Template talk:White nationalism

This template was considered for deletion on 2016 February 4. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Björn Söder is not a white nationalist and should be removed from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.151.91 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really necessary to make the new template this big and imposing (and the Celtic cross twice as big)? Even "Far right in the United Kingdom" is not that big. I'm just questioning the aesthetics and ease of navigation is all. 18.244.7.149 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes it was necessary to expand this box. white nationalism is present on a worldwide scale (in most white majority countries worldwide) and is a much bigger topic than just the 'far right in the uk,' so of course the infobox is bigger. white nationalism is a vast and complex subject ranging from far rightist nazism/fascism to leftish pro-white neopaganism, and so i wanted to include the whole range of white nationalist thought, from the far-right to the far-left. many white nationalists are in fact what could be considered leftist or liberal, at least in some respects; to pigeonhole all white nationalists as far rightist neo-nazi types is incorrect. also, ease of navigation is better with the expanded box and it is much more organized and extensive now. i went ahead and removed the celtic cross symbol because it is not a representative symbol of the overall white nationalist movement as they, not having a centralized organization or set of doctrinal beliefs, have no overall symbol which is accepted by all white nationalists worldwide. Caucasoid (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't meant for every topic under the sun which may interest a white nationalist group somewhere on the planet; it is meant for topics which are commonly associated with white nationalism. Your additions to the template first of all blow it out of all proportions (it is supposed to be inserted as a footer in some articles - not to be the size of a whole article and second include topics which are not commonly associated with white nationalism (such as demographics by country).--Ramdrake (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all of the articles and issues i added to the template are important in current and past white nationalist thought as far as i have studied it. you and other users have reversed major improvements to this template, and i reject that. i also personally doubt your npov stance on this issue because it states on your userpage that you believe all human races to be mere 'social constructs' when modern and highly advanced genetic science, biology and anthropology clearly states otherwise.

nevertheless, the template was vastly improved and i am reverting it back to my better version. you all changed it back to the very bad, simplistic and outdated template. wikipedia is about expanding and improving, is it not? so why do you all insist on keeping the mediocre and biased version? it seems that you all are trying to equate all white nationalism with nazism and other unsavory racist movements, when many modern white nationalists are in fact anti-nazi, anti-facist, pro-jewish and so on. by keeping the sparse and dumbed down version you all seem to seek to reduce white nationalism down in to a simplistic, cartoonish and villainous type of movement or ideology when it is very much the opposite: it is very complex, wide ranging, increasingly intellectual, vast and growing. and my improved box reflects this.

the actual size of the template is no matter because anyone can hit the 'hide' button on the right side at any time and revert it to an insignificant one lined box whenever you wish. another bad excuse.

i have studied the white nationalist movement for many years and it is not all nazism and fascism. how much do you actually know about the movement? have you spent countless hours and many years researching it with books and websites (both pro and anti) as i have, and even interviewed some white nationalists? that is doubtful. this is shown that you dispute the inclusion of demographics by country under anti-immigration sentiment. anti-immigration sentiment is perhaps the main uniting force or doctrine among white nationalists worldwide now because many white nationalists believe that whites are slowly being 'race replaced' by non-white immigrants in white majority countries like the usa, france, the uk, and so on. this has become the main uniting issue of worldwide white nationalism: keeping non white immigrants out of their white countries so that the demographics will never be able to tip past 50% non white. so you prove your major ignorance on the topic of white nationalism by not realizing the importance of including this vital information in the template on the white nationalist movement.

white nationalism is a very misunderstood movement, and this template attempts to explain and fill in the large gaps and misunderstandings to the extent i could. it is not perfect i fully admit, but it is surely better than the old previous version you and other seemingly biased or personal pov focused editors are trying to keep despite my major improvements. there is still much i could add, and want to add.

by reverting to the worse less comprehensive version you also reincluded the 'celtic cross' symbol which is not representative of white nationalism as a whole, which is another major flaw in your reverted version. also, you did not even take time to alphabetize any of the names or clean it up at all. thus on the whole the old version is very mediocre compared to the new version which i built. so i am changing it back. please discuss. i am often short on time but i will eventually respond and discuss these issues if you leave messages here. thank you.

Caucasoid (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an improvement. It's too big, too long, and more of a hindrance to navigation than a help. Maybe a bibliographic essay or something would be a better format than a nav template. No opinion on the image. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ramdrake and Tom Harrison. The template is supposed to deal with the major topics, not anything that might interest a "White nationalist". In addition, giant disclaimers don't belong at the top of templates. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article included in this template? There is nothing about paleoconservatism, as far as I can tell, that explicitly promotes white power, supremacy, or nationalism.

Many white nationalists, including the staff of The Political Cesspool, self-identify as paleoconservatives. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. While some nuts might self identify as paleoconservative white nationalism has nothing to do with paleoconservatism. --Southronite (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please change {{pp-protected|expiry=August 20, 2011}} to <noinclude>{{pp-protected|expiry=August 20, 2011}}</noinclude>. It created this. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please put the closing noinclude tag adjacent to the beginning of the navbox meta-template to avoid leaking excess white-space into articles. ―cobaltcigs 23:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add like this diff to the template - to allow the possibility for state=collapsed. - to give less weight to the template in smaller articles. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove Fjordman from this template. No reliable sources establish that Fjordman is a "white nationalist". – Bellatores (t.) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NNot done. Potentially controversial edits need consensus first. I note that the article Fjordman contains a referenced assertion that "Fjordman believes that the Western governments promoting the influx of nonwhite immigrants are responsible for "White Masochism", and states that white people should be given the right to maintain an ethnically pure Europe", which would seem to match the tenets of "white nationalism".  Sandstein  06:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Fjordman should be removed. 2 reasons:

1) Sandstein's rationale is pure original research. It's not based on any 3rd party reliable source.

2) Without proper sources, it's a WP:BLP violation to label (libel) Peder Jensen as a "white nationalist" when he clearly considers it a smear. see here: [1]

Save the list for avowed white nationalists. Edgespath24 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a BLP? Do we know if there is a real person (one real person, not a group) behind the blog? Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Fjordman per WP:BLP. However abject the man's views may be, we need good reliable sources and clear consensus to achieve such a contentious label to a living person. Ucucha (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the four hyphens in the last line ("Arab nationalism - Black nationalism - Chicano nationalism - Chinese nationalism - Indian nationalism") with en dashes (or em dashes, if preferred). Thanks. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add William Daniel Johnson to the list of individuals; he's the current chairman of the American Third Position. Difluoroethene (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is no longer protected. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mistake in the page. As far as I know, white nationalists (WNs) don't "oppose" Black nationalism. On the contrary: both are secessionists and believe both blacks and whites must have a piece of the pie in the NorthAm territory once the US collapses (WNs do oppose though the other items in the list: Anti-racism · Anti-Racist Action · Anti-Defamation League · Southern Poverty Law Center · Searchlight--but not that much the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee). 189.136.163.234 (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Westboro Baptist Church, as they are not white nationalists. Anyone who wants to reinstate it should provide evidence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.70.6 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the reference to this organization in the template.

ADC, to my knowledge, has never engaged with this topic. There is no reference to white nationalism or opposition to it on the wiki entry or anywhere on their website.

24.17.231.228 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the assimilation of Armenians relevant to the subject of white nationalism? Some IP put in a red link, I reverted it, and then here Shalom11111 reverted. But really, I don't think that White Genocide can plausibly be said to belong in this template.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this error. What happened is I saw that you removed the article "White Genocide (theory)" from this template, saying the article does not exist, so when I found it I simply added it back, not knowing it's not directly related to white nationalism. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanSmithee1990: This is your third revert on the page, among the many reverts you've made on the related article. Nobody is fulfilling your wish of going away. Self-revert, or expect this to be taken onto a noticeboard. Tsumikiria (T/C) 17:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both: obviously relevant. --K.e.coffman (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both and Alan is gone now, afaik, so this discussion is moot.--Jorm (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]