading and opinionated and are increasing the likelihood of more complaints. Content about the organizations belong in the article about it - all of this he alleged and he alleged is the type of speculation that is causing the problems. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I already knew your line Rob. I am waiting for objective input. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly opinionated against the subject of this article and a WP:SPA single purpose account in relation to it - you have a user name that suggests you have a conflict of interest also. In the current climate of complaints as I asked on your talkpage, it would be better if you took a step back from editing the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your response now is to try to caricature me, who has only been a registered user here for a few days, and has made enormous contributions to this formerly shoddy article, whose work you have now largely undone. I have stated a grievance here and I am waiting to see if it will be addressed. I am not expecting a solution from you. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow Fred it is quite clear to me that you are very seriously in need of a wiki-break already, and you just got here. I can see nothing wrong with the changes Off2riorob made. Other than they conflict with what you consider proper and true..? - 4twenty42o (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob said, "I want to suggest we remove all content about the organization National Socialist Party of America to the article about it," If that was a sincere argument, then we should now expect to see the material that Off2riorob removed from here reposted over there, right? I just had a look at the article on the National Socialist Party of America, and I did not notice that Off2riorob put anything there that he removed from here. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I will post it on the talkpage over there for reference if you would like me to. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It truly doesn't belong there, and I think you know that. The point is that you did not act in accord with your own stated motive, which on its face didn't make much sense anyway. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Quite frankly it looks to me like Off2riorob copy-edited the article. He being the more experienced editor here, was bold in his changes, and made an attempt to make the article express a more neutral tone. I notice that he did not strike out all of out additions or references, nor has he taken your bait and verbally clashed with you. Your comments are bordering on paranoid and to be honest if I were Off2riorob I would not give you the time of day after this comment[1]. Off2riorob however is being the soul of tact and reason and trying to work with you. Personally I am a huge fan of d/b/i when it comes to SPA's who edit BLP's because with that single purpose account is the single mindset. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about all that Off2riorob left of my work: "In 1981 Covington alleged a connection between the NSPA and would-be presidential assassin John W. Hinckley. Law enforcement authorities would not corroborate the alleged Hinckley-NSPA connection."

Do you see what Off2riorob did? He eliminated any indication that what Covington said was probably not true -- which happens to be the main point of the article cited there! Check it out! http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AD8aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4414,3778065&dq=hinckley+covington+law-enforcement-authorities&hl=en

There is a real difference between saying that law enforcement authorities say that they have found no evidence to corroborate, which is what AP reported, and saying that law enforcement officials "would not corroborate," which is how Off2riorob put it. It's the difference between, "We have found no evidence," and, "No comment." Off2riorob has edited the article in a way that distorts the information conveyed in the source.

There was also other evidence that the alleged Hinckley-NSPA connection was a hoax (vague and inconsistent statements from Covington and Allen, total lack of any documentation, the fact that there was no source for the claim other than these two men), which Off2riorob completely eliminated from the article. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9d0hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AKEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1783,1752577&dq=jack-taylor+covington+hinckley&hl=en Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support replacing "would not corroborate" with "did not corroborate". However, please be careful to assume good faith about other editors' intentions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the newspaper articles, comparing every-ones edits, I restructured that particular part of the sentence. This is my interpretation of how this should read due to the obvious communication problems and conflicting views. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable statement, as far as it goes. But is it expecting too much to want to clarify the whole matter by presenting authoritative information that directly contradicts what Covington said? Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not unless there's a good reason to think that it's a sufficiently significant part of his biography that it merits extended coverage, no. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see no reason to further rub salt in a wound. There is no reason to pursue this particular line unless we now wish to attempt to establish a living person (and subject of an article) as having told a fib. Whether or not the feds drew that conclusion is open to a rather broad interpretation. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Rub salt in the wound"? This doesn't sound like a determination to get at the truth. If somebody is lying, I can't see why any hurt feelings that result from debunking that lie should deserve consideration, especially when the person who told the lie is a public figure trying to influence people and using his illustrious past (including such a lie) to help him do it. I can probably think of many living public figures who don't get that kind of kid-glove treatment on Wikipedia.

Here are reasons why the debunking of the Hinckley claim matters and should be in Covington's biography.

For one thing, Covington gave the arrest of alleged former nazi Hinckley as a reason why he was resigning as president of the NSPA. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VYgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nqoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5063,4821415&dq=harold-covington+underground&hl=en That's a turning point in Covington's life. Pretty important, don't you think? For another thing, Covington still brings it up, the most recent (brief) mention of it being I believe in his podcast of June 30, 2011. http://northwestfront.org/2011/06/radio-free-northwest-june-30th-2011/ It has become a widespread urban legend too. If you go to the discussion page on John Hinckley Jr., you will see that two people there heard the story and wondered why it wasn't in the Wikipedia entry about Hinckley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Hinckley,_Jr. Here, since we are discussing the man who started the story, we have a good opportunity to put it to rest. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you need that aforementioned wiki-break Fred. This conversation is going in the same direction as the, now archived, discussions. I am not sure you can handle finding the conspiracy wrapped in the enigma here. Covington, despite his wonderful, colorful personality and background is not worth all of this attention. Honestly, who cares? - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

4twenty42o, what you just said is a complete paragraph of opinion, with no facts. What I wrote immediately before that consists mainly of supported facts. I am reasoning while you are emoting. That is part of why we are not agreeing here.

Your emotion that Harold Covington, a public figure by choice, should not be exposed "as having told a fib" because it would "rub salt into the wound" does not strike me as a motive that should be allowed to prevail in an activity like editing a supposedly objective and truthful encyclopedia.

I think somebody that wants to tell "a fib" and not be called on it should preferably not be a public figure. For a public figure to expect immunity from exposure of "fibs" is outrageous.

I would suggest that perhaps you need a break. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps i am not making myself clear to you Fred. Childishly quoting statements that I made back to me, putting words in peoples mouths, alluding to a conspiracy here, your obvious conflict of interest with regards to Covington and your all around odd behavior has convinced me that your words are not to be heeded seriously. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

4twenty42o that may be your feeling but fortunately others can also read what I have said and make their own conclusion. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

4twenty42o: That person with the IP 24.113.172.237 has reversed your edit, the one that says that law enforcement was never able to corroborate Covington's claim about Hinckley. This was an edit on which we all agreed after discussion here. You are going to fix that, right? Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I see that Off2riorob is also undoing your edit, 4twenty42o. I think he didn't read the discussion here, or the note that you put on your edit, where it was explained that his rendering ("would never corroborate") was a distortion of what was said in the source. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what is so biased about mentioning Covington's supposed fib in the article. He is not Julias Caesar, so obviously the things mentioned in this article will not be ground breaking events that changed the course of human history. I have yet to see anyone show that this is just an obscure little tidbit from his past. He claimed that John Hinckley, the man who shot Reagan, was in the Nation Socialist Party with him and that he remembers seeing him there. That is a very tall claim to make and whether it had proven to be true or false is irrelevant. Had this article been about Hinckley I'm sure that many would want to know whether he was in the organization or not. If we want to have a decent article on this man this will have to be mentioned.

4twenty42o and Off2riorob, Your Buddy Fred Lewis has been fair in the discussion here. I don't think it's fair for either of you to accuse him of being paranoid, biased, or having any ulterior motives and then not refuting the points he has made. He linked to the sources that he is basing his claims off of. Now I think it's time we discussed whether those sources are legitimate or not. I believe them to be. If no one can bring up some good points as to why they are not, then we should move on to discussing whether these findings warrant mentioning in the article.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is, this article is not about Hinckley. As for "those sources" - please be more specific as to which sources you mean, and then we can indeed discuss their legitimacy and what material from them is suitable for inclusion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to this, this, this, and this. I know that the article is not about Hinckley, however, given the fact that Harold claims that Hinckley was in the organization with him is noteworthy. Would you apply the same logic to Frank Collins? The article isn't about Frank Collins, yet it mentions the fact that he was arrested for lewd acts and it mentions the statement Covington gave to the press about it.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed those (first two links lead to identical text, by the way) and I don't see that they add anything significant to this article. Covington claimed the guy was a member, law enforcement found nothing to prove that to be the case. I suppose we could add in the suggestion (cited to one of those sources) that the claim may have been made for publicity purposes, but that's about it.

As for Collins, I would agree we don't need to cover Covington's claims about his arrest in the article. At present, Collins is not mentioned in the article at all, which is fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There was pretty good reason for concluding that Covington's and Allen's claim that Hinckley had been in the NSPA was false. For one thing, Allen and Covington wildly contradicted each other. Allen told reporters that Covington had recently assured him that he still had the letters from Hinckley, but when asked to show them, Covington said that he had destroyed them.

It's also an interesting fact that Covington volunteered the information to the Secret Service. The Feds didn't come to Covington asking about the connection, because they had no such lead: he went to them! http://archive.newsok.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=RE9LLzE5ODEvMDQvMDMjQXIwMDgwMA%3D%3D&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 -- Yesterday 4twenty42o and I agreed that "could never corroborate" was a reasonable wording. It's nice that you agree that "would never corroborate" is wrong, but "did not corroborate" is certainly much weaker than "could never corroborate" and it is not what was agreed here. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I've changed it back to the previous wording. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The section "National Socialist Party of America" was so gutted one week ago, that it no longer even says that Harold Covington became head of the NSPA, much less under what circumstances. Nor does it say what his alleged reasons for resigning were. This is absurd. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This Discussion Page has been Edited

I notice that my proposed outline of the section titled "National Socialist Party of America" -- which I posted in response to criticism -- has been removed from the discussion page. Is that normal practice at Wikipedia? Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I see that my proposed outline is still accessible in Archive 2. But I have to ask, why the rush to remove my outline from view? Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived in this edit. Rob, I can see the reasoning for keeping contentious and/or potentially WP:BLP-infringing material off this talkpage, but you might have been a bit too eager this time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to replace anything specific that is ongoing and focused on article development, I archived it because as imo it was closer to soapboxing on the talkpage than really of benefit to the article. Weakly cited tangentially associated content has not value on this talkpage - we had recent prior revert warring due to such postings and I don't want it to start up again. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained my reason for posting that outline here at the time. Off2RioRob had just suggested that I should try to justify my edits on the discussion page first. I took that suggestion as sincere! So, I wrote that outline, which consisted mostly of pre-existing content, although it included one section that I intended to add. The outline showed the chronological order of events, and also how it all fit together. MOST OF THE CONTENT in the outline was already in the article before the edit-warring between that person in Seattle and other users last week. Off2RioRob however, came along and eliminated everything unflattering to the subject, including much information that was included long before I got involved in this. Two other editors have stated agreement with me that Off2RioRob distorted the meaning of a source in a way favorable to the subject in his edit of the small amount of information that he left under the heading "National Socialist Party of America." My outline was a reminder of all the removed information. Demiurge1000 seems to agree that the elimination of my outline from Discussion after only a few days was extraordinary. POV and the intention to eliminate all information contradicting that POV is palpable here. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I do not agree "that Off2RioRob distorted the meaning of a source in a way favorable to the subject".
2. I do not agree that the archiving of your outline was "extraordinary".

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 -- I may have overstated your position in regard to Off2RioRob's "would never corroborate" but you did suggest an alternative wording, and you also changed the text when you found that Off2RioRob had reverted it to his version. I think it's a reasonable inference that you thought it was not quite right, that it did not accurately reflect what was in the source. I did not mean to suggest that you considered it a deliberate distortion.

Regarding Off2RioRob's archiving decision you said that he "might have been a bit too eager." Sorry if I took you the wrong way, but that looks like a very gentle way of saying that normally this wouldn't be done. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern Pov law

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/little-big-man

Do we really need this citation? What content are we really needing to use it for? It is or could easily be described as an activist attack group against this living person , so its hardly an NPOV source for details about him? Can we just remove it?

As far as I am concerned the link is just there as a reference to Covington returning at a certain point from Rhodesia. If there is no disagreement about when and why he returned then we really do not need the link. I tried to explain to Forky that if he wanted it gone, he just needed to discuss it. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's spend a week or so having a look around to see if we can find an alternative, more reliable source for these particular events. It's probably a good idea for this source to stay in the article in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw a couple of links to newspaper articles that mention Covington returning on Ian Smiths personal order on "xx" date. I do not recall where but no worries I will do a little research when I get a moment. - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC has an obvious agenda but so do newspapers. So does Fox News. It does not mean that they are falsifying information. They have to try to maintain credibility.

Covington himself has at times endorsed material sourced to the SPLC. These are Covington's own words, in regard to something called "A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement," which he endorses, as in his blog post of August 3, 2010:

"The lengthy article or small book A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement is divided into a number of parts or sections, each dealing with a particular movement, group, or individual personality in the Movement's past. These sections are basically "re-worked" and in some cases outright plagiarized from the written works of a large number of Movement authors and sources. These include the late Rick Cooper, Louis Beam, Bill White, Brad Davis, the late Andrew McCalden, Willis Carto, several SPLC reports.... [...]

"I can't take any major issue with the facts presented in the report. It is damning, and it is true, which is why periodically certain elements within the Movement re-discover it and go into a hissy fit over it, which is occurring as we speak. They cannot refute its contents." http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com/2010/08/brief-history-of-white-nationalist.html

So, it becomes apparent that Harold Covington or "Forky" has no objection to the SPLC as a source except when it is used as a source about him.

I also don't think that it is accurate to say that Benjamin Covington, whose statements constitute the body of the piece, is attacking his brother. He seems rather sad about the whole thing.

If you go back in the edit history of this article, or look into Archive 1, you will see that a certain user has been fighting with editors about the content and the sources of this article since 2006 when it was created. The fact that there is complaining does not necessarily mean that there is a problem, since there has been complaining all along. This is par for the course. It seems to me that only very recently have some editors taken the position that there should be an effort to appease the complaints. I agree with trying to post accurate and verifiable information, but not with trying to appease a complainer. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As regards the allegation about the date and circumstances of Harold Covington's discharge from the U.S. Army, if what his brother said in that interview was inaccurate, Harold Covington holds the key to proving it false, his DD214 -- his discharge papers. He can post the document online for all to see, and then the issue will be resolved.

Addressing the claim makes more sense than trying to suppress the source, especially when it is such a prominent source. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Attack page

I came this close to having the previous version of this article deleted as a plain attack page. It is absolutely shameful that grossly BLP-violating material was contributed to and tacitly tolerated by experienced editors. Skomorokh 15:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be overreaching in your stubbing, Skomorokh. In looking through the pre-stub version sources, I see:

• A book, on the topic of racial violence, published by a university press, which explicitly links Covington with the organization/movement in question. ✓ Pass

• An interview, with Covington's brother, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors the type of group that Covington is alleged to belong to. At the very least, this is a source for what Covington's brother claims to be true.

• A newspaper article, by the Associated Press that explicitly links Covington to the movement in question and supports him having made the allegations the article discusses. ✓ Pass
• Another newspaper article, again linking Covington to the organization in question and supporting the timing assertions the article made before your stubbing.✓ Pass
• An "anti- anti-semitism" website run by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, from which our article plagiarised a sentence.
• A link to a Wikipedia article, the content of which doesn't support this article's assertion.✗ Fail
• A Wayback Machine link which shows when the website in question was launched, but not that Covington launched it, as the article says.
• A citation to "The Politics of Identity, New York University Press 2001, p28. ISBN 0-8147-3124-4", which again appears to be a university-press-published scholarly work.✓ Pass
• A citation to "Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity, New York University Press 2001, p28. ISBN 0-8147-3124-4", a book which has its own WP article, and whose author (a subject-area expert with a D.Phil) has his own WP article.✓ Pass
• Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee from which the article plagiarised a sentence.
• Citations to a set of websites with which Covington is associated, used to draw a conclusion in the article which is not stated in those sites.✗ Fail
• A dead link✗ Fail
• A citation to a blogspot blog which, unless claimed by Covington somewhere else, we have no way of knowing if it belongs to him or his organization.✗ Fail

In short, there was extensive reliable sourcing in the article for Covington being associated with the organizations/movements in question, though not for every statement made anywhere in the article, and I disagree with your decision to blank the reliably-sourced information as well as the poorly-sourced information. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is an attack page, in deference to the Biographies of Living Persons policy, blanking it was probably a quick way to resolve problems. Although not all the content is likely to be problematic, policy says it is better to have less of an article that is not violating the BLP policy, than more of an article that is. I would say it might be a good idea to re-work the content in such a way that it passes BLP muster, rather than just adding it back as it was. -- Avanu (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. This article sat virtually unopposed in wording, by even Covington himself, for years containing the same information and references. Attack page, I say that is most amusing. - 4twenty42o (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because an attack sits unchallenged, it does not fail to make it an attack. I don't *know* if it was an attack, but I do know that at this point, it has been requested that the material be reviewed. Taking the position that 'it wasn't challenged sooner', is no defense. -- Avanu (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense..... There was no request of review. There was wholesale removal of sourced material and a thinly veiled accusation that several editors have been negligent in editing neutrally. In order for there to be an attack from within the article space shouldn't someone be pointing to the disparaging or threatening tone that the article has manifested instead of whatever this is becoming now? - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, Skomorokh didn't say that he was blanking while other people reviewed for BLP problems; he said that he HAD reviewed and found no reliable sources out of all the ones he removed. That's quite a claim, given that the sources he removed were the same ones I just reviewed above, of which quite a number are patently reliable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not make that claim, Fluffernutter, and consequently your admirable analysis of the sourcing above does not speak directly to the point. Whether a given publication could be construed as reliable if you squint hard enough at it is not the crux of the matter; it's whether the substance of the story told by the article is defensible on the stringent verifiability grounds of biographies of living persons. Fast-and-loose "published by a university press"/"has a PhD"/"is a newspaper article" criteria are not blanket categories of acceptability; our responsibility demands a more critical eye – the use of the respected but wildly ideological and agenda driven advocacy lobby SPLC (which to your credit you picked up on) is a classic instance of the thorough bias of the previous version. Some of the sources you pass above may be reliable, but IIRC none were both reliable and used to substantiate claims that could rest alone in a much-reduced article without effectively functioning as a coatrack – an ethically contextualised fair representation of the facts of the matter. Nomoskedasticity's edits to rebuild offer the best avenue for development, I think. Skomorokh 01:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as a coatrack to say that Covington is a member of [group] or [movement] when we have reliable sources that state that he's a member of that group/movement, when he is or has been a leader of [group], and when that is where his apparent notability comes from, but you removed information about that. Similarly, I don't see it as a coatrack to say that that Covington made [allegation X] about [famous person Y] if he received substantial press for it, as he did, as is cited to a reliable source, as it is, and as you removed.

You had valid reason to remove large amounts of what was in the article; I won't argue that, having now analysed the sources for myself. However, I continue to think that you removed far, far too much reliably-sourced information, simply because you appear to have removed anything that could possibly be interpreted as negative, rather than only things that were both negative and un- or poorly-sourced. As an oh-crap emergency action, your stubbing would have been a valid move, but that doesn't appear to have been what you were doing - you purposely removed nearly all of the content (and all the content that provided notability for the article subject) with the claim that none of it was, upon your analysis, salvageable. I find that problematic, and I very much wish you would have gone at it with a scalpel instead of an unnecessary axe. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he simply said he would have deleted the article, and "grossly BLP-violating material was contributed". Unless there was more said elsewhere? I take his actions as a challenge to the material removed, and given the care we are supposed to exercise toward BLP-related matters, a request for it to be carefully reviewed before it is added again, if at all. Also, something can come from a reliable source, but still be considered an attack under the BLP policy. So, there is a higher standard there. -- Avanu (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary of his stubbing said "Attempted to sort out verifiable content from this screed of partisan abuse, but could not see anything salvagable. stubbed as an attack page, do not restore any claims without rigourous BLP-respectful nonbiased sources." That set of statements appears to claim that none of the sources then in the article were non-biased or usable, as he would have left them behind if they were. I strongly disagree with that claim. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You're tilting at windmills here, please see above. Skomorokh 01:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fluffemutter says: "I continue to think that you removed far, far too much reliably-sourced information, simply because you appear to have removed anything that could possibly be interpreted as negative...."

I agree completely, and I would say that this is a recurring pattern here. Is it ipso facto an attack-piece and biased just because it contains some or even a large amount of unflattering information? I think not, but that seems to be the position of those who have been gutting the article for the past ten days. There are many living people whose biographies would be very empty if all the unflattering content were removed.

With all that content removed, it ends up being little more than an advertisement for Harold Covington's novels.

Let's keep the information that is supported by credible sources, and I certainly include Associated Press reports in that. The suggestion that they are not credible because they can contain errors seems quite extreme to me. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The credibility of the sources was not the primary issue mentioned by Skomorokh. It was the potential violation of BLP policy. Let's try to stay on target. -- Avanu (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu: I think you are wrong. Sourcing is the crucial point. An "attack page" as I gather is a piece that is "unsourced and negative." The deleted material was largely based on good sources. Negative material per se is clearly not prohibited by BLP guidelines.

Fluffernutter's response to the "attack page" label, an examination of the sources of the deleted material, was exactly appropriate. He showed that the "attack page" label was wrong. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing is of course an essential part of any article, but for this situation, the primary complaint was that it was perceived as an attack page. From WP:ATTACK: "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject."

From WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

So it isn't just about whether someone finds a source, or even a reliable source, or even a high quality source, but it is also about writing the article in such a way that we reflect a neutral tone, and if there is nothing other than attacks to say about a person, we just don't say much.

"If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person."

-- Avanu (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu -- Your view of what constitutes an attack page is untenable. If any article containing a preponderance of negative material is to be construed as an attack page then there can be no biographies of still-living serial killers, for example.

"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject." <--This is really a question of the author's intention. How can you judge that? You have to look at whether the wording is neutral and whether negative claims are well supported by sources. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Fred Lewis) Avanu, tt sounds like you're arguing from the premise that the article was an attack page simply because it contained unflattering material. This is false. An attack page is, as you say, a non-neutral page that exists primarily to disparage. An attack page is most emphatically not something like "so-and-so is a white supremacist [cite to reliable source] who was a leader of a white supremacist organization [cite to reliable source]", which is what large parts of what Skomorokh removed looked like.

We do not adhere to the premise of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," even for BLPs, because even LPs can be notable for unflattering parts of their character. We wouldn't stub Dragomir Milošević down to nothing, for example, just because his notability is due to having committed war crimes. Instead, we source that information and write an encyclopedic, comprehensive article about him. Certainly Milošević, if he read his article, would probably dispute that he's any such thing, and would very much want our article to say only that he is, say, a retired commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. Unfortunately, he is notable for something besides that, and so we write about what he is notable for. This is BLP: we write what is notable and verifiable, whether that information is positive or negative, and we write it in a neutral, cited manner. BLP does not call for blanking factual, cited content unless it is undue weight to something not truly relevant to the article. If the argument is that writing about Covington's identity as a (past?) supporter of white supremacist organizations is undue weight in an article about Covington (perhaps he is more notable for his skill with watercolors? for his philanthropy? for anything other than his political actions?), that's a whole different animal than "this is an attack page and nothing here is unbiased", and we can discuss what weight such things can have - but that doesn't appear to be what Skomorokh is arguing, and it doesn't appear to be what you're suggesting. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three points:

"BLP does not call for blanking factual, cited content unless it is undue weight to something not truly relevant to the article" – Fluffernutter.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." – Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

I'd stub Barack Obama in a heartbeat if it had the half-assed foundation this had.

It would be a much better reflection on us as encyclopaedians if we expended our efforts into building a responsible, neutral, impeccably-sourced biography of Covington instead of arguing the past here. Skomorokh 16:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Skomorokh I see a disconnect between your actions and the justifications that you give. It has already been demonstrated that a good bit of what you deleted was well sourced. I think you should put it back. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Skomorokh, you have yet to explain to us how the sections you removed were not written from a neutral point of view or were attacking the subject. You can't just say "They were" and then leave it at that. You have to provide evidence for your actions. We've already discussed which sources were reliable and which weren't, and the ones that weren't had been removed before you even touched the article. Now all that is left is to decide what warrants being in the article and what doesn't, a topic you seem to have an aversion to discussing.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

I found this article last night and saw the issues with it on this talk page, so I thought I would try to provide a review from a disinterested third party. I was surprised to wake up this morning to find the article text, which I faithfully checked for sourcing, was reverted. I retained only the text supported by what appear to be reliable sources (checked personally and based on the analyses above). I cannot believe that every single source included was controversial. Reverting was not called for; if there was a problem with any of the sources individually they should have been removed and discussed here. Cmprince (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see it wholesale-removed, given the care you obviously put into making sure that only sourced, neutrally-phrased information was replaced. I would reiterate to Skomorokh that our BLP policy does not say that anything negative must be removed; it says that negative, poorly-sourced or non-neutral information must be removed, and attention paid to making sure that neutral, sourced information isn't coatracky. If Skomorokh's claim is that detailing the political career of Covington is a coatrack, we need to discuss that issue rather than calling sourced, neutral information "a gross BLP violation" and implying that sources like the AP are unacceptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks and there has been no discussion, so I will re-add my edits. They will be done one section at a time, and a final edit will resection it. If anyone feels the need to challenge the edits, I would appreciate it if only the pertinent edit(s) are reverted and an explanation is given. Thanks. Cmprince (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You can probably combine this whole article into one paragraph. There is really no need for it to be split into separate sections. Also, you can count on any accurate information being removed by Harold and the article locked by Wikipedia staff.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Aryan homeland" or "Northwest American Republic"?

"Aryan homeland" should be replaced with Northwest American Republic as that is the official name and is more descriptive. source: http://northwestfront.org/about/nar-constitution/

I would correct it but this page is locked due to vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.109.131 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This needs to be changed. Why is this article locked?108.17.106.18 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is locked because last summer an individual using the name "Your Buddy Fred Lewis" went on a rampage of vandalism of the article and insisted on repeatedly including false and defamatory material, poorly sourced, using cites that even some of the other Wikipedia editors described as "attack pages." The identity of two individuals who participated in the vandalism is known to me. They are left-wing extremists and self-described "anti-Fascists" who are operating on an ideological agenda and who are motivated by personal hatred. - Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

These guys cyberstalking you at the wiki (besides so many other sites in the blogosphere)? Wow. I wish Wikipedia asked contributors to write under their real names to avoid this kind of mess... 189.136.164.58 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Describing it as the NAR makes sense, but it would also need to specify that it is a whites-only homeland (that being what differentiates the idea from so many other secessionist concepts). Michaelmas1957 23:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed it. Michaelmas1957 23:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Update – it's been reverted again. Apparently I can't use the Northwest Front website as a source, because it's affiliated with the subject. Michaelmas1957 06:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should stick with what is in the secondary source and not worry about the complaints of IPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Harold Covington is not Notable

I proposed "speedy deletion", as this person is not a notable figure within the white supremacy scene and it was objected to; so I proposed "deletion" on the same grounds, which I have been told I could not do. Although there has been an edit war over this article lasting years, it is a war between the subject of the article, Harold Covington, and various rivals of his in the white supremacy scene. However, neither Mr. Covington nor any of the other persons who have edited the article (including me) are notable persons. The fact that a handful of persons have shown interest in editing the article does not mean the subject is notable. Harold Covington is not a real published author of note. His books are all self-published vanity books that he sells over the internet. The fact that Mr. Covington unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination for a minor State political office (NC Attorney General) certainly does not make him a notable politician. The fact that he may or may not have been a lower enlisted person in the Rhodesian army is certainly not something of note. The fact that he maintains a number of Blogspot blogs and Yahoo! groups, with a small readership, where he espouses white supremacy, certainly does not make him notable. His "Northwest Front" is nothing more than a website and a PO Box. It is not a significant notable organization within the white supremacy scene. In fact, he has never been the head of a major white supremacy organization. As the article points out, he acted as an imposter claiming on the internet to be the head of a Nazi party, which was in fact actually headed by someone else. This does not make him a notable person. Although he has been occasionally mentioned on the websites and in the publications of some anti-racist organizations, which discuss the subject of white supremacy in great detail, he is not listed as a top figure in white supremacy by these anti-racist organizations.Wasp14 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity: Trying a PROD after a speedy isn't actually disallowed - I misread the history and told Wasp the wrong thing based on what I thought I'd seen. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I have to concur that some fat nerd internet pseudo-celebrity does NOT meet wikipedia's notability standards. 96.251.58.94 (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page, "This page was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Excess Detail

The site northwestfront.org which is supportive of Mr. Covington's ideas is cited in the article in section 1. To place additional multiple external links to various pages of that site and to youtube videos supposedly of Harold Covington is redundant and excessive detail. Also removed section 2 Internet presence as it is redundant. Section 1 already established that Covington is a neo-Nazi who created a website called the NSWPP around 1996. Also rm a list of external links to various promotional book excerpts, reviews & interviews on "Occidental" pages, which are all connected to the "Occidental" white supremacy group, which is one of the white supremacy groups Covington is involved in. All these external links are not proper weight and balance and violate WP:NPOV , WP:NOT and WP:COI .Wasp14 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is what has been removed (I leave to other editors if the removals are really OK with the policies):

Reviews:

• "What to read?" by Tomislav Sunic at The Occidental Observer
• "The Northwest Novels of H. A. Covington" by Michael O'Meara at Counter-Currents Publishing
• "The Birth of a Nation, a review of the NW novels" by Greg Johnson at The Occidental Quarterly

Interviews:

• "Interview with Harold Covington" by Greg Johnson at The Occidental Quarterly"

—Cesar Tort 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

These links are all to pages that are part of a network of sites connected to "the Occidental Press" white supremacy group, which is allied with Covington. Covington cross links to these interviews and reviews by his white supremacist associates on his own sites. Michael O’Meara sits on the Print Edition Editorial Advisory Board of "The Occidental Quarterly" , on whose site you have cited 2 pieces by Greg Johnson. And Greg Johnson is also the Editor-in-Chief of "Counter-Currents Publishing" , on whose site you have cited a piece by Michael O'Meara, who's also listed on that site under the heading "Our Authors" as one of the authors of Counter-Currents Publishing. Tomislav Sunic is also listed on that site under the heading "Contemporary Authors" as one of the authors promoted by Counter-Currents Publishing. And you have cited a piece by Tomislav Sunic on "The Occidental Observer" , which is a sister site of The Occidental Quarterly, and has a link on it's front page for subscribing to The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ). Tom Sunic, Michael O’Meara and Greg Johnson are also all listed as authors of The Occidental Observer on the front page of that site under the heading "Author Archives". And here these exact same pages are linked back to on Covington's own site. "Various reviews of the Northwest Quartet." , "Interviews"

So you are not citing multiple independent sources giving interviews and reviews of Covington. You are just making a bunch of links to various pages by members of a single white supremacy group that Covington is involved with. In other words, these are not interviews and reviews being conducted by genuine publishers or periodicals. This is just a handful of white supremacists connected to Covington that are self publishing a few of their own white supremacist books and booklets on the internet. Wasp14 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit of some sort to the article? It's hard to tell. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Wasp14 is describing or justifying edits that he already made, e.g. these edits. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed still another secondary link, and placed instead Harold Covington's main website. I won't further discuss the other removals. Suffice it to say that book reviews from notable people like Tom Sunic ought to have a place in the External links section. Again, I leave this to other editors to discuss. --Cesar Tort 14:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that Cesar Tort may be an IP and his edits may be a WP:COI He is deeply involved in both the "Northwest Front" and "Occidental" white supremacy groups that Covington is involved in. In other words, he's a follower of Covington. "http://caesartort.blogspot.com/" This is why he wants to include all these links to pages of "Northwest" and "Occidental" sites that praise Covington.Wasp14 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Utopian vs Dystopian

Is a future, where an interplanetary neo-Nazi 4th Reich is the superpower, best described as "utopian" or "dystopian"? This is an apocalyptic future, where the present global civilization has been ruined, a 2nd Holocaust has occurred and Israel has been destroyed, and the US and Canada have been destroyed and become a group of warring states. Although the author and his followers may consider that scenario to be "utopian", the rest of the public would consider it "dystopian". The characterization of something as either "utopian" or "dystopian" is a POV, so should neither term be used? Wasp14 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say dystopian but if it's unsourced then I guess we shouldn't use either term. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Underuse of a source

Codename Greenkil: The 1979 Greensboro Killings By Elizabeth Wheaton, a University of Georgia Press book,[2] has a lot more to say about him. (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another major source used in this article is an anonymous google blog titled "Thoughtcrime". The header of the blog just has a quote from the novel 1984 under the title. The blog's owner is an anonymous profile named "The Old Man", which uses a pic of a Squidbilly cartoon character as it's profile pic. No where on the blog's title page, or on the owner's profile, does it claim to be owned by Harold A. Covington. "The Old Man" posts articles that he attributes to various authors, including many he attributes to Covington. A book about American constitutions has been cited by Dougweller as verifying that the Thoughtcrime blog belongs to Covington. However, the cites from the book are citing postings on the Thoughtcrime blog posted by "The Old Man", which "The Old Man" attributes to Covington discussing his proposed white supremacist constitution. They are not posts by anyone using the name Harold Covington. Nor are these references from the book stating that the "Thoughtcrime" blog is owned by Covington. In other words, the book is just referencing something posted to the blog by "The Old Man", that "The Old Man" says Covington wrote. Everything on this blog is actually posted by this anonymous profile "The Old Man", but he signs various peoples' names to the bottom of his posts, including Covington's name, as if there is some discussion going on between Covington and various people. But none of the posts are actually by anyone other than "The Old Man". By "signs" peoples' names, I mean he just types these supposed peoples' names in plain text at the bottom of the body of the posts he makes. They are not actually signed by another email or profile. The author of the book on constitutions may not have a policy on biographies of living persons, but Wikipedia does. Harold Covington is a living person and there is no proof that he is posting anything on this blog, let alone that he own's it. It should be removed as a reference. http://downwithjugears.blogspot.co.uk/2006_02_01_archive.html Wasp14 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Old Man" is a major character in Covington's novels, and without giving out too much in the way of spoilers, generally refers to himself in the fictional (and perhaps one day real) future of the books.

As to whether Mr. Covington is the author of the ThoughCrime blog, what evidence do you have to suggest that he isn't? Haresandhounds (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Book List

I corrected the list of Covington's books, according to the cites that have been given, removing some books not actually cited, and adding some books that were omitted. If the books I removed should be included, please add correct citation. Also the 5th supposed Northwest book, making the series a "quintet", is not cited, only the first 4 books listed are.Wasp14 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Archived

How come the rest of the talk page was archived? 108.38.29.47 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

To make navigation and page load time easier. It can be difficult to wade through a wall of text. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NSWPP

I edited the section on the NSWPP, removing a useless "NSWPP" wikipedia link, which actually just redirects you back to this very page. Also removed a cite to a wayback machine archived site, that used the name "NSWPP". There are more than one sites that have used the name "NSWPP", and there is no proof this particular one that no longer exists was owned by Covington. The cites given in this section of the article do not give a URL for an official Covington NSWPP site. They just say he was on the Internet. Also, I removed all the stuff about a feud between Covington and Matt Koehl, which there is actually no mention of in the cites given. This is a really bad article, with a lot of the info not matching up to the supposed citations given.Wasp14 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This article repeatedly calls his politics and the groups he associated wit "far-right", which is ridiculous. They are neo-Nazi, socialist groups. You might not wish to call them left-wing (due to common modern misunderstanding of that term), but they are certainly not right-wing.

The original Nazis were considered socialist by all their contemporaries, by proponents and members of the Party and by opponents. Their policies were socialist and (if you are using the original definition of "right-wing" rather than the modern usage) they opposed aristocracy. Neo-Nazis take their inspiration from the Nazis, obviously. Modern neo-Nazi groups, including those mentioned, do not have policies that would be considered right-wing in any way. You could argue that most have a common political philosophy too narrow to be considered socialism and little more than racist nationalism, but there is certainly no connection with anything generally considered right-wing. Those members of groups like Combat 18 with political background elsewhere tend to be associated with socialist groups such as the BNP.

The term "right-wing" is used here in the context democratic socialists and communists popularised in the decades after the Second World War, and often now used as a catch-all term for "evil" or "racist". However this is a deeply partisan as well as inaccurate usage, not fitting for a site that purports to be politically neutral. I know that Wikipedia is biased to the left in its editorial policy, but this is a particularly egregious example.

Overall because I don't see his much in his views that is socialist either I think all references to "right-wing" should be replaced by "neo-Nazi", "white supremacist" or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.157.140 (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I would do it if I could, but the page is semi-protected. Read the NAR draft constitution - http://northwestfront.org/about/nar-constitution/ - can you tell me after reading it that it isn't socialist in nature? 108.38.29.47 (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Any left/right spectrum of worldviews is by definition limited and one dimensional. Our own article on neo-Nazism describes it as right-wing, though. So does the source in the article (the link was dead but I just added an archive link). Since we use reliables sources rather than original research, the description should stay as-is. VQuakr (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "reliable sources" have an agenda to describe such views as "Far right". That does not comply with Wikipedia's own WP:NPOV rules. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Then complain at WP:NPOV, not here. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harold Covington. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/US_Senate/Howard_Berkowitz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

White Supremacist?

I would characterize Harold Covington as a racial separatist, not a "white supremacist". His message is more about preservation of whites as a distinct people, not them possessing "superiority".108.38.29.47 (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The odd thing is that despite all the content about him being a neo-Nazi that wasn't in the lead. So I've replaced "white supremacist" with neo-Nazi. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"neo-Nazi" is somewhat of a biased descriptor. National Socialist is better. Discussion? 108.38.29.47 (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No because we use what the sources say, we don't interpret them, as well as a long term consensus that we use Nazi, not National Socialisr. Doug Weller talk 04:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What do the rules say about pulling quotes that contain weasel words?

Thanks for asking. WP:WEASEL says "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view." Doug Weller talk 13:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dylann Roof

The sentence indicating that Roof was influenced by Covington needs a source. What I remember from the manifesto is that he was critical of Covington's Northwest Front objectives. I will give 2 weeks for someone to provide a reference that Roof was "influenced" by Covington. After that I am correcting the record (with cites). Ramhorbronc (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ramhorbronc has been permanently blocked for sock puppetry and block evasion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 blocked for recurring sockpuppetry

This article is semi-protected based on the then fact that the subject was a living person. According to the article, this person is deceased. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) No, the page was not protected due to WP:BLP concerns, it was semi-protected due to sockpuppetry. This prevents unregistered and recently registered users from directly editing the article. It looks like much of the problem was the typical white supremacist whitewashing: attempts to remove well-sourced labels in favor of the subject's preferred labels, burying Holocaust denial, attempts to remove ADL as a source, etc. You are free to suggest changes. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC) In that case, perhaps the semi-protected tag should be modified to reflect the reasons you have stated above, because currently it is based upon WP:BLP. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Furthermore, the request to the Wikimedia OTRS Team specifically cites violation of WP:BLM, not WP:Sockpuppet. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC) The talk page was protected May 20, 2013 because of "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Outing and vandalism."[3] The article was protected July 20, 2011 because of "Persistent sock puppetry."[4] Someone who was or claimed to be the subject was blocked and filed the OTRS. They also socked a whole lot, tried to out various editors and made repeated legal threats after being repeatedly blocked for same. A couple of other editors dug up some pretty ugly dirt on Covington's legal and mental health history as well. I don't know what the OTRS was, but the person claiming to be the subject wasn't happy about some of the content and wanted the article deleted. That's not how it works. If you are a notable public figure -- especially of your own making -- what comes out about you comes out about you. The press covers it. Wikipedia covers the coverage. At that point, whether you are a "white supremacist", a "white nationalist", a "neo-Nazi", a "racial realist", a "racialist" or just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill "racist bigot" is probably the least of your concerns. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC) In any case, WP:BLP still applies - it can apply up to about 2 years after the subject dies. If I can sort out the OTRS issue I will. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Thank you. WP:BLP being the cited semi-protection tag is my main issue. I know that the article subject (isn't that a terrible way to describe a deceased person, no matter what you might think of his work) is controversial. That in itself warrants some article protection. The terminology should be accurate. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC) The article was semi-protected due to sock puppetry, not BLP. The talk page was semi-protected but obviously isn't anymore. I'm inclined to unprotect the article and am discussing that with someone who can see the ticket. I should be able to but can't. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)