Talk:Identitarian movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Identitarian movement, Donald Trump, and neutral POV

This article is currently phrased to say "The United States has seen a significant increase in people and organizations affiliated with white identity movements after the campaign and election of Donald Trump". There are two sources cited: https://newrepublic.com/article/138230/rise-white-identity-politics https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/03/how-political-science-helps-explain-the-rise-of-trump-the-role-of-white-identity-and-grievances/ Neither of these sources say anything at all about the identitarian movement or any white identity groups. Both sources say that the strength of one's white identity correlated positively with their likelihood to vote for Donald Trump. That is a completely different claim than the claim that "The United States has seen a significant increase in people and organizations affiliated with white identity movements after the campaign and election of Donald Trump". When I attempted to edit the article to reflect the fact that the sources did not back up the statements on the Wiki article, two clearly biased users, Ian.thomson and JzG both circled the wagons and reverted the edits, claiming that the statements were "well sourced" despite the fact that neither source comes close to substantiating this claim. This is clearly PoV editing. Moreover, JzG then protected the page to prevent the page from reflecting a more accurate and objective posture. JzG's user page indicated that he is a "rogue admin". I don't think this is a good look for Wikipedia. The page should be updated to a more neutral claim regarding Trump, such as simply noting that people with a strong white identity were likely to vote for him. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging user:JzG and user:Ian.thomson Meters (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, OP's inability to assume good faith leaves little hope for reasonable discussion, especially considering that they were dead set on removing information with undeniably reliable sources instead of adjusting the text to better fit the sources.

If anything, the phrasing as is is pulling the punches. Those sources could be summarized as "the rise of white identity movements in America contributed to the success of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian, the issue is not the reliability of the sources. The issue is that the claims in the article are not an accurate reflection of the claims in the article. You cannot make the claim that "the rise of white identity movements in America contributed to the success of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign", because one could have a strong white identity without being a member of any "white identity movement". The only accurate claim that you can make based on those sources is that the strength of one's white identity correlated with support for Trump. You are projecting by accusing me of assuming a lack of good faith. Any objective observer could plainly see that what you want the article to say is not supported by your sources. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. The sources outright state "The age of Trump largely exists because of a resurgent white racial identity" and that "both white racial identity and beliefs that whites are treated unfairly are powerful predictors of support for Donald Trump in the Republican primaries." This is not "the more truly white you are, the more likely you were to vote for Trump," but rather "people who hold white identity beliefs [i.e. identitarianism] voted for Trump." In your first and subsequent posts on this talk page, you misrepresent a joke on JzG's page as some sort of proof of sinister motives on his part -- if that's not a failure to assume good faith, nothing is. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Again Ian, I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources. This is a disturbing exchange because you're making clear that your logical reasoning skills are extremely weak. The conclusions that you are drawing do not logically follow from what the articles say. One can have a strong white identity without being an identitarian. Those are two completely discrete things that you are conflating for ideological reasons. You might not like me saying that but it's blatantly correct. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Try to think about it another way. Would you accuse people with a strong black identity of being affiliate with the Black Panthers or other black identity groups? I don't think you would. Try to reflect on that fact. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the sources in a way that demonstrate what your bias is on this matter. You may not be able to recognize it, but everyone else does. The sources aren't about people who simply identify as white, or even strongly identify as white, but specifically subscribe to "white identity" politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm misinterpreting the sources? You're the one who insists that even though both articles don't say anything about white identity extremist groups, that's what the articles are actually about if you read between the lines. If you have to read between the lines, you're pushing a POV. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Point of information: I am a WP:ROUGE admin. Ironic, really, the first time a POV-pusher mis-spelled rouge as rogue rather than the other way round. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you think your hijacking of Wikipedia to promote your PoV is such a hilarious topic. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You would have fit in well in the Khmer Rouge, that's for sure. 2600:1012:B165:2CA2:8C48:22C7:3238:B741 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments like that are why people aren't going to listen to you. If you keep making them, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, please assume good faith and please do not bite the newcomers. It's unhelpful to refer to editors as "POV-pushers". Anon, please also assume good faith with regards to Ian.thomson and JzG's edits to this page (also, "rouge admin" is actually just a tiresome Wikipedia inside joke). I believe everyone here is trying their best. FenceSitter (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree we should probably delete that sentence. The focus of this article should be the Identitarian Movement, not "white identity movements" in general. FenceSitter (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's trivially easy to find sources which link identitarianism to Trump. Instead of repeating a Google news search, here is something else:

• Uyehara, Mari (8 May 2018). "How Free Speech Warriors Mainstreamed White Supremacists". GQ. Retrieved 22 May 2018.

While this source discusses identitarianism in some depth, it only uses the precise term a couple of times. This is a distraction, because many, many additional sources make this link crystal clear. The source quotes Christian Picciolini as explaining that "Identitarian" is part of a lengthy collection of vague euphemisms for white supremacy. Again, he's far from the only one saying this. Within the USA at least, the connection between Identitarians, Trump supporters, and white nationalists is intense and undeniable. Whatever terminology is used and whatever sources are used, downplaying these connections would be whitewashing. Explaining the connection to Trump is difficult, but ignoring it would be a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, so if "identitarian" really is merely a euphemism for "white supremacy", why do we even have this article? Shouldn't it then be merged with white supremacy?

What I recommend instead is that the topic of this article be the European movement and not the American groups (which are different in a number of ways). It would keep a clear focus for the article. FenceSitter (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not sure how I feel about merging this article, euphemisms can be encyclopedically significant in their own right. As long as the article explains that this term is widely regarded by experts as a sanitized form of white supremacy, there is no conflict about why the article exists. We can explain what the term ostensibly means, who uses it, and why they use it instead of other terms... that's actually the entire point of most articles, isn't it?

Sources do not support eliminating non-European coverage. The European Identitarians don't have a monopoly on the term, as much as they might wish otherwise. Far-right North Americans have also embraced the label for whatever reason. Since sources document this, the article should also, because otherwise the article would be conspicuously incomplete. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, re-title the article "European Identitarian movement" or somesuch. Are you seriously suggesting an article about a euphemism is more valuable than an article about a movement?

My own preference would be to keep the title as is, and add one of those This article is about the European movement. For other uses of "identitarian", see white nationalism things. FenceSitter (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that articles should be supported by sources, not by personal preference. Sources say this movement is a form of white supremacy, and therefore the name is euphemistic. A well-written article will reflect that. You do not get to decide that the European movement is the "real" movement. Sources discuss both European and North American "Identitarians". Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources actually make it clear that the European movement is the original movement, and the American groups, while influenced by the European movement, have significant differences. From the WIRED article:

Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa's founder, calls himself an identitarian, but his organization also has clear roots in the Ku Klux Klan

From the SPLC:

“I don’t see much of a future for the Identitarian movement in the U.S.,” said Cas Mudde, a Dutch scholar and long-time analyst of the European radical right who now teaches at the University of Georgia. The American radical right is built entirely around the idea of race, whereas the European version increasingly emphasizes local ethnic and cultural identities within a European framework — what one nationalist from the French region of Brittany calls the “Europe of 100 flags.”

Still, U.S. efforts are multiplying. At least four American groups are pushing versions of Identitarianism, often parroting the words and the flashy, youth-oriented style of the Europeans.

and, regarding a claimed American chapter:

But it was forced to change its name when Generation Identitaire insisted that the situation in America was different and therefore it would not recognize the group as a U.S. chapter.

Many other sources refer to the IM as "European". This should all be reflected in the article. In particular, if the basis of the "white supremacism" of the IM is American groups and not the European movement, this should be clear in the article. FenceSitter (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is misrepresenting sources. If the movement started in France, does that make it a French movement? No, because we already have Les Identitaires. We have If sources discuss the differences between European and American, so could the article, but nothing you've proposed invalidates existence of the North American adherents. It is fully possible to be both Identitarian and also KKK, which was the point.

U.S. efforts are multiplying, and emulating Europeans doesn't make people Europeans, as European racist will be happy to point out. Being Identitarian does however, make a person an Identitarian, so we know there are a substantial number of North American Identitarians.

This is about the "movement" not the Generation Identitaire organization. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the SPLC's term "versions of Identitarianism" is probably the best approach, while still mentioning the differences pointed out by Mudde and others. FenceSitter (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This has to be seen in context though. There are different "versions of Identitariansism" within Europe, so this isn't a contrast between the two continents. Many of Camus' ideas are totally at odds with what most other European Identitarians would want (although they might not actually realize it). Lumping all Americans together as having a common version would be a mistake, because, among other problems, there isn't a common European version to contrast it with. Identitarianism is loose, incoherent, and poorly defined even by its established proponents, so there is little basis for any strict compartmentalization. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Americans certainly have "versions" (plural) of Identitarianism, as the SPLC says: I agree it's not one common version. For the Europeans, though, I disagree with your opinion that it is "loose, incoherent, and poorly defined". The ISD gives a perfectly good description, and Mudde's European vs. American differences of emphasis are quite clear. Of course I would welcome more expert or scholarly sources on this. FenceSitter (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker article discussed above goes into some detail on this. Muddle's comment is fine for what it is, but the difference between "race" and "ethnicity" is ambiguous, to put it mildly, and attempting to fairly define these fuzzy divisions is fundamentally impossible. Even Benoist has had to admit that the layout of these "ethnostates" is entirely subjective. How could they be anything else? The specific ingroups and outgroups may differ, slightly, but the common threads are a fear of non-white outsiders, and a lot of wild speculation about how the world "should" be partitioned. These are things Americans and Europeans are equally capable of. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's a common thread to the European movement, it's not opposition to non-white outsiders, it's opposition to Muslim outsiders. From Patrick Boucheron, quoted in the New Yorker article: "So you see that behind identity there’s immigration, and behind immigration there’s hatred of Islam. Eventually, it always comes down to that." This is not to say there isn't also opposition to non-white outsiders, it's just not the central common theme as it is for American groups. FenceSitter (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and Muslims are perceived as being a different "ethnicity" by both American and European Indentitarians. Muslims are treated as a de facto race. This is why focusing on the distinction between race and ethnicity is counterproductive, because they are all treated as outsiders, which is the whole point. That's Boucheron's point, also, in that it all comes down to "identity" as some people chose to defined it for their own convenience. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that religion is generally a central element of ethnicity and identity. And, yes, the whole nationalist Right worldwide has "anti-outsider" as an almost defining theme. But your opinion that "Muslims are treated as a de facto race" won't bridge the gap between the European anti-Islam focus and American anti-Black focus. This is not to mention the European insistence that they're not anti-Semitic, in stark contrast to American groups. FenceSitter (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect most people are not going to have a single, usable definition of "ethnicity" to work with. "Identity" is so vague the answer would depend entirely on how you asked the question. It has become a common deflection among the far-right to claim they aren't racist, because Islam isn't a race. Well, if they treat it as a race while discriminating against it, it ain't exactly rocket science.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the American far-right is not fiercely Islamophobic, but that is completely wrong. You do know the US has been fighting decades-long wars in the Middle-East, right? To bring this discussion back to Trump, he is still trying to ban Muslims from entering the country, and his political rise started with a ridiculously Islamophobic conspiracy theory about Barack Obama's birth certificate. Anti-black sentiment is still common, but it's almost impossible to find someone who's exclusively bigoted against only one group. The supposed "threat" is not based on statistical reality for either continent, of course, but that's not really the issue.

Many European identitarians might claim they are not antisemitic (or are instead "anti-Zionist" which nobody seems to accept at face value) but we have reliably sources specifically linking the movement to neo-Nazism. I trust those sources more than I trust their materials. I don't trust a movement which pushes antisemitic conspiracy theories about white genocide to tell me they aren't antisemitic. Grayfell (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Reorg

I've reorganized and expanded the article. I've tried to bring out more detail from the sources.

For the lede, I've used the definition found in the Institute for Strategic Dialogue paper verbatim, as this seems to be the most reliable source, academic and focused on the subject. The very next sentence points out their white nationalism, which is well-attested. FenceSitter (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Widely considered" is WP:WEASEL wording intended to whitewash the subject. "Ethnonationalist" is euphemistic jargon which doesn't belong in the first sentence. No dice. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Ethnonationalist" is exactly what the source says. "Widely considered" is acceptable if it accurately represents the opinions of the sources, which I believe it does. From WP:WEASEL:

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.

Also, could you please not blanket revert? WP:ROWN is a good essay on when and how to revert. FenceSitter (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

...so given that, I'll go ahead and restore my edits. FenceSitter (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You do not have consensus for this. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change the article incrementally, you've already done so without challenge, but calling this a "blanket revert" ignores the substance of the issue. "Widely considered" casts doubt on this description, and that's unacceptable for many reasons. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting ideology, and you're going to have a very hard sell ahead of you if you keep trying to downplay the overwhelming number of reliable sources linking this movement to white nationalism. Subtly implying that reliable sources are wrong, or that their factual assessments must be fundamentally subjective, is evasive and deceptive. This is white nationalism according to both reliable sources, and common sense. Instead of a bunch of pseudointellectual filler, just use direct, plain language to summarize the movement according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it was a blanket revert: I made quite few changes, and you could have reverted just the part you object to here. Secondly, "euphemistic jargon" and "pseudointellectual filler" are your own opinion. The source says "ethnonationalist", and AFAIK it's currently the best source we have for a one-sentence description of the movement, coming from a paper from a well-respected think tank. You might not like the term, but that feeling shouldn't count for anything. Thirdly, to my ears "widely considered" accurately and fairly sums up the sources and even lends credibility, but if this is a problem, we can instead use language from the ISD paper. Here's the full paragraph (p10):

‘Generation Identitaire’ were founded as a youth splinter-group of the French ‘Nouvelle Droite’. The group are part of a broader pan-European movement called Identitarianism, which focuses on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture. They can broadly be described as white-nationalists and are nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and anti-left-wing. The Identitarian movement has spread throughout Europe with groups in Austria, Germany and Italy, and is starting to make headway in the United States. International figures and movements in the extreme right also have ties to Identitarianism, with Richard Spencer – the founder of the alt-right movement - subscribing to the ideology.

So drawing on this, our lede should look like:

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a pan-European ethno-nationalist movement which focuses on the preservation of European culture and identity, drawing on inspiration of the French intellectual far-right movement Nouvelle Droite. The movement can be broadly described as white nationalist and is nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and anti-left-wing.

or perhaps

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a pan-European movement which focuses on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture, originating from the French intellectual far-right movement Nouvelle Droite. The movement can be broadly described as white nationalist and is nativist, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-liberal, and anti-left-wing.

Besides being properly sourced, this gives a lot more information about the movement to the reader. That said, if there are other one-line descriptions from sources of similar academic weight, obviously we should consider those too. FenceSitter (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This was the edit I reverted. These changes remain intact. I don't think I could I have reverted "just" the part I disagreed with, and why would I bother? The burden is on you to establish consensus for changes you want to make, and burying controversial changes in with non-controversial changes will not fly.

If we have many sources describing them as white nationalist, and none directly refuting this, we should call them white nationalist. Focusing on the one source you prefer, because it's more flattering, is using your personal opinion to influence the article. Instead of focusing on our opinions, let's focus on sources. A large amount of sources discuss the movement's fixation on race and far-right extremism, including this one. The goal is not to paraphrase sources, it's to summarize them.

This specific source is not really the issue, because that source provides its own context for its own purposes. We have the luxury and obligation to look at many sources. Your edit selected wording without regard for the larger context, which is cherry-picking. This introduces editorializing and promotional wording which is totally anathema to Wikipedia's goals. Many sources absolutely refute that they "focus on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture". Which traditional values? Surely not Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Surely not Classical republicanism. The Warsaw Confederation? No, the main traditional value I've seen identified by sources is just "white supremacy".

I dispute that your close paraphrase (perhaps even a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE) is an improvement, for many reasons, and if you do not understand why this approach is a problem, this is going to be a waste of both of our time. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What is this "larger context"? I quoted the whole sidebar paragraph, but maybe there's more in that paper that somehow refutes it? And which sources refute that the IM "focus on the preservation of traditional values and European identity and culture"? And generally speaking, we should be prioritising scholarly sources over journalistic ones. For example, for "white nationalist", we have the ISD paper, and two newspaper articles. We should be prioritising the first over the second and third. FenceSitter (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

By larger context I meant the whole document. You quoted the entire sidebar paragraph, but that was, by design, intended to provide context for other content. That's why it was a sidebar. The sidebar was for information about Generation Identitaire, not the identitarian movement alone. The rest of that page is about the group's interference with humanitarian rescue missions, and the paper goes on to describe how the movement has become interwoven with other extremist movements in pursuit of a shared, far-right agenda. The paper's central purpose seems to be explaining the high degree to which modern, Internet-based far-right movements overlap and cross-pollinate. European far-right movements like Identitarianism have been extremely useful to even more extreme movements, like neo-Nazi groups and similar, since they have both directly and indirectly supported the same fringe positions in a more palatable form, and have helped normalize fringe ideas and conspiracy theories.

This is what the source is saying, so using it for a flattering description of the movement while ignoring the substance of the source is absolutely cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That may be what the source is saying, but it also gives that description of the Identitarian movement as a whole, and a similar description in the glossary. Nothing in the rest of the paper changes the meaning or intent of those descriptions. That it is "flattering" is mere opinion. On the other hand, if we have descriptions from similarly scholarly or expert sources, we should use those as well. FenceSitter (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I admit I was not aware of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Here's an attempt to summarize in my own words:

The identitarian movement (otherwise known as Identitarianism) is a pan-European nativist movement to oppose Muslim and other immigration, in the name of preserving European cultural identity. The movement originates from the French intellectual far-right movement Nouvelle Droite, and is broadly white nationalist.

It is still based on the ISD descriptions, though. But it gives a much better sense of what the movement is about than the existing lede. As ever, if there are descriptions of the movement from other scholarly or expert sources, we should certainly combine them. FenceSitter (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(I also found another source describing the movement as ethno-nationalist, albeit a news article in passing.) FenceSitter (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree to these changes. You say it gives a much better sense, but what are you basing that one? That proposal is slightly better than the previous one, but the shift in focus to dramatically downplays the racist connotations and ignores the North American element, which is not consistent with sources. To be blunt, the whole thing sounds like something a public relations team would come up with. Yet again, the Europeans do not get to decide that the Americans are "too extreme" or whatever to join their club. As an example, sources label Identity Evropa as identitarian, so we have a specific counter-example of a prominent, white supremacist, North American Identitiarian organization. They don't define the "movement", but we don't ignore them, either. We cannot ignore the sources that discuss this aspect just because one academic source doesn't.

The Independent source is not about the Identitarian movement as a whole, either, it's specifically refers to the Generation Identitaire organization. If we needed to explain, in an article, the organization in passing, well I think we could do better than "ethno-nationalist", but that would probably work. This is a defined organization with a specific leadership and the ability to set a specific agenda. It's reasonable that the article calls it a movement, since it is a passing comment as you say, but we know what they meant.

Regardless, we have many sources which define this movement as racist in some form. Summarizing this as "white nationalist" is directly supported by enough sources that I think we can say, in Wikipedia's voice, that it is a defining trait. Shifting towards a description that downplays this isn't neutral. The ISD source is giving a description as context for a much longer article. That's perfectly fine, of course, and it's not a slam against the source, but it needs to be judged in that context. We have other sources which also summarize the movement as context for other things. Lacking a reliable, substantial source which is primarily focused on the movement, we're going to have a hard time deciding which source summarizes it "best". The burden is on us to summarize all of them according to WP:DUE, and downplaying the racial fixation is not going to work here at all. Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Independent source refers to "the ethno-nationalist Generation Identity movement", not the French organisation. Again, the European movement is referred to. Indeed, the sources are pretty consistent in describing the movement as essentially European, more anti-Muslim than race-focussed, anti-immigrant, and having some kind of influence or effect on American movements, but with differences.

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the Generation Identity movement (strictly European) from "identitarianism" as an phenomenon or self-description. FenceSitter (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Only if you can find a source which makes that distinction. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, fine, but we do have sources that describe the movement as "European" or "pan-European" and refer to its influence on American groups in secondary terms, pointing out differences. This is what needs to be reflected in the article. FenceSitter (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We do not have sources which describe "its influence on the American groups", because that is still subtly implying some sort of formal separation. This isn't "influence" it's movement and expansion, or diffusion, if you really insist. This is not a formal organization, it's a movement. Descriptions of specific groups within the movement can be tied to their locations, but the movement as a whole exists within both Europe and North America according to sources. Saying it "originally started in Europe", sure, okay, but that's already made clear, so I don't see what needs to be changed. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources describe the movement not only as "originally started in Europe", but as "European" or "pan-European". "Pan-European making headway in the United States" would better reflect the sources. The other problem with the current lede is that it simply describes it as "white nationalist", suggesting a racial rather than anti-Muslim focus. It misleads the reader.

I get that you don't want to downplay their racism. But given that the rhetoric and activities of the main European movement are focused on opposing Muslim immigration, and not on race, describing them as nothing but "white nationalist" in the lede is undue weight and quite misleading. We'd be better off summarizing them as ethno-nationalist, as indeed a couple of the sources do. This covers both race and religion. There's scholarly consensus on their cultural rather than racial focus:

"It is important to note that Identitarians are largely motivated by cultural narratives, are not supportive of violence, and do not usually utilise explicitly racist or racialist language." (IDS)

"The American radical right is built entirely around the idea of race, whereas the European version increasingly emphasizes local ethnic and cultural identities within a European framework — what one nationalist from the French region of Brittany calls the “Europe of 100 flags." (Mudde)

This needs to be reflected in the lede.FenceSitter (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Links to violence

The section "Links to violence and neo-nazism" only talk about links to neo-nazism. It should be renamed to "links to neo-nazism". 93.36.191.161 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Official Website

https://www.generation-identity.co might be a better link, but it's not clear who runs the website or who owns the Bitcoin donation address. As far as I know there's nothing like an official European umbrella group. There's also https://generation-identity.com/, which is slightly nicer IMO, but the same question applies. FenceSitter (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Since this isn't a political party or any other kind of discrete organization, the movement cannot ever truly have an official umbrella group. Normally any WP:EL links should either be official, should be specifically discussed in the article in depth, or they should be generally reliable on their own. Since none of these apply here, these links should be removed. An official link for Les Identitaires's "youth group" can be placed at Les Identitaires and likewise for any other organizations within the movement. Assuming they meet WP:GNG and have useful websites, of course. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Founding dates categories

After tinkering and edit warring over it, I've just fully removed the multiple founding date categories. On consideration, this article is not about specific organizations, such as Les Identitaires or Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs. Those have their own articles which (now) have these categories. This article is about the "movement" as a whole. As just one reason this is important, miscategorization introduces a lot of redundancy. Any addition of appropriate categories at those organizations' articles should still be directly supported by reliable sources. Providing background on these various groups is fine, but if we are going to treat this as a "movement", we'll have to categorize it as such. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a movement with different branches that have different foundation dates -- how the inclusion of this information via categories a problem? And by the way -- the French part of the Identitarian movement is "Génération Identitaire" which is part of "Les Identitaires" and not equal. It is questionable in the first place whether the Austrian Identitarians deserve their own article - the information could be included here. It's the only branch with its own article. Multiple-categorization is not miscategorization -- there are of course different foundation dates in the article itself. It does not take a genius to infer that the different categories refer to the different branches and not the movement itself. Apropos redundancy -- categories of course reflect information inside the article and thus are usually redundant -- cf. birth dates. 93.224.107.37 (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Movement =/= organization. A formal organization can have branches, but a movement can only have informal branches. Informal branches cannot be formally categorized. Movement and organization mean subtly but fundamentally different things, similar to the difference between a religion and a church.

I'm not talking about redundancy within the article, I'm saying that we have articles for organizations which should definitely have categories, and we also have the exact same categories being applied to this article for the same reason. This is redundant and misleading, because anyone browsing those categories is going to see duplicate entries without any means of knowing they are duplicates, unless they read both articles. Categories must be supported by sources in articles, but the reason is so category pages can provide consistent information on their own. Otherwise, what's the point of having them? Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no mathematically and juridically precise definition spanning all European countries or the USA were Identitarians are active, taking into account all possible forms of concrete organizational structures a branch might or might not have -- or possible forms of organizational cooperation between branches. Even for every single state there is an amount of arbitrariness when deciding the year when the movement turned into an organization. Remembering the linked sources I can see the following picture -- first people "gather" online e.g. on social networks, then they present their movements' "official" network page, they meet in real life, they engage in activism, they set up their own Internet domain/sites, and at some point they even consider some legal form, an entity that can have an account etc. Apropos "formal" vs. "informal" and "movement" vs. "organization" -- the very nature of the subtle theoretical differences makes arbitrariness and inconsistency unavoidable -- in both ways. 93.224.108.234 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

SPLC an Unbiased Source?

This article relies to a great degree on views espoused by a self proclaimed advocacy group: SPLC. Hardly a reliable WP:Source. The Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the org. is telling in its treatment of the SPLC history in recent years. Even if the SPLC wasn't horribly biased, using an advocacy group as an impartial source is akin to the use of only one side's attorney, as a reference for veracity, in a court proceeding. WP:POV? Bjhodge8 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A great degree? Where I see us using it is attributed and says described. That sort of use has been approved a number of times at WP:RSN and it is used in that way by much of the mainstream media. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We aren't the mainstream media, are we? Knowing the MSM's track record (on far-right politics especially) I don't think we should be using them as a barometer for truth Liamnotneeson (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the MSM, but, those are the rules. The best we can do is find academic sources, which tend to be vastly more accurate, more nuanced, and more informative. FenceSitter (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Europe of 100 flags

I really have no idea what this is in reference to. Neither the source nor the body of the article explains it at all. Nor does the main article on the person who apparently originated the idea. But if it's important enough to put in the lead then it's important enough to explain. Otherwise it probably shouldn't be in the lead. GMG^talk 11:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

According to what I can gather from this and this, the idea of Europe of 100 Flags, the idea of a Breton nationalist, is that the current nations of Europe would be broken up into regional entities, which would then become the basis for a united Europe. The idea is to "divide to unite" and to "decentralize inwardly and federate outwardly."

If this idea has any currency or significant following at all, we really should have an article on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've put a couple of sentences about it in the article on Yann Fouéré, the Berton nationalist I mentioned, and made a redirect to point to it. If someone wants to expand that into an article, at least there's a starting point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh...hmm. So basically become more like the United States, but even more so than the US is. (Maybe more like Holy Roman Empire 2.0) That seems like an oddly defensible position for an article like this, what with talk of Catalan independence or parts of the UK breaking off to rejoin the EU. I don't know enough to say whether I might agree with it, but it doesn't seem to obviously require an appeal to ethnocentrism, which just makes me wonder whether it's actually a central part of identitarianism, or whether someone just found a passing mention of it in a news article and added it to the lead. GMG^talk 10:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ooooooooooh. I guess it's primarily an ethnic homogeneity thing. Like, "Fine, have your immigrants. I'll make my own country, with blackjack, and hookers, and racial purity." I was thinking more like...the role of government size in bureaucratic efficiency, or difficulties in administering countries with large linguistic minorities like Spain has got to do. But apparently it's less so a nuanced opinion about civics and government administration, and more so just a reactionary response to egalitarianism. That's less confusing thematically. Still not sure if it's undue or not. GMG^talk 12:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It might be UNDUE, since I'm not certain that the movement, as opposed to specific organizations within it, ascribes to it or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Working on main article for the flag thing. At least a stub. Just got really side tracked with a DR on Commons. I've had the same edit window replacing the redirect open for like...three hours now. GMG^talk 15:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice job. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, there's a stub now. I don't really think any of the sources really discussed it in depth as an identitarian thing, but more as a general European far-right thing. It seems to have been a Breton ultra-regionalist thing originally. But it's not clear that it's quintessentially identitarian, but rather that there is (obviously) overlap between identitarianism and the European far-right overall. But that's just going directly from the sources I found, since I went into it knowing basically nothing beforehand. GMG^talk 16:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks, mostly in layout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, also probably ironic that the closest map of Europe I could find to the 100 flags ideal map, is one prior to the Reconquista, so...the Moors still own basically all of Iberia. I assume that's a part of their map they didn't think totally through. GMG^talk 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the comparison to the Middle Ages was more a conceptual one than something they are specfically trying to re-create, but the map you used is useful in illustrating the type of Europe they;re aiming for. It would be interesting to find something which discussed the probability that once you devolve down to regional entities, you then are pretty much forced to federate, since the majority of those entities wouldn't be able to survive economically without the broad spread of resources that the current nations have. (That was one of the problems with Wilsonian "self-determination" after World War II. Austria, for instance, once it was separated from the Hapsburg Empire, barely had sufficient economic resources to survive as an independent state, whereas Czechoslovakia, for instance, did.)

Many of the new "100 Flags" regional states would be easy pickings for any somewhat stronger regional-state that wanted to add territory and people, and only a federated Europe would protect against that -- but once you've devolved, how easy would it be to then give up your hard-won independence and federate? Dollars-to-donuts, those who agitate now for a "Europe of 100 Flags" would be bitching about being under the "heavy yoke" of the European Federal State, since -- as we know from American history and elsewhere -- a weak federation has little chance of surviving, so it's likely that any combined Europe would be a strong federation (Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution). They'd soon be agitating for leaving the Federation -- and, again, as American history indicates -- strong federations don't easily give up territory. Anyway, that's what my crystal ball says, but it also says the tide of history is against the "100 Flags" people, despite Brexit (which had, I think, more to do with the love/hate relationship between the UK and the continent than anything else). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we're getting into forum territory, but it does look like a requisite part of the 100 flags package is a pan-European identity. But it seems the gig is that instead of having multi-cultural societies, you have a multitude of confederated monocultural societies...With the read-between-the-lines being that if you ain't part of that culture, you ain't welcome, because the state is based primarily on ethno-cultural groups. If you want to be part of Europe, then go to the comparatively few states that would presumably persist as explicitly multi-cultural enclaves.

That's...not totally bonkers. Germany united mainly along cultural/ethnic lines and solidarity against an outside threat in the form of Napoleon three. Today the Kurds are seeking a primarily ethnically defined state, and you know...Israel is a thing that exists. But it seems like the difference is maybe an explicit rejection of egalitarian multiculturalism as the driving force. In other words, the emphasis is on the exclusion of egalitarianism, rather than on the inclusion of a people, as you could argue for Germany, Israel or Kurdistan. GMG^talk 17:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason it's unworkable is that, pace Wilson, such radical regional "self-determiation" relies on there actually being a monoculture in each devolved area, but, in fact, very few regions in Europe are actually monocultural. It's more like a pudding with raisins in it: the main culture is the bulk of the pudding, but the raisins are pockets of other ethnicities, some of which have been resident in the area for decades, even centuries, and feel that they have as might right to live there as anyone does. So, that means either accepting a multiculture state, which seems to go against the ideology of 100 Flags, or striving to make the new region-state monocultural. That inevitably gives rise to ethnic cleansing, which, in its most benign form means forcing the "alien" populations to leave and go elsewhere, and in its most horrific form leads to genocides. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think maybe from their perspective it just needs to be monocultural enough for them to control local public policy based on group identity. But yeah, that doesn't historically tend to go well, even when large swaths of both sides favor the division. GMG^talk 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For the European movement, I think it's more about preserving the "monocultural enough" parts of Europe that already exist. Thus the emphasis on restricting Muslim immigration, and not on expelling long-rooted well-assimilated minority populations. FenceSitter (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Knowing the cutthroat nature of this page, I'm actually surprised that that bit is still here. Liamnotneeson (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Propose "white nationalist" change to "far-right"

Perhaps this would be a good middle ground for conflicts that arose in the past, which I'm not sure if they still exist, haven't been here recently. I remember that this page used to have that wording, and it seemed like the waters were calmer. I have some sources: https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/03/28/how-identitarian-politics-is-changing-europe, https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-12-19/meet-identitarians-europes-new-right, https://www.dw.com/en/identitarian-movement-germanys-new-right-hipsters/a-39383124

The wiki page for "far-right politics" describes white nationalism, white supremacy, and xenophobia anyways, so it wouldn't be seen as incorrect to those that say that GI is a neo-Nazi organization Liamnotneeson (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit made. Reply below with any objections, don't be rude by just undoing my edit Liamnotneeson (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about this seems like a compromise, it just seems like whitewashing. These two concepts overlap, but are not the same. We do not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, per WP:CIRC. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't using the Wiki article as a source. I had several sources right there. By referencing the article I refer to how it would be defined by this article. By calling the movement far-right, the article calls it far-right according to the Wiki article for "far-right", since that's what it links to and what the sources state.

Also, how is calling it far-right whitewashing compared to white nationalist? Wikipedia defines it as something more unappealing than how it defines white nationalism. Liamnotneeson (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

... the article calls it far-right according to the Wiki article for "far-right"... As I said, we do not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so this is misleading, at best. Your opinion on how appealing these terms are is irrelevant. Our goal is not to find "middle ground" with white nationalists, our goal is to reflect reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about finding middle ground with white nationalists?Liamnotneeson (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You said this would be a good middle ground. The middle ground between accuracy and extremism is still unacceptable. We're not interested in false balance, we're interested in reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Liamnotneeson, what are you trying to do in your edit? It seems you want to move sources, but you actually just deleted them. FenceSitter (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• It should be noted that User:Liamnotneeson is now User:DistractedOther. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• My mistake, User:DistractedOften. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Infobox" section

What content should be in the "infobox" section of the article? It has included this image (1a) for some time, though Beyond My Ken prefers this similar image (1b). I'm not sure that either are ideal, perhaps this image (2) currently in the article body should be used instead? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I would not object to using the image that's now in the body for the infobox image, since it represents an actual, real world use of the symbol, and not something made by somebody using a image-creation program, as all the others in the Commons repository are (meaning that they are of dubious provenance). Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That last image would look tiny in the infobox because of its orientation. If you wanted to use some version of it, it would be better to use something like this crop instead. (Even though I had to cut the girl in half on the left, most people probably won't immediately notice.) But if we're trying to avoid any type of free advertising here, maybe showing a bunch of happy marching fascists in the lead isn't the ideal way to go.

Other than that, if you are going to use an image of a simple geometric shape, SVG is basically always preferable. I can't actually think of any situation where it wouldn't be preferable. That's why Commons tells people to please upload and/or use the SVG instead. GMG^talk 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're entirely missing the point, which is that the SVG images is cropped to the very edge of the symbol, which means that when presented at almost any size at all, it's extremely bold, dominating the top of the page and, in effect, promoting the symbol and the movement, The JPG image, although of marginally lesser quality, presents the symbol with a black border around it, so that the presentation is neutral and encyclopedic. By using the SVG image, for the reason only that SVGs are in general preferred over JPGs, we help to promote the identitarian (i.e. neo-Nazi) movement, and that's not our business here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please point me to the en.Wiki (not Commons) policy (not editing guideline) which says that JPGs must be changed to SVGs whenever possible, specifically when the two images are not identical. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:IUP#FORMAT ...also... they're basically identical. Not totally clear why a 10% crop should constitute an existential crisis. GMG^talk 21:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

These two images are not "basically identical" in visual impact

the SVG image screams "LOOK AT ME"; this is the size the image is at in the article at this moment

the JPG image presents the logo neutrally, shown at the same size

They're not "basically identical". One takes up the entire frame of the image, and the other is centered in the image but is surrounded by a black field. One has much thicker lines, with the interior angle almost using up all the center in the middle of the circle, while the other is more balanced. One demands attention, and the other presents neutrally. To say that they are "basically identical" is absolutely incorrect in terms of their visual impact. Effectively, one is promoting the symbol, while the other is displaying the symbol. WP:NPOV requires that we be neutral, but one of these images is not neutral.

As for WP:IUP#Format it says:

Drawings, icons, logos, maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. (emphasis added)

It does not require that JPGs of these thing must be in the SVG format, and in the situation where one image is demonstrably non-neutral and the other isn't, policy requires us to be neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Both images equally cropped

Well, here are the images equally cropped. Most of the difference in width seems to be the fact that the person who created the SVG chose the outside border of the faded jpg as their reference point, and chose to normalize the fact that the original creator of the jpg screwed up their width on the lambda. But the SVG is clearly the better of the two images, because that's what SVGs do, which is why policy says we should use them.

So we're basically arguing over a crop, where one image is clearly better. This debate is silly. I support the status quo, and the onus is not on me to get consensus to change it. GMG^talk 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

But once again you're missing the point entirely. The JPG image above is not cropped like that which is why it's the more neutral image. If you crop the JPG the same as the SVG, it's a tiny tiny bit better betcause the lines are more balanced, but it still dmenads attention in the way that the uncropped JPG does not.

If you, or anybody else, can provide an SVG image that looks like the JPG image above, with the symbol centered in a field of black and not taking up the entire fame of the image, then I have no problem with that SVG image being in the article. The current JPG image is neutral, the current SVG image is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

So...yeah...you want a change to an uncropped version of a fairly uncontroversially worse image. So get consensus for it. GMG^talk 00:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your summary is incorrect. The JPG image is "worse" only because it is not an SVG, not because of its content. That you cannot understand that is ... unbelievable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

And that you attach such an emotional significance to a crop is equally so. GMG^talk 01:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You find that an editor wishing to avoid Wikipedia being used to promote a neo-Nazi ideology is "unbelievable"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the idea that a cropped image of exactly the same encyclopedic value is somehow promotional...or...makes any ideological difference whatsoever. Generally, when someone replaces an arbitrarily cropped poorer quality image with an appropriately cropped higher quality one, the correct response is to say thank you. This...this right here is somewhere near the rhetorical level of saying we shouldn't fix obvious typos in Rape because that would promote sexual assault. That is to say, again, that this is an exceptionally silly argument of the type I've rarely seen. GMG^talk 10:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm a bit unclear on why we need an image there, besides convention. The picture conveys the image better than the logo, which is unofficial anyway from what I gather, and in the picture the colors are reversed anyway. BMK's concern is also that the visual is extra strong because there is no border and thus practically advertises the joint; I am a bit less convinced by that argument but it's to be taken seriously, not whisked away. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I...don't really have any broad editorial opinion other than that we shouldn't edit war to include a fairly uncontroversially poorer quality image of equal encyclopedic relevance. GMG^talk 02:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but the argument is that the size makes for advertising which makes it worse, worser than the actual image quality is worse. Maybe some more editors weigh in. BMK sees it, I see it a little, you don't see it; we need more opinions, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that although none of the images in the Commons repository have a proper provenance, sites such as this and this show that the symbol is legitimately used by Identity Generartion in Europe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

the original SVG image

the replacement SVG image

Since the object of the editors who wanted the current lede image to stay in place was to have the lede image be in the SVG format, I have replaced the original SVG image -- which in my analysis is promotional and non-neutral -- with an SVG image adapted from it which is neutral in value. In this way, both sides of the dispute get what they are asking for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really seeing the "promotional" issue with the original image. How does it compare with the presentation of identifying symbols in other articles? FenceSitter (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly prefer the svg image and you all know that I think Nazi punching should be America's favorite pastime. We are an encyclopedia, and as such we should strive for the highest quality in everything: including our images. That JPG is a much lower quality image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Far right"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think I agree with Liamnotneeson that the PRI article does not support "far right". Instead, if anything, it contrasts the identitarians with the far right. Here are all the uses of the term in the article:

He says he takes heart in the fact that the identitarians are not only being criticized by people on the political left in Germany, but by extremist far-right groups as well. -- contrast

Identitarians reject some of the core beliefs embraced by older far-right groups, Timm told me, such as anti-Semitism. -- contrast

Timm said identitarian activists in Germany number between 300 and 400 and tend to support the far-right Alternative for Germany party. -- describes the AfD as far right, not the identitarians

Membership with extremist far-right groups that, for example, promote violence or openly espouse Nazi ideology, are illegal in Germany. -- contrast

Werner Patzelt, a professor of political science at the Technical University of Dresden, researches far-right populism in Germany. Patzelt told me that he is withholding final judgement on the broad identitarian movement in Europe, because these groups are so new. -- "withholding final judgement"

FenceSitter (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Economist article doesn't directly say that the identitarians are far-right, but does kinda/sorta suggest it through context, so I guess it's OK? FenceSitter (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two problems with this approach. First, we asses entire sources, and do not have to slice them into individual quotes. The article is tagged "far-right movements", interviews experts on far-right movements, and discusses how the German government is watching them because they are a far-right movement. The entire context of the article is that this is associated with the far-right, and must be judged accordingly.

That said, even when taken individually, these statements are not as simplistic as you are presenting.

The first three are quoting "Timm", who's assessment should not be accepted as simple fact, but only as attributed opinion. "Timm" is not providing an expert opinion or analysis, he is one of the source's sources. That's fine, but we shouldn't misrepresent it. The article also quotes "Rosa", who basically says Timm is wrong. "Rosa" is just as credible as "Timm" here, and "Rosa" thinks they are manipulative and have been infiltrated by Nazis. This is why we have to judge the whole article, not merely the parts that are easy to ctrl+f.

While the first line you list is a form of contrast, as anyone familiar with the far-right will tell you, the far-right loves to criticize each other almost as much as they love criticizing everyone else. Infighting is practically their ethno-national sport. In other words, being criticized by the far-right doesn't mean they are not far-right.

The second one's contrast is between the old far-right, and the new far right, as the article's emphasizes the movement's newness as a defining trait. This line only makes sense if we accept the article's contention that the movement is both a new movement and also a far-right one.

For the third... please. It is saying that they tend to support a far-right party. This is not ambiguous.

The fourth is not a contrast. It is merely saying that they cannot openly promote violence, which is nothing new, and as mentioned above, it's saying this specifically because the movement has attracted government attention for being potentially extremist.

The last one is citing an expert who is tactfully explaining the third positionist nonsense advocated by the Identitarians. The article on the International Third Position is a good introduction to why this claim is tedious and unpersuasive, but I'm willing to concede that he doesn't strictly define the movement as far-right. He certainly doesn't refute it, however. Grayfell (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

None of this is sufficient to back up the claim that the identitarians are "far right". If you want to include this for this purpose, it's up to you to positively show that the article supports that.

Of course, neither Timm nor Rosa are themselves reliable sources: I'm only showing that none of the uses of "far right" support a labelling of the identitarians. In particular, you cannot get from "Timm said identitarian activists in Germany number between 300 and 400 and tend to support the far-right Alternative for Germany party" to "the identitarians are themselves far right" especially when you already agree that Timm is not a reliable source.

Nor should we be using the article categorisation, this only indicates that the article discusses the identitarians vis-a-vis the far right (which it does), not that the identitarians are far right -- the article is much more equivocal on that.

Patzelt does not refute that the identitarians are far right, but he is "withholding final judgement" about it, so that can't be used to show that they are far right.

And it's clear that the article specifically does not consider the identitarians the kind of "extremist far-right group" that is illegal in Germany.

Nor should we be trying to holistically sniff out a labelling from the context of the article, that's pure OR. Instead, we need someone reliable who actually says this if we want to use it as a source for this purpose.

Policy is actually pretty clear on this. From WP:Verifiability:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.

2. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support this material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

The claim that the identitarians are far right is not directly present in the source, so we cannot use the source for that purpose. FenceSitter (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Even the Economist source probably isn't good, come to think of it. Unlike PRI, the Economist fairly clearly implies that the identitarians are far right, but doesn't directly say so. FenceSitter (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have explained why I think this is sufficient. Taken as a whole we have multiple sources which discuss that the Identitarian movement is far-right. I have added a couple more, and there are plenty more where that came from. The PRI source is useful because it helps, at least a little, to explain why they are far-right. If the goal is merely to collate every source which uses a specific adjective, the article would still say "far-right" and nothing would change, but we could move the PRI source to 'further reading' if absolutely necessary. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but policy is quite clear. The burden is on you to show where the information is directly present in the source, otherwise the source cannot be used to support the claim. We can use other sources that do have the information directly, that's fine.FenceSitter (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, what's the problem with these boys being "far right"? Surely with those beliefs they shouldn't be ashamed of that label. Second, this is really not controversial. [1]. [2]. "Hipsters of the far-right". (What's that, Nazis who drink craft IPA?) [3]. Can we move along now? What is this, some damn heavy metal article where we're discussing black vs. blackened or whatever? Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing removing "far right" from the lede. FenceSitter (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you're cherry-picking quotes from a source to argue that the source doesn't say something which is an important component of the very point the source is making. Also, I can cherry-pick quotes, too. And I can do so with fewer problems than you did:

• Identitarians reject some of the core beliefs embraced by older far-right groups Inclusion: saying that some far-right groups are older than this one presumes this one is a far-right group.
• Some of Trump's “alt-right” supporters like Richard Spencer, who advocate for preserving and protecting the white race in the United States, have said they prefer to describe themselves as “identitarian.” Axiomatic inclusion: the "alt-right" is universally (outside the alt-right, of course) considered a subset of the far-right.
• Timm said identitarian activists in Germany number between 300 and 400 and tend to support the far-right Alternative for Germany party. Inclusion: do you know what we call people who support far-right politicians? Far-right. Just like we call people who support center-left politicians center-left.

I would also note that white separatism, white supremacy and "white pride" are all universally considered far-right ideologies, and they all play a role in the identitarian movement.

Any reasonable reading of the source would conclude that it does support the claim that the identitarian movement is far-right. Because it's a far-right group by definition, about whom this article was written which discusses their political position, assumes the reader already thinks of them as far-right, strongly implies them to be far right, quotes at least two people saying they are far-right, interviews an expert on the far-right (who waffles exactly as much as academic experts are wont to do) and is tagged "far-right" and "alt-right". I don't think there's any way to argue that this source doesn't support the label, and even if it didn't, the simple solution would be to replace the source, not to bring it up here. This looks like an attempt to win support, not an attempt to fix an article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Identitarianism vs. Identitarian movement.

This seems like the most appropriate place to discuss whether or not this edit was appropriate.

I thought this was kind of obvious, but having an article for both Identitarianism and Identitarian movement is a likely WP:POVFORK. Strictly on a linguistic level, these two terms must be assumed to closely overlap. Without a reliable source defining them separately, splitting this into two articles is a non-starter. We would need to use these articles to explain exactly how these two terms are different, also. We have to summarize the topic according to reliable sources, not just our understanding of the terms. The attempted fork fails to do this. The threshold for a fork is obviously different from a standalone article, and that forked article contained 9 sources, several of which were opinions or dictionary entries. Consensus should be formed here that such a fork is warranted, according to sources, or else a WP:RFC could be initiated.

Pinging @DavidBailey: and @Rosguill: as involved editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Right now the difference between the articles is that "Identitarian movement" is strictly about the right wing political movement, whereas Identitarianism purports to describe a grouping of political ideologies, of which the right wing movement is a member. The problem is that the article for Identitarianism as written gives no evidence that "identitarianism" describes any group other than the right wing movement. The sections trying to describe an anti-white identitarian movement are supported exclusively by op-eds, which aren't really reliable sources. Without better sourcing, the fork is WP:OR at best. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I have included plenty of sources outside of OpEd articles, including news articles and dictionary definitions which describe the use portrayed precisely. Please avoid negatively characterizing something you disagree with. Insisting that the extent of the identitarians is European white nationalists is WP:POV. DavidBailey (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not me who is characterizing it this way, it is reliable sources. Perhaps an WP:RFC is necessary. Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to Talk:Identitarianism#Proposed merge with Identitarian movement for convenience. Grayfell (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@DavidBailey: WP:Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and to accuse a long-time editor such as Grayfell of doing vandalism to Wikipedia is a very serious charge. Disagreeing with another editor's edit does not make it "vandalism". I suggest that you read WP:Casting aspersions and avoid making such a charge again.

Also, unless you have a consensus for that edit from the editors here on this talk page, I suggest you do not make it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hideeho neighbor.

@Beyond My Ken: Hideeho neighbor. I've been editing on Wikipedia long before you, and also before Grayfell. I know vandalism when I see it. Just because you disagree with a use of a term is not a reason to edit it out of existence. DavidBailey (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, pardner, you started in 2006, and I started in 2005, [4] so...., you know, you aren't actually the winner of that particular totally irrelevant pissing contest.

Don't revert again unless you have a consensus, unless you'd like to be the subject of an ANI for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hideeho neighbor. I've been editing on Wikipedia long before you, and also before Grayfell. I know vandalism when I see it. First off, you have 1/25th of Greyfell's edits, and 1/95th of BMK's edits, and about 1/7th of my edits (and I started more than ten years after you) so when you say something like this I want to laugh in your face. Second, if you actually knew vandalism, you wouldn't have called this vandalism. Indeed, it's quite clear that you don't know what vandalism is, so please stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The mission of Wikipedia is to make high-quality, WP:NPOV articles. That's what I'm doing. If you want to use the bureaucratic might of WP against me only to reflect your political leanings, it's a condemnation of Wikipedia at large and a good indicator that it will eventually be replaced by something else. Please stop trying to marginalize my contributions. I'm not your enemy- We're both trying to build a useful set of information. DavidBailey (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You've done more to marginalize your views than anyone else on this talkpage by repeatedly accusing people of bad faith editing and resorting to politically one-sided name calling here and at the relevant other article(accusing people of disagreeing with you because they're "triggered", the bizarre Burning Man comment, etc.), as well as by attempting to canvas "conservative" editors to these articles, and continuing to make contentious edits to the articles while there is a clear overwhelming consensus against your proposed edits. It is possible to disagree with someone's edits on wikipedia without accusing them of vandalism, WP:NPOV does not mean a blank check to assume that every political movement has an equal and opposite counter movement, and even if you are actually completely correct and it is everyone else that is wrong, Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We follow consensus, and your repeated insistence that you are the lone arbiter of neutrality is childish and reflects poorly on your contributions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Buckle up, goobers. I guess we're putting the whole Identitarian article into this one because the editors won't stop deleting the other. DavidBailey (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your comments are growing less and less mature, and failing to become useful to this project. If you can't engage like an adult, then please go find another hobby. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's insane to merge the Identitarianism article into Identitarian movement, but you voted for it, bud. Unless of course, you just expected to delete it all along, and were just masking your actions in Wikipedia bureaucracy to hide your motives. DavidBailey (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Adekoya quote

The Adekoya quote is the most poignant expression of black identitarianism that I've found. If you think it doesn't belong the in the article, please explain why. DavidBailey (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not have any special right to decide that it's a "poignant expression". Why are you including an arbitrarily selected, multi-sentence quote from a non-notable journalists and PhD researcher? This quote is by a very wide margin the longest quote in the article, and one of the longest paragraphs, all based on a single source from a non-academic outlet. Why that' quote, out of all the many possible quotes from that article? The burden is on you to demonstrate that this meets WP:DUE. Per the merge discussion, there were concerns that this was being misrepresented to conflate identitarianism with identity politics, but your edit has ignored that concern completely. In the source, Adekoya specifically says that he prefers to call identity politics "identity populism" and responds to questions about "identitarianism" with answers about "identity populism". In context, it's clear he's using the terms interchangeably. Picking on particular paragraph out of a lengthy interview and stripping it of all context is completely inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, with all due respect, your reply is extraordinary ontomologically and psychologically, in its sheer incomprehensibility and ideological possession. Canlawtictoc (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"White" people

I would like to ask an editor to lock this page so we can have a rational discussion that isn't inflamed by extremism on any side.

I note that recently, an edit was accepted to read The Identitarian movement or Identitarianism is a post-WWII European far-right[2] political ideology asserting the right of "white" peoples to their own European culture.

The choice to place the word white in quotation marks, though perhaps unintentional, makes the argument the extremists are trying to make: that white people are increasingly being marginalized and made into a caricatured meme where their identity is completely denied, and exists only as dialectical opposition, a sort of counter-acceptability, thereby even the mention of their race subjected to denial, the very idea of white people unacceptable, needing to be ascribed as a fiction, subjected to a denial of being and presence by asserting its fictitiousness in quotation marks and automatically making their very being that of a persona-non-grata.

There is an etymological decision here to be made. They are either "Europeans asserting the right of European peoples to their own European culture," or they are white people without the quotation marks! They cannot be "nothing" - which would genuinely do precisely what intersectional feminism keeps going on about, "denial of personhood" or "personal experience." Europeans cannot only exist as a substratum by which we establish dialectics of black and white, up and down, i.e. Azazel the scapegoat; these are real people who have just as much right to their own sense of personal identity as anyone else, so they're either white or they're European, or, should you prefer, dialectics of anger and resentment can continue stripping away their identity which will play right into the argument that identitarians are making.

I have heard it more than once by ideologically possessed students "White people aren't even white" and "Europeans aren't even European, they're from Central Asia." This is madness. By making this argument, you inadvertently broadcast your inner white supremacy, because "not even white" suggests a kind of hierarchy where being white is in fact desirable, and so by denying them white in "white" people, the author just broadcasts to everyone inner resentment. Cornell West has called this "my own inner white supremacy."

The impetus here is understood and understandable. The writers are attempting to define an ontologically unsound position: argue against the idea of "whiteness" as something objectively true, and thereby reject notions of race and identity, while simultaneously avoiding the very idea that European people have an European identity, thinking that this establishes a sort of indigenous right for the Europeans to claim a greater claim to either their land or their culture to over someone who is not either a European or a white person. Inadvertently, the article therefore makes the identitarians' argument for them, without even having the awareness it does so; of course identity is a non-objective construct, and of course no one is white or black or yellow, but countries don't exist either, and money had no objective value. That doesn't mean we put quotation marks deligitimizing someone's sense of racial history on the basis that it doesn't really exist.

Finally, since this is to be written from a neutral perspective to reflect the views of identitarians and not place value judgments, the quotation marks around "white" people - given that it is speaking from a third person perspective relaying what identitarians believe, immediately violates neutrality as it places a value judgment on their assertion, as in "We believe white people deserve their European...." vs. "They say that 'white' people deserve their 'European' culture." That isn't consistent with reporting the views of a third party - that's how one denigrates or writes sarcasm.

All identity is fiction. We either get consistent and deny all forms of categorization, in which case we will have no language, or we get consistent with black people being black people and white people being white people; else, European people are certainly European people. By rejecting both terms in order to make room for everyone, we accomplish what the identitarians are trying to accomplish - show the world that only white people are denied identity, everyone else's identity is okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canlawtictoc (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to lock this page, and the only "extremism" we've seen here has come from the right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you know they represent "the right?" You didn't address my point - do you not agree that placing quotation marks around "white" people is a denigration of their identity? I am not white myself. But imagine if I edited an article about black history and replaced black with "black" people or "Asian" people. All nomenclature is ultimately an exercise of categorization. This is how we arrive at language. But I'm not even opposed to satirizing colour labels for people. I am however opposed to denying people all forms of identity. They cannot be nothing. They are either white people with no quotations or they are European people. Or, perhaps the term Caucasian is more acceptable, fine. But they are not "white" people anymore than any other race should be presented in terminology of mockery. Canlawtictoc (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Spanish and Catalan alt-right identitarian groups/parties

In Spain there are identitarian parties and groups, I don’t know about the identitarian character of Vox, a strongly islamophobic and xenophobic party with parlamientary representation (so I will not include it for the moment, but I know about 2 groups/parties, Som Catalans (We are Catalans) and Front Nacional Català, also strongly islamophobic and xenophobic, defenders of the Christian and national identities.

And I also know about ‘Frente Nacional Identitario’ (I have created the Catalan), an Spanish alt-rigth identitarian group.

What do you think about to include them in ‘Other European groups’, with references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepvmarin (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks, I have found sources that indeed link Som Catalans to identitarianism (https://books.google.fr/books?id=xphWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT115). However, unless proven wrong no identitarian party is classified as neo-nazi, the FNI is in a different category.

EDIT: Som Catalans added to the page & article translated from Catalan. Azerty82 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Today's Observer newspaper has something on this in the context of Generation Identity in the UK

It's summarised in The Guardian: Infiltrator exposes Generation Identity UK’s march towards extreme far right[5] - the UK GI party has been expelled from the wider movement and is discussing a merge with For Britain. I've also found Draft:Generation Identity United Kingdom and Éire. --Doug Weller talk 19:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ben Jones Leader of Identitiarians UK.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Generation Identitaire Defend Europe Mission Alpes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• German Identitarians on Brandenburg Gate.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Identity Politics

The term identitarian is rapidly acquiring a new meaning as someone who adheres to identity politics. I strongly recommend the article be updated to reflect this. Robert Brockway (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are generally about concepts, not words or terms (with comparatively rare exceptions, such as the article for The, which is explicitly about a word itself). If there is a different meaning of the word identitarian, then it should go on the article for that different thing if one exists, or an article might be created if the alternative meaning is independently notable. We do not however include unrelated content about some other subject on this article because the two distinct subjects share a word. GMG^talk 16:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

SPLC hate groups

Editor Editorio007 (who previously edited as 162.195.132.163) has removed a statement from the lede explaining that the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified several of the Identitarian-related (or inspired?) groups operating in the United States as hate groups, saying it is "irrelevant". I argue that it is not irrelevant. The SPLC is known as an authority on identification and monitoring of hate groups in the United States, and their statement that various such groups are working to adopt and normalize Identitarianism in that country is information perfectly relevant to this article; their publication has also been widely cited by independent sources (see list in article). Therefore I argue for its inclusion, however it should not be floating in the lede like it was without content in the article body to explain. Thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesnt make sense as these groups are European, while the SPLC is far-left think tank located in America. You could argue for inclusion of SPLC references (as dumb as that argument may be) on American versions like the now defunct Identity Evropa or whatever it was called, but applying a statement of widely mocked political organization that isn't even based on the same continent? That's stretching it. Editorio007 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Leftist bias in this article?

Seems to me that there is a number of biased statements such as comparing the movement to Nazism and fascism. I added a source to counteract this, but it seems like the sources for the aforementioned statements stem from journalists who are just ordinary people like us. In other words, it is their opinion that is being referenced. Basically if there exists any parallels between these three political ideologies, the only acceptable form of source should be comparative analysis. Should no one dispute my reasoning or engage in discussion with me here, I'll just go ahead and remove those sentences in 10~ days from now. Test123Bug (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Test123Bug: Please see WP:SECONDARY and WP:TRUTH. Also, "no one dispute my reasoning or engage in discussion with me here" is not how Wikipedia works. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sorry I didn't mean to sound like a dick with that. Could you explain what type of sources I should use for this specific article in order to illustrate that fascism, Nazism, and Identitarianism don't hold any significant parallels? I thought the source I used that you removed was considered a reliable secondary source. Test123Bug (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Test123Bug: there are two issues here. One is slightly tricky. Is she a lone voice or do others support her, eg by citing her? The answer seems to be that she hasn't been cited yet.[6] Her conclusion includes: "Like other twentieth and twentyfirst century examples of neo-fascism, GI is syncretic, drawing from historical cases of quasiand proto-fascism, and contemporary left and right-wing social trends to seek to legitimize its exclusionary and xenophobic political aims. Perhaps to a greater extent than other farright and neo-fascist movements, on the other hand, GI’s propaganda and behavior features extensive aspects of “bricolage”; incorporating numerous practical and propagandizing tactics of contemporary left-wing collectives." And "Although the anti-Semitism of GI members may be understated, their Islamophobia, Euroscepticism, and broad-based attitudes toward non-European migrants, as articulated in GI’s online and offline activity, recall pre-WWII trans-Atlantic anti-Semitism. Despite GI’s contemporary rejection of anti-Semitism and national socialism, certain of its policies and platforms in fact resemble the German Nazi social and cultural forerunners to 1939–1940."

How did you get from that to "However, historians have disputed the claim that identitarianism holds any significant parallels between Nazism and fascism."? Doug Weller talk 16:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Test123Bug: Not all scholars argue for a direct relationship between Nazism and the Identitarian movement. This is a debated subject. A quote from political scientist Stéphane François is even in the first section: the connection with Nazism "though relevant in certain ways, [remains] incomplete, as it (purposely) [shuns] other references, most notably the primordial relationship to the German Conservative Revolution". Specialists of the far-right (the only type of source we should use for analysis) generally link the Identitarian movement with the German Conservative Revolution and the European New Right (see Teitelbaum, Camus, Lebourg, François, Hentges et al.), which themselves have an ambiguous relationship with Nazism and Fascism. The "traces" it may have left on Identitarians are at the core of the debate. Azerty82 (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So a source that discusses the decreasing birth rates in every European country combined with UN sanctioned replacement migration could be used to illustrate the point that Identitarian values come from things like this rather than Nazism/fascism? Nazism/fascism are economic ideologies as well, I don't think it's possible to infer (WP:NPOV) anything about someones economic policies based off the fact they're identitarian. The only issue with this route is that it basically creates a pseudo-argument on the wiki page rather than just being objective to begin with. Test123Bug (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No, see WP:NOR. And you haven't answered my question, Test123Bug. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand the comparison. The section /Origins/ gives (in my view) a fair description of the currents which influenced the Identitarian Movement. Identitarian leaders are explicitly quoting Revolutionary Conservative and fascist thinkers as philosophical guides: Schmitt, Heidegger, Evola, Jünger, etc. Have you read the article? Please point specific parts that you think need improvements. Azerty82 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Test123Bug is indef blocked for racist POV pushing at Talk:Scientific racism. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading references

In the opening few paragraphs the sentence "Australian, and New Zealander[16] white nationalists." . The cited sources don't mention anything about new zealanders, new zealand groups, or any specific information linking new zealand to the "Identitarian Movement". I am going to remove "New Zealander" from this paragraph until somebody has a very good reason (see: sources that support the claim) to change it back. 150.107.172.2 (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the refs to the lead from later in the article that support New Zealand's inclusion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

YouTuber Tom Rowsell and Survive the Jive

There's currently an AfD discussion ongoing about Tom Rowsell that could use some more comments here. Rowsell is a YouTuber associated with the Identitarian movement who operates the channel "Survive the Jive". :bloodofox: (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Creation" of white ethno-states?

I suggest that the sentence "Some among them promote the creation of white ethno-states, to the exclusion of migrants and non-white residents" is misleading. The identitarians don't promote "the creation" of "white ethno-states" as such, because (1) most states in Europe already were "white" by default, seeing as the vast majority of indigenous Europeans have naturally pale skin, and (2) most European states already were natural ethno-states due to various historical developments in Europe. Therefore, what identitarians promote isn't the creation of new ethno-states, it's the preservation of already existing ethno-states, and restoration of previously existing ones. Also, the "exclusion of migrants and non-white residents" could be more accurately replaced by the "exclusion of non-indigenous residents", which includes both migrants and descendants of migrants. European identitarianism is primarily about being indigenous to Europe, not about the skin color; for example, non-white Sámi people are not being excluded, because they are unquestionably indigenous to the area they inhabit, whereas the equally non-white Roma people are being excluded, because they are not the original inhabitants. 94.113.126.132 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree,

however about the recent addition of white-nationalist is the same way dubious a little bit. They promorto to preserve the European heritage and culture in some areas (yes dominantly inhabited by whites, but as well areas outside Europe which they consider belong the same cultural sphere, regardless of skin color), but it does not mean they would expand or disawow other culture spheres shall to be addressed to any skin color as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

In the Identitarian vision, "Europeans" is a code word for "white peoples", which came into disuse in post-1945 Europe contrary to the English-speaking world. I replaced it with the term "pan-European nationalist" (which references), which is more adapted to a European context. Alcaios (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Origin and development

This section seems to be an extreme form of WP:SYN, made up of picked cherries from a bunch of sources. It seems to have been written in a way to lead to a particular conclusion with particular views. There is little logic and consistency. --Wickey (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The Nouvelle Droite and the Identitarian movement are to much blended.
It lacks a clear European timeline

• When did the Identitarian movement emerge?
• When did the movement become pan-European?
• What distinguishes the movement from other far-righ groups, particularly from the Nouvelle Droite? --Wickey (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wickey: Camus (2018) and McAdams (2021) (cf. Identitarian_movement#Bibliography) have written about the intellectual genealogy linking the Nouvelle Droite to the Identitarians. The latter are mostly activists, the ideological structure of the movement was shaped by ND writings and Renaud Camus's Great Replacement theory. Alcaios (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)