This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Notability

So why is this party notable? Despite the high-profile far-right figures running it, they haven't done anything...what makes them more notable than any of the other marginal third parties out there? 74.170.91.7 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many, many other marginal "third" parties also are apparently deemed sufficiently notable to warrant articles, ergo I'm really not seeing your point. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not highly regarded as a notability argument. As it stands, the notability rests on its recognition by the California Secretary of State, and the one article in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. The rest of the sources are self-published. Without more independent coverage, this article is of dubious notability. --darolew (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me, in the interest of fair play, I have to point out that the American Conservative Party has no listing on Wikipedia, despite having 2 candidates (our listing as an INactive microparty is in error). If this party warrants an entry, then so does ours -- but we've held back from posting until we're certain to meet notability requirements. Crimsonsplat (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have personal links to the party, which means you really should read WP: COI. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the party does have two members who have extensive articles on wikipedia so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.178.37 (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I agree with the comments here that the party is not notable, and I have nominated it for deletion. Comments may be made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Third Position Party. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm suprised at all the blatant one sided bias thats being put into this article. whoever wrote this is clearly bias against this group and doesnt want to potray the truth on how the group is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki1488 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fascist?

Having browsed the website and more importantly their "Democracy" page(http://american3p.org/about/democracy/), I can't see anything remotely fascist about the party. Here are some choice quotes from said page - "We believe that all people have a right to speak freely about any issue. " "We believe that all peoples have a right to associate freely. Communities should be formed by consensus, not by threat of violence, imprisonment, or death." "We believe that all people have a right to self-defense" Sound fascist to you? I didn't think so. I hope the fascist label wasn't put up because of the "third position" label that the party takes for itself, because that would be incredibly... stupid. Fascism might have called itself such, but that does not mean that every 'third position' equates to a support fascism, or that it has anything to do with fascism at all. I hope that made sense. For those of you unaware of what the wikipedia definition of fascism is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I'd remove the mentions of it myself, but the page is protected and my account isn't 4 days old(or does it need to be 10? I forget). I really hope this isn't an intentional error with someone who has personal issues with the party itself, but it's such an elementary mistake... TheMikester001 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Third Position article:

Political scientists view Third Positionism as a minor branch of fascism, which rejects both Marxism and liberalism for a synthesis of socialism with a racially-homogeneous decentralized tribal form of nationalism. They argue that the main precursors of Third Position politics are National Bolshevism, a synthesis of nationalism and Bolshevik communism, and Strasserism, a radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism.

Hope that settles the issue. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its very clear that while this party is a phenomenon of the far right, as is the International Third Position, the term "third position" in the name "American Third Position Party," does not refer to the International Third Positionism of the European far right, but rather describes an American political party that is "third" in its nature (in that it is neither Democrat nor Republican ie., "a third party"). Unless someone can dig up a statement from party chairman William D. Johnson, or some other equivalently authoritative source, that indicates the party is actually oriented towards an explicitly Third Positionist ideology, all references to the International Third Position, and its system of thought, should be expunged from this article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not settle the issue. Third Positionism is by definition an ideology that takes a third stance to the offered status quo. Historically, this means both the right and the left. All the Party is saying by describing itself as Third Positionist is that it does not consider itself to be rightist or leftist and that it should not be classified as such. It has no inherent connections with Fascism, and any references to Fascism should be expunged from this article. The attempt to label this party as Fascist is nothing more than a political slur made by it's opponents. Owing to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, such descriptions should not be allowed on this site. Immortal Glory (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Image

I took a screenshot of the group's official website:

500px

Stonemason89 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK look, the Group is by no means a "racist". Since When is it a crime to have some one who represents the White community? Obama himself openly stated that he felt he was representing the black/african-American community, but i don't see any page on here calling him "racist". The American Third Position Party is not "Fascist" as it was previously stated. it would be more correct to state that the group is "National Socialist" as that is what they are. and whatever uneducated idiot said that the American Third Position Party is "Neo-Anarchist", clearly has NO understand of any kind of what the group stands for. Now this doesn't surprise me since Wikipedia and its editors clearly have a one sided political bias. Ignorance in this case isnt bliss, it makes you a fool. im sure its going to be edited and twisted around to mean the oppisite of what i have said if not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki1488 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all National Socialism is by definition a form of fascism (in addition to being closely associated with Nazism). Second of all, calling other Wikipedians names like "uneducated idiot" and "fool" isn't good form. Your choice of username (containing the number 1488) doesn't help your case either, and in fact comes awfully close to violating WP: BADNAME. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well being "a form of" and "closely associated" are not the atcual thing. so call it what it is. It's National Socialism. Your SN is "closely associated" with freemason so I could call you a freemason using that logic but I don't because that's not what it is. Saying "uneducated" may not be proper form but if its the truth then so be it. why should the truth be edited? Perhaps I should use the term "Ignorant" would that work better for you? I've lived in 14 different states and I was born in 1988. So how is that a violation of the WP username? I have no bias on this situation either way. What i don't like is when people twist things around and call something one thing when it's really another. The only people that do that are liars, con-artists, and people who are the scum of the earth. Are you one of them? I hope not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki1488 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Stonemason is displaying a high degree of anti-A3P bias here in this discussion page. I will also say that this party is in no way National Socialist, and neither is National Socialism a form of Fascism or a separate ideology from "Nazism". That being said, such arguments are irrelevant whereas the American Third Position incorporates no form of Fascism or National Socialism into it's ideology, despite the efforts of Stonemason and others to stamp that label all over the article. Again, all references to Fascism or National Socialism should be removed from the article, and the article should be purged of all leftist bias which has so far been dominate. Immortal Glory (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And you seem to be attempting to whitewash their image, with edits such as this [2] and [3] where you upload a new logo without the tagline "A political party for White Americans" and slip it into the article under a minor edit tag. He iro 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a minor edit. The logo currently being used on the page is out of date. The Party has created a new logo for itself, and as such, the old one is obsolete. I attempted to bring this Wikipedia page up-to-date, but in a classic attempt to cling onto the past for politcal reasons, it was removed. To keep the old picture is a statement of nothing less than leftist bias. It is incredibly obvious that the only reason you and your buddies wish to keep the old logo is for the exact same reason you are accusing me of wanting to remove it: You think that the logo makes the party look bad. Immortal Glory (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not a "minor edit", see here Help:Minor edit for what defines a minor edit. I don't believe the current image makes them look bad, but merely helps show who and what they are, a "political party for white people", therefore it is more descriptive than the other logo you uploaded. As for me and my buddies, I don't regularly interact act with any of the other editors on the edit history for this page, if you want to look for conspiracy theories and feel persecuted for your racist beliefs, look elsewhere, I'm here to write an encyclopedia. You seem to be here to push your extremist beliefs, keep pushing them and you'll find your self pushed right out the door. He iro 03:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pushing extremist beliefs"? Is that what advocation of neutrality in representation for all parties, even those at odds with the established status quo is called these days? I haven't argued for any conspiracy theories, and quite frankly I would challenge you to find something I've posted of a "racist" nature. You'll find that all I've said is that this page should be treated with the same standard of neutrality that the rest of Wikipedia is accorded. Your post, making use of assumptions before the facts of my own beliefs are presented, is evidence of your bias. And regardless of your opinion on which logo best represents the party, I would hardly expect you to challenge an update of a logo on any left-wing or even center-right party to bring the respective article in accordance with the current date. I've done nothing wrong here, and have stayed within the bounds of the rules of Wikipedia. Neutrality, efficiency, and accurate representation of the American Third Position as it currently stands is all I'm advocating here. Immortal Glory (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Change in party's mission statement caused by this article

Pretty funny. Shortly after I added a quote from the Florida website's mission statement about 'racially exclusive lands' to the article, an IP tried to delete it from the article. After that failed, they deleted it from the party's Florida website! Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, so I removed it from the article. And some "candidate" from Florida seeking to get his campaign mentioned here, sourced only to his website. He iro 07:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald summary removal=

Kevin MacDonald's summary is a poor one with respect to his extensive written work. It also doesn't seem particularly relevant within the introductory section of a political party. Many politicians have been authors, and while their political and written work is often related, this is obviously entered to discredit the man - even though this particular theory of group survival isn't really that controversial and accepted by many Jews! (absent the "conspire" overtones of course - even Kevin MacDonald doesn't claim a vast conspiracy, simply a behavioral tendency.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.9.13 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute: Promotes "White supremacism" vs "the interests of White Americans"

The article currently uses "White supremacism" as opposed to the whitewashed euphemism "the interests of White Americans". This information is cited to reliable secondary sources^[1]^[2] and is not a "false statement reflecting non-neutral POV". To the IP editors seeking to edit war over this description, bring sources and an arguemnt or I will take this matter to the 3rr board. He iro 16:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the non-neutral POV argument stems from the fact that other ethnic advocacy groups such as National Council of La Raza and MEChA are not referred to on their Wikipedia pages as Latino/Hispanic Supremacist groups, and are permitted euphemisms such as "promoting unity and empowerment" or "improving opportunities" for their ethnic groups, despite their history of publishing racially inflammatory literature and their promotion of the Aztlan nationalist concept in the United States. There seems to be a stark disparity between the descriptive treatment of 'white' ethnic advocacy groups vs. other ethnic advocacy groups within the wikipedia community, which does support the non-neutral POV argument. Also, with respect to this or any group, there should be a distinction made between what the group 'promotes' as an organization, meaning what it argues for or advocates in it's published literature, and what the personal views or histories of individual members are. Attributing the personal views of some members( as promoted outside the organization) with the entirety of the organization may be painting with an overly broad brush. Wikipediaphile (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists is not an acceptable argument. We should be making it clear what reliable sources say about the organisation, not just what it's PR says. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether the SPLC constitutes a reliable source when it comes to how it labels organizations like A3P would make a good topic for a whole other discussion, some of which can be found at #42 here. Given the fact that the SPLC's fund raising largely depends on them identifying new 'hate' or 'supremacist' groups to raise public fears, I do not think their choice of words should be accepted as 'reliable' without specific citations on their website to justify those claims. Clearly, non-profit does not mean non-biased. While they may or may not be a reliable source as a clearinghouse for certain statistical data and objective facts, the terminology they use appears to be very subjective in some cases and is often unsubstantiated with independently verifiable sources within the press releases where these pejorative labels are used. Because they have a financial stake in labeling groups "white supremacist" and "extremist", I think their claims should be held to a high standard of independent verifiability before being used for citations by Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaphile (talk • contribs)

How about these others then, like Yahoo and MSNBC, etc. amongst other :

Ron Paul campaign denies white supremacist ties alleged by Anonymous

Anonymous Has Revealed The British National Party's Links To An American White Supremacist Group

American Third Position (white supremacy group) hacked by Anonymous, ties to Ron Paul

Profile: American Third Position (A3P)

Anonymous attacks American Nazis

'ANONYMOUS' HITS WHITE SUPREMACIST SITES

Ron Paul campaign denies white supremacist ties alleged by Anonymous. He iro 03:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet that if most or all of these sources were pressed for support for their claim, they would admit to repeating claims by two sources: The SPLC or ADL. Media repetitions of such claims, without independent verification, seems to be accepted by Wiki editors as a sign of reliability/legitimacy of the original claim. What would be better would be some actual documentation of the A3P promoting what it's critics purport it to promote. Wikipediaphile (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you have actual evidence that these are unreliable then please present it. But mere speculation is worthless. As for the A3P view of itself, that's important to include but the article must not be limited to that. Per WP:NPOV, the article must include all significant points of view. Will Beback talk 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some cites from reliable sources:

..the American Third Position Party, a white-nationalist group.
- SPECIAL ELECTION FOR W.VA. GOVERNOR: TOMBLIN-MALONEY: DUELING MESSAGES Messina, Lawrence. Sunday Gazette - Mail [Charleston, W.V] 02 Oct 2011: A.1.
The American Third Position party promotes "white nationalism" and says it represents the interests of white Americans.
- CAMPAIGN 2011: CANDIDATES CALL EXCLUSION FROM DEBATE UNFAIR Eyre, Eric. The Charleston Gazette [Charleston, W.V] 13 Sep 2011: A.1.
...and Morgantown resident Harry Bertram of the American Third Position Party, a white-supremacist party.
- GOVERNOR'S RACE:: Labor changing mind on Tomblin?; Senate president wins union backing Knezevich, Alison. The Charleston Gazette [Charleston, W.V] 16 July 2011: A.1.
When told the Republican Party had labeled Murdough a white supremacist and dissociated itself from his candidacy, the woman, two little girls in tow, walked away and declined to give her name. [..] Murdough's published views were so hot that the Republican State Committee refused to touch him, issuing a flier to candidates and activists recently that listed Murdough's name with a thick black line running over it. "He's a white supremacist fraudulently running on the Republican ticket," the flier said.
- In Grafton, Murdough places last Duckler, Ray. Concord Monitor [Concord, N.H] 15 Sep 2010.
Then [Murdough] had a letter published in the Sunday Concord Monitor in which he proclaimed himself state chairman of the American Third Position party, a white supremacist organization.
- EDITORIAL: A GOP purge; Sununu boots a RINO Anonymous. The Union Leader [Manchester, N.H] 12 July 2010: A.8.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, the party aims to run white nationalist candidates for office in every state.
- Republicans condemn supremacist: Candidate pursues GOP nomination Schoenberg, Shira. Concord Monitor [Concord, N.H] 07 July 2010.
[Kevin MacDonald's] ties to the proposed party "are troubling and I think once again shows (MacDonald) for what he is, which is a bigoted white supremacist," said Kevin O'Grady, director of the ADL's Orange County/Long Beach region. MacDonald has wrongly tried to compare white supremacists with ethnic minority groups that have advocated for rights amid a history of discrimination, O'Grady said.
- Controversial CSULB professor MacDonald is director of new political party Butler, Kevin. Press - Telegram [Long Beach, Calif] 05 Jan 2010.

So the SPLC isn't the sole sources for characterizations of the subject. Will Beback talk 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a really good example of why Wikipedia is inherently flawed and incapable of documenting the truth. Simply because sources that are ideologically in opposition to A3P and therefore are likely to smear A3P are considered "mainstream" and are, in one editor's opinion, "reliable," any smear published by these sources magically become fact. Thus any group that declares its goal to explicitly be the interests of white Americans can and will be smeared in pejorative ways, like "white supremacist," and partisan editors on Wikipedia will gleefully report these smears as documented "facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.194.245 (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, the article should summarize all significant viewpoints, pro and con. It should include both phrases: "the interests of White Americans" and "White supremacism/nationalism", along with any other significant characterizations. Will Beback talk 08:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof remains on those insisting that it be called "White Supremacist" to source one example of the organization saying or doing anything "supremacist". If you've got a bunch of "reputable" organizations claiming something which they fail to or refuse to validate, then you may need to reconsider the reputation of the sources. Admittedly, "the interests of White Americans" is A3P boilerplate, but it's not NPOV to replace the pro-boilerplate with the anti-boilerplate. Could a compromise be had in calling it a "White Nationalist", "racist", or "racialist" organization? As it currently stands, readers visiting this page are being led to the erroneous conclusion that this organization promotes enslavement, Jim Crow, imperialism, colonialism, and a host of other things implied by "supremacism" which cannot be supported by research. --Wikitopian (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 6 cites in the article for the term. He iro 16:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are no cites I have seen here that offer any proof or support for the label of 'promotion' of white supremacism by A3P as an organization. At most, the cited sources suggest that some members have been associated with 'white supremacism' or 'white nationalism' the past. There may be KKK members in the GOP, but that does not mean the Republican party 'promotes' White Supremacism. There may be Marxists in the Democratic party, but that does not mean the Democrats 'promote' Marxism. One could find probably hundreds of web citations (partisan in nature, as with the ADL and SPLC sources used here) to suggest that the GOP/Dems do promote these things, but that does not make the claims accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaphile (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It would be original research for us to go out and label an action as white supremacist. The sources meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It's not about going out and labeling an action as "white supremacist". It's about confirming whether or not your sources corroborate their claims. They do not. Neither the ADL nor the SPLC explain or support their term, bandying it about as an epithet. If Wikipedia were around in the 50's, would it begin all articles about his targeted enemies with a direct statement that they're Marxist spies? McCarthy and his institutions also "met the criteria". In that context, an individual attempting to write an objective article would begin the article with what can actually be confirmed by unbiased sources, then include McCarthy's allegations in the body for the reader's consideration.

If the New York Times or the SPLC asserted that I killed a baby on April 1st, 1984, then that's that. But if the NYT or SPLC merely editorialize that I am a "baby killer", then shouldn't they be expected to corroborate that accusation with an instance of my having killed a baby? And if the NYT can be shown to habitually make these sorts of serious yet unsupported assertions, should its credibility be reconsidered? --Wikitopian (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The comparison with McCarthyism is just silly, but if we were going to make a comparison, then McCarthy would have had to be much more objective than he was in real life, like the SPLC is, and those he accused would promote class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. and have quotes from Lenin's State and Revolution on their websites. All of this would be in the wiki article. Nolan135 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A new citation has been added to the 'white supremacist' tag - http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-01/europe/31011989_1_bnp-emails-hacker-group

"Anonymous infiltrated the website and emails of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist political groupItalic text,"

There you have it. Each day this 'white supremacist' tag remains up, and all of the editors who undo revision changes by A3P members, just shows Wikipedia is nothing more but a leftist/liberal mouthpiece and disinformation center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As of now (March 4 2am EST) the A3P article has been locked, with its biased and highly contested label of 'white supremacist.' It should at least be removed as right now its a conflict of interest, but more than enough credible proof has been presented in this talk thread that shows A3P is not 'white supremacist' but that label has continued, as per biased wikipedia contributers. Zionists don't want White people collecting together and fighting our interests, and defending our race and culture, so they try to slander any pro-White group as 'white supremacist' in an attempt to discourage other Whites from joining or voicing their concerns on racial issues. Here's a good example of how saturated Wikipedia is with them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Have I got this straight - the IP editing by members is not a conflict of interest, the editing by non-members is? And everyone who disagrees with you is a Zionist? Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I was merely pointing out the credibility loss of Wikipedia by having Zionists as editors and contributors. Of course you won't know exactly who, but its evident in certain articles related to jews and israel, and related to pro-White groups. Also having sources from the ADL, a Zionist entity, is the biggest conflict of interest I can think of. The editing by A3P members is as close to the truth as you can get because we are the representatives of the group. Non-members, such as those who reverted changes back to 'white supremacist,' only know uneducated knee-jerk reactions about White advocacy and activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Zionist = Jew? I'll have to say that all the Jews I have known were certainly what most Americans would call 'white'. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The material is clearly well sourced, and the IP deleting it was essentially a sock/meat puppet acting with a clear conflict of interest.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller- Most Zionists are jews, but not all jews are Zionists, and I'm not here to debate who is and isn't White. But why you would bring jews into this discussion is beyond me, and a poor attempt at painting me or A3P as anti-semetic. @Dominus Vobisdu- You consider "well-sourced" coming from entities that either: 1) make a living off identifying "hate groups" based off their own personal opinion, and that are directly opposed to A3P and pro-White activism on an ideological level (such as the ADL, SPLC) and 2) are personal blogs or news mirrors that do not contain any substantial evidence pertaining to 'white supremacism' in A3P, other than linking to ideologically-opposed websites such as listed above. Surely Wikipedia has a better caliber of standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.16.51 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/ron-paul-campaign-denies-white-supremacist-ties-alleged-by-anonymous/

The American Third Position (A3P) political party told The Daily Caller Monday that allegations made by Anonymous are false.

“Many people like Ron Paul. Many A3P members like Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is not a member of our party [nor] does he represent our party,” said A3P. ”We have no regular meetings with Ron Paul. This is a complete fabrication and drama to smear Ron Paul.”

“Anonymous hacked SONY, the CIA, the DOJ, law enforcement agencies all over the country,” the group contended. “They stole a bank card number from our party and made a donation to the ADL.”

A screenshot was posted in a blog for a donation receipt to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which A3P called a “Jewish supremacist organization.”

“We have notified the FBI and the Secret Service,” the organization added.

Facebook comments on an A3P affiliate’s Facebook page finger Barrett Brown, a public member of Anonymous and founder of Project PM, as the culprit.

Brown told TheDC that someone working out of both Anonymous and Project PM did take down the A3P site, along with several other websites.

“I used contact info of subscribers to call some of them up, claim that I’m with a new secret white supremacist group called ‘The Order,’ and that I want to recruit them,” Brown said. “All five fell for it. Recorded it. Planning on using this as an experiment for blind cyber armies.”

A ‘blind cyber army,’ Brown told TheDC, is “a group of online activists who believe themselves to be working for one cause when they are actually being used for another.”

“This isn’t my idea; intelligence agencies have done this IRL [in real life] for years by their own acknowledgement,” said Brown.

A3P also told TheDC that it is not a “white supremacist” organization, as TheDC reported previously, but that A3P is an organization of “nationalists.”

The party’s mission statement states that it “believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.”

A3P also explains on its website that it stands to “protect White American interests, since no other political party has shown interest in doing so. This does not make us racist, but protective of our rights – which every other race or group is encouraged and praised for doing. Discriminatory ‘affirmative action’ programs and the invasion of illegal immigrants adversely affect the welfare of all Americans, but especially the White majority.”

Considering Anonymous, who hacked A3P's website, accounts, and emails, made a donation to the ADL using a key member's credit card, how can you honestly have the balls to use the ADL as a reliable, credible, and neutral source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Because they are not the hackers who hacked the A3P site. What someone else did has nothing to do with the reliability of them as a source, or of the other sources used in the article. He iro 06:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For even Anonymous to know who exactly to donate money to, in an attempt to troll/lulz A3P, shows it is very clear who is at the extreme end of opposition to A3P. They didn't donate money to McDonalds, they specifically chose the ADL. Using the ADL/SPLC as 'reliable sources', which do not even give examples of HOW A3P is supremacist other than constantly throwing around the words 'white supremacist' and 'racist' without ANYTHING to back it up (such as a police report of a member beating a black man just because he was black, for instance). The ADL lists A3P's ideology as 'white supremacist', yet almost all of A3P's points have been echoed by regular conservatives (albeit in non-confrontational wording) both in real politics and on the internet. How can every single one of you empty-headed contributors NOT see this is ASTOUNDING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised, but there's a thread on Stormfront about this article now. Predictably, everyone who defends the non-racist version of the article and reverts the vandalism is a hook-nosed Jew and probably part of that pro-zionist editor program to whitewash articles on the Middle East conflict in favor of Israel. Apparently that's proof enough of all their fantasies, because at least one person is posting the video in a lot of places. How that has the slightest thing whatsoever to do with a white supremacist fringe party in North America is beyond me, but that's a nice little window into how these people think. This should settle it as far as I'm concerned. The article is accurate as it is. I'd say it should be protected because now they're gonna encourage each other to come and vandalize the article. One already has. Nolan135 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

\WP does not parrot the media as an encyclopedia. That should be asserted not as gospel truth but the CLAIMS of adl/splc (which are hardly neutral in their labels). At any rate, until this is resolved to consensus it shoudl stay out.Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that reliable sources say they're white supremacist in nature, so our article says they're white supremacist in nature. This has come up dozens of times before and the result has always been the same. So until a contradictory decision is reached by the community, our long-standing policy remains in force. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I found the thread, and it was in regards to another website thread complaining about the exact opposite: That evil racists were trying to alter Wikipedia's A3P entry. Stormfront didn't know about A3P's contested Wikipedia article until that third party website was linked so stop trying to twist the events around to make it look like Wikipedia is under attack from "evilnaziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews." But since one person posts a video about Zionist manipulation, that's how the entirety of Stormfront thinks, or any other racialist publication, and therefore this A3P article should be locked with its dishonest information within? That proves your OWN bias. All I ever hear about is "reliable sources" "reliable sources" "reliable sources", but I've yet to see even an objective viewpoint about A3P (or anything pro-White for that matter) except for, again, ideologically opposed groups. For instance, Would you accept information from a Mets fan about the lack of skill of the Yankees, and how you shouldn't attend their game? Of course not, you wouldn't be so gullible and naive because the information from the Mets fan has a conflict of interest as he has personal gain, as an "enemy" of the Yankees, from dispersing such info. Same context here. But what I find most telling of Wikipedia's bias, and the probable collaboration between editors/contributors to keep the false information about A3P, is that NOBODY has addressed the fact that one of your sources lists A3P as white nationalist and not white supremacist! http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-01/europe/31011989_1_bnp-emails-hacker-group

And this article should use both white nationalist and white supremacist - that link should be a reference for white nationalist. The Mets/Yankees thing is irrelevant because as you know we use 'reliable sources', a concept which some people don't like. It isn't biased to say that the A3P calls itself white nationalist while others call it white supremacist, which is what the article should say. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The thread is about how the j00z are trying to silence patriots of the master race. @Doug So, should it say "...and has a white nationalist platform, defining its principal mission as representing the interests of white Americans." Would that be a good place to insert the "white nationalist" label? Nolan135 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Nolan135 It might be, but SF is not a representation of A3P or white nationalism as a whole. @Doug I can reach an agreement on saying something along the lines of A3P being white nationalist and representing White Americans etc, but some opponents consider us white supremacist. Which is closer to the truth than simply "A3P promotes white supremacism." If so, here are a couple more sources to reinforce the "is white nationalist" point: Source 1 , Source 2

So what is the status of the above proposition of re-describing A3P as "being white nationalist and representing the interests of White Americans, but some opponents consider A3P to be white supremacist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.35.108 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm against it. The first sentence should be left as is. I'm for noting somewhere in the following sentences that "...the party describes itself and its platform as white nationalist" or some variation on that. See my post above. In addition, there's no reason to capitalize white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolan135 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOVN

Discussion started at WP:NPOVN#American Third Position Party. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

^ Larry Keller. "New White Supremacist Party has Mass Electoral Ambitions". Retrieved 2012-02-03. {{cite web}}: Text "Southern Poverty Law Center" ignored (help)
^ "Backgrounder: American Third Position". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 2012-02-03.

[1] Larry Keller. "New White Supremacist Party has Mass Electoral Ambitions". Retrieved 2012-02-03. {{cite web}}: Text "Southern Poverty Law Center" ignored (help)

[2] "Backgrounder: American Third Position". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 2012-02-03.

[1]

[2]

Talk:American Freedom Party/Archive 1

Advertisement