Talk:Bill White (neo-Nazi)/Archive 1

The reference to this page needs to be change IMMEDIATELY!
There is an unrelated Bill White, former Mayor of Houston, who is running for Governor of TX. He is a top candidate. When you search the web for "Bill White" it shows this article stating (neo-nazi). The search for Bill WHile needs to go to one of those pages with a reference to this guy and that guy, but not directly linked here. Editors, please change this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.5.40 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can do nothing about what search engines do. When you search Wikipedia for Bill White, you end up at Bill White which is a list of relevant articles. When I search Google for Bill White, the mayor is the 2nd hit (the 1st being some news articles), the Nazi the 3rd hit. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Over its history, this article has been moved to several possible permutation of the name, most listed here: . However I see that the local newspaper and some other media have been using "William A. White" or "William White" recently. We may someday think of moving the article back to one of those. Meanwhile, I've added a hatnote to point to the disambiguation page and sorted the prominent politician to the top of the list of relatively less-notable people.   Will Beback    talk    10:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Why is there a page for Bill White? Does Wikipedia allow just anybody to have a page? I have my own website, I am politically active, and I have an IQ over 150, just like Bill. Does that make me eligible for a page on Wikipdia?

Shouldn't this page be taken down? In what way is Bill White significant enough for a Wikipedia site (aside from the adulations of his ex-girlfriend, below)?

I suggest we consider this.
 * Can you cite numerous appearances of yourself in the media? As objectionable as he may be, White is a figure who frequently garners the public eye. - N1h1l 12:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also into politics and have my own website. I had some friends place my listing on wikipedia to help keep information current as I am also an officer of my party to help record additional information for history. I guess they only let in nazis and not democratic socialist at wikipedia. (Comraderedoctober 09:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia has lost criteria these days. Any piece of shit can have a page now, if 2 or more people visit their website or give a shit about opinions.--200.222.3.3 18:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but Bill White is such a common name that I have people asking me if I am the same Bill White. I am Bill White (formally William J. White), Synchronicity Expert and can be found at http://www.successradio1111.com I am in no way a bigot or a socialist. I find this Bill White's views not only repugnant but an insult to the name.


 * To you and all the other Bill Whites in the world please be assured that we took great care and discussed at length about what to name this article, what to include in it, and even whether to retain it all. We also had a similar debate about a similar person with a similarly common name, Don Black. Having a common name, you must surely face mistaken identities more than most other people (though at least you don't have to spell your names over the phone every time!) Hopefully, confusion due to the coincidence of name will be unlikely due to the title of the article, the photograph of the subject, and the detailed biography. -Will Beback 08:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians with articles
I'd like to notify editors of this article about two related articles. These articles, Erica Hardwick and Chuck Munson, concern associates of White, were heavily edited or created by user:Baxter2, and now anonymous editors (who may be the subjects) have appeared and are protesting Baxter2's additions. (Well, blanking actually. I take that as a form of protest.) Hardwick's article has too many non-notable events in it while the Munson article has too few (though too much for at least one editor). -Willmcw June 28, 2005 05:06 (UTC)

unpaid for 4 months
Pravda offered me a full Russian journalits salary, in rubles, the equivalent of which was $150 US per month. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 November 2006  (UTC)

This doesn't seem to verify his pay, or time of service w pravda. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 4 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)


 * The links may be changing underneath us. I found this page, titled, Libertarian Censorship: Antiwar, Neo-Cons And My Resignation From Pravda, which says:
 * And with that February 18, 2002, letter, I left my brief four month jaunt as Washington Correspondent for Russia's largest English-language news publication.
 * They agreed - and I agreed to do it without a salary (Russian journalists make $300 a month. I make $2000 a week from my 40-hour day job. I told them to save the cash.)
 * I'd like to urge any editors who doubt it to check the link while it is still there. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw July 4, 2005 23:15 (UTC)

If were going to use that, it would seem unfair not to mention that he refused pay, and wrote prolificaly. It does seem an acceptabl;e reference tho. I am placing the entirety below. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is a minor point, but we should strive for accuracy in the smallest detail. I wouldn't mind a longer discussion on the Pravda writings later in the article. White's writing is prolific whether for Pravda or his own blog/news service. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'll be the first to admit I havn't read the entirety of whats below ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)


 * I've moved the article, previously "below", to */References. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:59 (UTC)

Recent changes
I've put the neutrality of this page in dispute and I will make some suggeted edits later. You can read my objections below. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this page is written entirely by anti-racists for the purpose of smearing me, and that Wikipedia is a bad joke all around, but please stop inserting false information -- and then repeatedly enforcing the insertion of false information. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 November 2006  (UTC)

Mostly, this article consists of things I've said taken out of context, negative news articles on me quoted without regard to positive news articles, and is a generally professional smear job that can't stand up to scrutiny but can probably be BS'ed as meeting Wikipedia's "standards". Given that the chief moderater, "Willmcw", has a stated personal dislike of me, this is not a surprise. Unfortunately, my real world life doesn't afford me the luxury of being able to edit this page every few days to add back in the untrue statements that are made.

However, I have changed a lot of the specific lies that I see being made here:

First, there are a number of comments about how I "describe myself" that are untrue -- they are dated and they are conflated with current comments in order to create a deliberately misleading picture.

Second, I have run for office several times in Montgomery County, Maryland in nine and seven way races and won, pretty consistently, 7% of the vote. I have never run as a write in and I have copies of the old news articles showing the election results, even if they are no longer available on the Montgomery County Board of Election websites.

Third, White Web Publishing, Inc, did not go "bankrupt" (if it did -- source the bankruptcy papers. I've never filed a bankruptcy in my life). I sold it off to a friend of mine when I moved from Maryland in later 2003.

Fourth, I own thirty three housing units in Roanoke Virginia, but renting housing is a secondary business for me. My primary business is the construction and the re-construction of abandoned houses.

If there is anything that is really notable about me, other than my publishing ventures, it is the amount of hatred I engender from anti-racists. I can't think of another white activist who is viscerally hated by antifa the way I am. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Will editors please refrain from adding line breaks into paragraphs? It makes it very difficult to follow the changes. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Gay activist"? "Psychiatric hospital"? While some of the additions here are good, (like the ShopWhite material I've been meaning to add myself), others seem out or left field. May I suggest that rather than re-writing the article wholesale user:Patrickcochran could please change a section at a time so that other editors can review them? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed the linebreaks, which shows the changes are less sweeping then they appeared before. Even so, I'm removing the two points mentioned above until we can get good sources. -Willmcw 07:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * After reviewing other parts of PC's edits I found that some were totally unsupported by the provided citations, and seemed fraudulent so I've reverted the whole thing again. The subject has led a sufficiently interesting life that we don't have to make up additional details. Let's stick to the verifiable facts. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Bill White: The Person
Personally, I do not like this article. Any middle of the road, average American who might happen to read it would automatically gain a negative image of William (Bill) White due to his past affiliations and current beliefs. If I had to write a mini-bio on White, I certainly wouldn’t have chosen anus.com as a website. It just doesn’t sound like a very credible source of information for anything other than anal activities. While this article is full of information about White, it is severely lacking in who the person behind the name and semi-notorious fame is.

Many things, both good and bad, can be said about Bill White. Luckily, I had the opportunity to get to know White outside of his activism and can speak of the person. When I first met him, I too thought he was just another shallow and egotistical person with a very warped view of society and life. I continued talking to White and found him to be very educated, very well polished, and very passionate about his beliefs. No goose-stepping. No white robes hanging in the closet. No empty beer cans littering the front lawn.

As a friend White will have no problems speaking his mind with you. White does not coddle. He will not sugar coat things to make you feel better and this has upset some of those who used to be included in his close circle of friends and loved ones. For those people, I say this: grow up and listen to him. You might hate to hear what he has to say, but his advice comes from wisdom and concern. I know that if I ever face troublesome or confusing times, I can go to White and he will give much needed advice, friendship, and guidance. I frequently find myself saying “why didn’t I just listen to him?”

After a brief romance with White, I learned even more unimaginable things about him. Although it might later be denied, there is escaping the fact that White has a heart the size of Rhode Island. He is extremely compassionate, fun-loving, and an all around good guy. I thoroughly enjoyed the time that I spent with him. Plus, White’s pictures just don’t do him justice; he is an awfully attractive young man with amazing eyes. He just has to beat the women off of him with a stick.

In today’s age, it is hard to find people like Bill White. Instead of obsessing over the latest “in” thing, White spends his free time cultivating himself and trying to improve the world. I for one am impressed that he is so passionate about his beliefs, stands up for them, and tries to spread them. Far too many people have not even a tenth of the courage that White has. I feel lucky that I have been able to call this great man my friend. --Jmr2005 04:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I went to high school with Billy. He seemed like a really nice guy, I would never have thought he was a racist, or whatever. He got in trouble a bit. I think he got expelled for punching the principal (Mr. Graham), but he was very friendly. I remember he signed my senior year yearbook (I was a year or so ahead of him), saying one day he would be either famous or infamous.. Kinda funny... -
 * All right, you should have said earlier you were his bitch, so I wouldn't have had to read through your ass-kissing message. Attractive?? he's a fat, fat racist. Thank you very much.--200.222.3.3 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You should do what I do in all thses long write ups, read the first and last paragraphs to see what started it and what ended. I have been just as active on the political left end of the spectrum but nazis seem to be the only ones welcome at wikipedia. (Comraderedoctober 09:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

Recent edits, reverted
Amalekite's recent edits were very PoV under the guise of correcting to NPoV. I've reverted it all. Despite the similarity of the edits to those of certain banned editors with racist/neo-Nazi/white-supremacist views, I'm assuming that that's just generic, not evidence of sock-puppetry. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand" would seem to imply "Nazi" rather than "activist," which isn't as recognizable or applicable. Again, the only reason Bill White has an entry is because he's a Nazi. -- FRCP11 05:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as he's a self-identified Nazi, then I don't see the problem using that in the title (I didn't like "fascist" because its meaning is different, and it wasn't obvious to me that he fitted it; he doesn't seem bright enough to be a fascist, which is a genuine political position, whereas being a Nazi doesn't take any intelligence at all). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nazi or Neo-Nazi? Nazi by itself has strong connotations of time and place that don't apply.Fawcett5 17:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. I think "(neo-Nazi)" would meet the requirements best. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. -- FRCP11 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to renaming the article Bill White (neo-Nazi) then? If there are no objections within a day or two, perhaps one of us could make the move. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already stated my objection but since the consensus seems to favor a less neutral indentifier I won't object further. -Willmcw 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I vote for neo-Nazi, but the guidlines say a single word, correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.210.154 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Clarification of election results
Someone had written that White received 7% of the vote for school board in 2000. Based in info from the Montgomery County Board of Elections website, I changed that to 0.7%, based on the write-in total for the general election.

Looking a little deeper at the pages, however, it seems White -- or someone with the same name -- did receive 6.6% of the vote in the primary election that year. However, White is also listed as a write-in candidate for the general (run-off) election, the one in which all write-ins combined got 0.7%.

I am unfamiliar with Maryland election law here. Is it possible for someone to run as a write-in in the general election after losing in a nonpartisan primary? Mwalcoff 13:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I did not run as a write in -- my name was spontaneously written in. In fact, this happens all over the country. I won one of the first votes for President in 1992. ;-D -- Bill

Columbine -- revert explanation
I'm sorry -- I don't see the fact that Dylan Klebold's mom was Jewish has anything to do with this article. Bill White claimed to be an anti-racist back then anyway. -- Mwalcoff 03:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The shooters were messed up but they were not neo-nazis any more than goth kids are vampires I think this Jewish bit should be pointed out because based on his track record I don't think Bill is telling the truth and see no reason to give him the benifit of the doubt.

132.241.245.132 03:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not about giving Bill White "the benefit of the doubt." We can't have complete speculation about someone's reasoning with no evidence behind it. -- Mwalcoff 04:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. If someone wants to dig through White's comments on Overthrow, he may have said something there. Until we find something specific, we shouldn't speculate. -Willmcw 04:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Name change
Source?
 * born Antonio E. Little in 1977

I went to Middle School and High School with this guy, and I always knew him as Billy White, for whatever that's worth.

THE HECK WITH ANTICHRIST!!!!! A BUNCH OF SCUMBAGS!!!!!!

Who is deleting my Comments and words in the Article????-LUTHER B.


 * Please do not insert comments into the article. -Will Beback 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Born Antonio E Little? LOL -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 November 2006  (UTC)

White is out of the NSM
Bill White was expelled/resigned from the NSM and is alleging that the leadership worships Satan (literally)

Never a dull moment. Homey 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One minute they're atheists or members of the Creativity movement and don't believe in satan, and the next they accuse their enemies of being satanists.


 * It just shows how stupid these people are.


 * --Yunipo 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

New edits
user:68.10.35.153, identifying himself as "Bill White", has made a number of unsourced edits to the article. Factual claims require reliable 3rd party sources, and most of these changes did not provide those sources. We're all eager for this article to become more accurate and more neutral, but we can only do that by referencing accurate, neutral sources. -Will Beback · † · 09:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "This IP address, 68.10.35.153 (host: ip68-10-35-153.rn.hr.cox.net), is registered to Cox Communications serving West Helena, Arkansas," Is Bill White from West Helena, Arkansas?

Anyone who considers the ADL, the SPLC, and the Jewish press "accurate, neutral" sources is a retard. Frankly, all of Wikipedia is a sick joke -- do read the articles on this site? Half of them are unintelligible garbage and the other half you can't believe without independent verification. The skewed, biased nonsense published on this page is just one of many examples of the crap you pinheads put out.

Minor Rewrite of 11-17-2006
While I am no fan on this guy, I'd have to say that the changes Bill White made on November 16th aren't really unbalanced. They are partially sourced, though not by third party sources. However, the previous version that it has been reverted to is equally unsourced. I think that Bill's changes should be put back in, to some degree. When I get some downtime, I'll review them, remove anything too biased, salvage anything worthwhile from the current revision, and put up a new compromise version.

Oh and Bill, create an account.

Sadena 13:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through and merged all the edits. I have removed many unsourced statements by both sides. While Bill's recent edits were revereted as being unsourced, I was amazed to see how many unsourced allegations were in the pervious version as well. Once you go over it line by line that is.

So I've cleaned it up, balanced it out, and thrown a dozen citation needed tags in it. Please do not revert this rewrite en masse. Please address the specific points, add citations, etc.  I'll be going over this again in a month, and if the citations don't turn up I'll start pruning, from both sides.

Sadena 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill White isn't a Nazi
Bill White is not a racist. Anyone who bothers to read his past accounts and activism can see that he does what he does for the attention he receives -both from the media and general public. His constant failed attempted take overs of several different racist organizations and his close friendships of media people like Isis, show his real intent.

He talks of waving a pistol in the face's of his enemies and has recently published a grand story of beating five bikers up all by himself.

Maybe you didn't notice -- White was picked up for brandishing in late 2005 and the video of him fighting the bikers appeared on TV news in Maryland in 2003. ;-D

In short he is a sad little man living in a sad little story of a life of bedtime stories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.234.208 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

He leads a group called the "American National Socialist Party", if that doesn't make him a neo-Nazi I don't know what would. Whether he is not sincere about his stated beliefs is an interesting point of speculation but that's all. Dimitroff 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Short encounter
Is there a reliable source to verify this encounter with Tom Short? ClaudeReigns 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

still from the video
Coming here by accident, I was struck by this video--for I could not imagine how it could legitimately be used. I see it has been claimed as fair use, and that this has been questioned. I agree with the questioner, and I intend to remove it if the objections raised are not answered. If the video is legitimately on the internet somewhere, make an external link to it instead. DGG 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Title
I've moved this page back to Bill White (activist), as the previous title may be a BLP violation. He seems to be more of a far right anarchist than anything else, or at least that's how he would see himself, I believe. We would need a few reliable sources before we could say neo-Nazi, or else he would need to self-identify as that. Perhaps his membership of the parties is enough, but I feel it's going a bit far having it in the title. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see he has swastikas on his website, so I'll have no objection if someone wants to move the title back. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "racist?" That would cover any stripe of kook Bill White is and not provide the positive connotation of "activist." -- Mwalcoff 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be good if we could find something a little more neutral, even though it's clearly true. What about Bill White (overthrow.com). Or better still, William A. White, which is his name? SlimVirgin (talk)


 * I'd preferred "activist" because it seems more neutral, but the previous consensus favored "neo-Nazi", which is undoubtedly accurate. I'm not aware of anyone calling him "William A. White". -Will Beback · † · 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so how do we move it back now that Bill White (neo-Nazi) already exists as a redirect page? -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's easy enough to move. We should decide first which word we agree on. I do prefer activist. I won't fight neo-Nazi. I'd prefer William A. White because that's his name, even though he's called Bill now. Or Bill White (overthrow.com). Bill White (political activist). Bill White (white nationalist). Bill White (national socialist). Bill White (white supremacist). I'd prefer almost anything to Bill White (neo-Nazi). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My issue with "activist" is that it does not sound neutral to me -- it sounds positive, as if we're legitimizing racism as a cause. By the same token, "white nationalist" is a euphamism used by racists themselves to make their movements seem legitimate. "National socialist" is confusing -- most people know the term "Nazi," but aren't familiar with "national socialism," which is a bad description of Nazism anyway. "White supremacist" may be OK, although Bill White claims his biggest issues are with Jews rather than blacks or whoever. "Racist" may be more accurate. -- Mwalcoff 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Racist" is more a quality than an identifier. Similar to "Bill White (Tone-Deaf)."  The man is a neo-nazi, and wouldn't deny it.  He dresses up in a Nazi costume and parades around, where's the dispute?  He's either a Neo-Nazi or a Performance Artist.   Sadena 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Though "racist" is undoubtedly correct, moreso than I've seen from practically any other writer. Look at this. I think what's preventing the move back is that the other page has been edited, so I'll delete it, then you should be able to move it. I'm not comfortable doing it myself. It's too much like Adolf Hitler (murderer). SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, it should work now. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you rather have Adolf Hitler (painter)? Sadena 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Bill White (National Socialist)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The term "Neo-Nazi" is specific and not necessarily accurate in this case. Perhaps Bill White (white nationalist) would be more appropriate, since it is more neutral, and less assuming. S facets 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill White correctly identifies himself as a National Socialist. This is easily distinguishable from the Socialism on the left by anyone who is interested in political minorities. "National Alliance" seems to be supported, as is "White supremacist", though opposition to Zionism should not be enough to justify it (some Jews also oppose it). What with seperation of church and state being what it is, Bill White (Creativity Movement) might serve as just as clear an identifier of political belief as any, and at least three citeable sources do contend that "Neo-Nazi" is the appropriate label--so I don't quite understand SlimVirgin's misgivings--but concede that some National Socialists might conceivably be offended in some way. Media have begun identifying him as "William A. White", but I do not necessarily support a move there because of this article. Thus a descriptive term will have to be applied one way or another. Another reason I do not support this is that he is simply not known by this name except in recent daily newspapers and court documents. Also, Robert Allen Zimmerman redirects to Bob Dylan and not the other way around. A very strong case should be made for a contrary position to this example. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
There is a continuing problem with this page being written entirely by critics of White, and maintained by individuals involved in anti-racist causes. The facutal inaccuracy of the article is often simply astounding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153  (talk • contribs) 12:34, April 22, 2007

In fact, from lookin at the history, it is probably more appropriate to say this page is written and maintained regularly by a gang of White's critics, whereas the majority of editors -- anonyomous and user -- have regularly challenged their statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153  (talk • contribs) 12:37, April 22, 2007


 * There's no easy way of figuring out the political and racial makeup of the writers, and those don't really matter anyway. What matter is the article, and we can address any problems with it that are specified. -Will Beback · † · 19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are factual inaccuracies, please do be specific because we want to address them. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article starts with a factually inaccurate statement "white first came to public attention in 1999 blah blah blah" then quotes the only public statement of Whites which he has publicly disavowed -- the statement on Columbine. It then ignores all the major media coverage of White for a minor quote at the end of the New York Times article, and concludes by identifying White as a "Holocaust denier" which, while true, is not a major element of who White is -- meaning, he's not David Irving or Ernst Zundel.  He's known for this activism on a variety of subjects, and has never drawn public attention for his views on the Holocaust, except in the context of the Elie Wiesel assault.


 * I've watched this article for years. The admins keep coming in and telling you guys to cut out the POV garbage, you cut it out for a week or two, then you change the article back when no one is looking.  Time to cut the crap.  This article is so over the top in its inaccuracies and its lack of focus -- for a long time you asserted that White's real name was "Lee Antonio Smith" if I recall -- that, while it probably fulfills some id desire of White's critics, it does very little to discuss who White actually is, and strikes the average reader as a slander, which means its ignored.


 * You would be much more effective criticizing White if you represented him in a more truthful manner. One wonders how old the monitors of this page are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Y'all can discuss the content, the sourcing, the reliability, etc. to your hearts' content, but please do not remove the infobox or other WkiProject:Biography standards. Thanks. -- Avi 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That was unintentional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Having watched the evolution of this article as well, I have to agree with the anonymous critic. The quality and misinformation posted here has been terrible.  I wonder sometimes if the strange pathology White seems to evoke in some of his critics doesn't deserve its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.198.130.58 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

POV edits
SlimVirgin: Please stop your POV edits. The intro to an article should be a comprehensive overview of the subject, including both positive and negative, not a selective edit to fit your agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs)


 * First, please sign your posts so we can see who's saying what.


 * Can you say why the lead you're objecting to doesn't provide an accurate or comprehensive overview? Also, could you say what my "agenda" is? I'm not aware of having one. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the topic below. How does your version of the introduction touch on all the important points in a way the current version does not?  What your version does is delete many of the important points to focus on a few that are, quite arguably, less important.


 * Just to add, looking at your edits to "Night" "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" "animal rights" "Lyndon LaRouche" and other topics, I think your agenda and your political views are very clear. Ironically, White, who is an animal rights supporter and a vegetarian, would probably agree with many of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs)


 * Could you be specific, please, and list which issues you consider important and which are missing from the lead you dislike? Also, I'm still not clear what my agenda is; please be specific about that too. And please sign your posts. SlimVirgin (talk)


 * Look below at "major media references". I believe you delete at least half the subjects there. If you don't think one is worth mentioning, discuss it first instead of imposing your views on the article.  And I think I just said what your agenda is -- you are clearly a far left "anarchist" "animal rights" militant of some sort who a) believes, mostly erroneously, that your views are diametrically opposed to those of National Socialism, and b) believes that slander is appropriate towards those you disagree with.  Both views are very common in that section of the political world, and very inappropriate for Wikipedia.  Here they are called "POV".  Try stepping outside your POV and writing objectively, instead of writing political screeds and slanders against your imagined "opposition". 68.10.35.153 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As to who I am, some of us believe in the original Wikipedia "anonymity" concept, rather than the new "Wikipedia can only be edited by known editors" concept.


 * Also, let me refer you to the admin comments on this . You may want to read them. 68.10.35.153 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't attack other editors - we're here to discuss the article, not each other. If you feel the need to complain about an editor then there are better places to do so, such as user talk pages, WP:AN/I, etc. -Will Beback · † · 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask who you were. I asked you to sign your posts, which you can do by typing four tildes after them, like this ~ . This helps to keep the talk page readable, and helps with archiving, because it also adds the date and time of posts.


 * People who know my edits will be amused to see me described as a far-left anarchist, but no worries &mdash; I've been called worse. Can you tell me exactly what in the lead I wrote you would regard as "slander"? Also, please be very specific &mdash; give examples &mdash; about what is missing from it that is important. Waving your hand in the direction of the list of subjects below doesn't tell me much. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's an attack. It was an answer to a question. If you ask "what do you object to about my writing" and I state it, that's not an "attack". In any case, I agree we should focus on the substance of the article, and not people's personal views. And the NPOV version of this article is not exactly winning broad acceptance.


 * I don't think I said you were slandering per se, only that you were choosing to emphasize and de-emphasize certain points in an effort to distort the POV of the article. Again, I'm not the only neutral party in this dispute to notice that (see my reference to comments).  My view is that all the major subjects should be touched on.  If you can state a reason why they shouldn't, I'd love to hear it. 68.10.35.153 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with 68. on this. Looking at the history of this article, the POV stuff, poor sources, and general silliness seems to be the work of a handful of editors producing the kind of stuff that has given Wikipedia our Unreliable" reputation.  I'd like to see more serious discussion and less rhetoric and selective editing.  75.199.78.204 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no discussion and a lot of pointless revert bullying. Anyone want to discuss the issue? I agree the consensus is with the 68. version. Pointlessarguing 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Very clear that SlimVirgin and WillBeBack are the problems on this article. I've made a complaint:. Let's get some other, hopefully not personally involved, admins involved.


 * Would the anon please settle on one account for posts and edits, please? We need very specific objections. If you object to the current lead, we need to know "This sentence should be in it (sentence) because (reason), and here is the source (source). Ditto if you think something important is missing. General comments will just keep us going round in circles. Bear in mind that not everything can be mentioned in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to discuss this with a neutral third party, and I'll be happy to wait for one to arrive. I am 75. not .68.  And ese up on the paranoia.  You're clearly not in the majority.  Pointlessarguing 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any discussion of what specifically needs to be changed about the intro. -Will Beback · † · 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the article should focus on something White has done in the past year to get national attention, and not what he did 11 or 9 years ago. The focus of the introduction should be broader, and should look like some of what is said about White in the press.  If you Google the guy's name, you get tens of thousands of sources.  Someone reading a broad variety of material should get a good sense of White from the article -- not your sense of him. 68.10.35.153 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What has he done in the last year to get national attention? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go and click the links on the page you deleted. Try the national attempt to arrest and extradite him that happened to be on Canada's national television?  And the CRTC complaint?  Just because Canada is to the North doesn't mean it "doesn't count".  And how about the North Toledo riots?  White's best known adventure, which is not mentioned at all.  And given that he happens to be the US' only publicly Nazi millionaire?  That doesn't seem relevant?  None of that "promotes" White.  That's like saying Adolf Hitler was head of the German state "promotes" Hitler because being head of the German state is a good thing.  The irrational approach you've taken to this article, and your abuse of the semi-protect status, is ... well, its the worst of Wikipedia.  Pointlessarguing 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we've seen any reliable source for White's net worth. Regarding the rest, we should certinaly have a balance that reflects the subject's life and notability. But recent events are not necessarilty more notable than older ones. As for the North Toledo riots, that was the activity of many people not just White. We discuss his role but it also needs to be kept proportionate. -Will Beback · † · 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, we should certainly include somehting about this Canadian matter, if we cn find sources for it. Depending on its importance it might also go in the intro. -Will Beback · † · 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And why was that deleted? Every news article about White describes him as a "landlord" and discusses his business.  If *every news agency in the world*  thinks its relevant, why doesn't Wikipedia discuss it in the first paragraph? 68.10.35.153 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't add every single thing this person has done. The article can't be used as a platform either to promote or to attack him. I've added something about the Canadian thing. The article already says that he's a local landlord. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, so we have to be selective. The things he did to get national attention last year, or two years ago, thus have priority over the thins he did ten years ago.  And that's what's not happening here.  Hell, the guy was a leftist back when half of what's in the introduction was done -- so what relevance does that have to who he is now?  When someone comes to Wikipedia to get information, do they want to know what the guy said he was 18, or what he's saying now?  And that's the deliberate distortion which makes the introduction such a problem. Pointlessarguing 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's recentism. We give an overview of what reliable sources have said about him. The material you're calling old isn't old enough to be considered irrelevant now. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's also, BTW, why I made the discussion section below. Why should one element there be included and another not included?  Want to take on that discussion?  Why do you think the North Toledo riot -- one of the first things to come up when you Google White's name, isn't important, and Columbine is?  Weren't other people involved in Columbine?  The article implies White didn't even have a real role in that -- yet you give that priority over what he is best known for, and which appeared on CNN and every major TV station in the world?  Your editing decisions are clearly POV and biased -- and that's painfully obvious, it seems, to everyone but you guys, who are using dishonest tricks, dishonestly, to keep this article inaccurate and misfocused. Pointlessarguing 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In most cases I'd say that reades may know what the subject is doing "now" but may want to know the background. Regarding being a landlord, that doesn't make one notable. Yes, it's a part of how the subject earns a living, but it's no more important than what school he ewwnet to or other mundane details. We also have to take into account that this subject has a reputation for making outrageous statements and is not necessarily a reliable source even for his own biography. So, for example, we can't take his word for it that he was offered but refused payments for being a Pravda columnist. We need 3rd-party sources for contentious assertions like that. As for the Canadian matter, I don't think that the proposed edit was a neutral account of what the CBC article says. I'm sure we can do better. -Will Beback · † · 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * has previously indicated that he's Bill White.  SlimVirgin (talk)  02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently that user doesn't believe in anonymous editing as much as claimed. We can take this up elsewhere. -Will Beback · † · 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Major Media References
What are the major media things White has been involved in? I think it might be useful to list them and then try to figure out which are appropriate for the article and which are not. Some have been touched on here. My suggestions:


 * Richard Warman / Canada controversy (2006)
 * North Toledo riot (2005)
 * Columbine (1999)
 * Red Lake Massacre (2004?)
 * Lefkow Shooting (2002? 2003?)
 * 1996 abused child internet event
 * Publishing Overthrow.com / other white websites (Vanguard News Network?)
 * Various National Socialist Movement activities (aggregated)
 * Various ANSWP activities (aggregated)
 * Various leftist / anarchist activites (pre-NSM)
 * Various electoral activities (1998 - 2002)
 * Business activities, including protests against them (aggregated)
 * Published writings -- Pravda, Washington Times, elsewhere

Any others that have drawn national media attention?
 * From the A.P. wire and reported on CNN 9/21/07

The FBI is reviewing an unnamed website that purports to list addresses of 5/6 black teens known as "the Jena 6", accused of beating a white teen. The "white supremacist" site "essentially called for their lynching," an agency spokeswomen said Saturday. CNN first reported Friday about the Web site, which features a swastika, frequent use of racial slurs, a mailing address in Roanoke, Va., and phone numbers purportedly for some of the teens' families "in case anyone wants to deliver justice." That page is dated Thursday. William A. "Bill" White, listed as the Web site's editor and commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, did not immediately answer an e-mail to his address. Calls to one of the two William Whites listed in Roanoke were not answered; the other said he was not involved with the site. This is not unlike Bill White's past alleged behavior, listing name and telephone number of an alleged abused teenage girl. The parents received endless harassment as a result of the posting on his website. The article is especially relevant today, as the Jena 6 trials are beginning to commence. JeNINfer 10:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

protection
Editprotect

Requesting only anonymous users be banned from edits. Problem is with registered users and one admin, not anons.

SEMI PROTECTION SHALL NOT BE USED IN A CONTENT DISPUTE BETWEEN REGISTERED USERS AND ANONYMOUS USERS WITH THE INTENT TO LOCK OUT THE ANONYMOUS USERS 68.10.35.153 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Disputes about page protection, and requests for semiprotection, belong at WP:RFPP. CMummert · talk 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of worrying?
look at his blog - Bananas 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Shout at me for doing wrong!
 * Thanks. We've seen that and the community is not concerned. It's harder to destroy Wikipedia than it looks. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thats good to hear ;) Bananas 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Shout at me for doing wrong!

Page name
Here we go with the page name again. Someone changed it from Bill White (neo-Nazi) to Bill White (National-Socialist) without discussion. I moved it back, and now someone has reverted the change.

The page name Bill White (neo-Nazi) was decided upon after a lengthy discussion. The new title violates WP:MOS with its aberrant capitalization and hyphenation. While the term "neo-Nazi" is clear, few would know what is meant by "National-Socialist." While it is true the term "Nazi" came from the German words for "National Socialist," it's clear that "Nazism" is the universally understood term for the racist belief system of the Nazis, which was not simply a combination of nationalism and socialism but something different entirely. -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There was a consensus for "neo-Nazi". "National-Socialist" is a less optimal qualifier for several reasons, both stylistic and substantive. I'm going to move it back and lock it. If the user would like to discuss the change I'm sure everyone would be open to hearing his reasoning. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 19:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The term neo-nazi is a slang term where as national socialist is not, also bill is not the commander of the American neo-nazi workers party rather the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party. Just because some many don't know the meaning of National Socialist does not mean that the standards should be lowered rather they should be educated. Usnn 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Neo-Nazi" isn't a slang term, but it may be pejorative. It's a term that's often used to describe him, but I don't see him describing himself that way. Even so it does appear reasonably neutral given the circumstances. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hell bill himself suggested using National Socialist and was ignored completely.Usnn 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Neo-Nazi" is hardly a slang term -- it is far better known and understood than "national socialist." It also is a better description. The Czech National Social Party is nationalist and socialist, for instance, but isn't Nazi. -- Mwalcoff 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this i was looking at the Bill White page and noticed a link to this page Bill White (Canadian politician) so what about Bill White (Virginian politician) as bill will be running for mayor of Roanoke. Usnn 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not what he's known for -- he's known for being a neo-Nazi. Plus, given this guy's electoral track record, it's doubtful he'll win any more than a few votes, so he can hardly be considered a notable politician. -- Mwalcoff 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In his own words in response to a reporters question 9. Your group has been described as Neo-Nazi. Is that accurate? >There is nothing "neo" about us. We are National Socialists.Usnn 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So the objection is to "neo", not "Nazi"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if that hasn't come through in my posts, but yesUsnn 23:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And what's the problem with "neo"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'neo-Nazi' is a better label than 'National Socialist'. Using the term 'Nazi' coveys a specific historical meaning. Revolutionaryluddite 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth
Nothing else needs to be said. KingmanIII 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Never an anarchist
This entry includes an inaccurate section stating that Bill White was an anarchist at one time. White was never an anarchist although he claimed he was. White was rejected by all of the anarchists he came in contact with, which probably accounts for his drift around various political ideologies. In fact, in a prescient sign of White's current ideology, when White first contacted the anarchist movement circa 1995, he was immediately given the nickname "Kaiser Bill" for his clear authoritarian views. White's "anarchism" was not anarchism, rather his skewed teenager's view of what anarchism was about. White went on to fabricate many things about his "Utopian Anarchist Party", including the ludicrous claim that it was the largest anarchist organization in the United States. In fact, the UAP was just Bill and a handful of his buddies. White's penchant for lying, fabrication, and character assassination is widely knwon at this point. This section needs to be changed to reflect the fact that White claimed to be an anarchist, but never was one. Chuck0 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As with any biography of a living person, we need to have sources for any contentious statements. If there's a reliable source for this informatoin then we can include it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As an anarchist, I am very aware and can give you a great many sources demonstrating that his views were not that of an anarchist. Violent revolution except in a case of life-threatening, wide-spread need is against anarchist philosophy: "From my point of view the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no Anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what Anarchism stands for... " -Joseph Labadie, Anarchism and Crime. -Annon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.108.253 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The section should be removed until it can be documented that White was actually an anarchist. Calling yourself an anarchist (or anything else for that matter) when you don't have a firm grasp of what it is that you are identifying yourself with should not be the basis for content here. The fact is that White was widely rejected as an anarchist. There is numerous material on forums and websites out there where anarchists disavowed White's "anarchism." A good article on this is "Third Positionist" Fascism In The US: A Case Study Of Bill White. Chuck0 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling Bill White an anarchist is sort-of like calling John Shelby Spong a Christian, Lou Dobbs a populist, or Arnold Schwarzenegger a conservative. Regardless of what other political extremists labeled him, White self-identified as an anarchist in the past. Some anarchists might have viewed him as not a 'true' anarchist, but some anarchists also believe it is a contradiction to be a practicing Jew and an anarchist at the same time. Unless there's a reliable source disputing White's ideological status, it's a no true scotsman arguement that shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm the reliable source. I'm pretty familiar with his activities during this time period. I could cite emails from various email lists, but Wikipedia doesn't allow those kind of sources. So where does that leave the truth? This section should clearly state that White self-identified as an "anarchist" but this was disputed by actual anarchists. Chuck0 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I miss the UAP
Whatever happened to the Utopian Anarchist Party? Dammit, I want to have a party around where the first line in their platform is, "The UAP seeks to eradicate the government of the United States and not replace it" with their leader looking all bad-assy with his goatee and red beret. Now it's gone, Luke Kuhn is no longer waving the "Fuck the curfew: Just walk away!" sign (I don't even know where he is), and Bill turned out to be some far-right racist wacko. :'( I want the old UAP back, the one that urged website viewers to request to radio stations that they play Homegrown's "She's Anti" after the Columbine shootings.  Now all I see on overthrow.com is some swastika and some trip report from Mexico about how nonwhite people suck.  Where's the clenched fist with "UAP" across it?  Where are the drug and bomb recipes?  WHERE ARE THE PYRO GIRL STORIES?!!  It's not fair... 72.145.150.162 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Roanoke Attack
I added several links to correct and clarify the erroneous "Roanoke attack" story. I have a feeling the radical anti-Bill White elements here will now try to delete the entire section, but if it is to be presented, it should be presented as it was found to be true in the court, not based on some make believe hatred of the man, as much of this article represents.

Deleted American Criminal Category
The article only asserts one conviction, and that source doesn't say whether the 7 months in a county detention center was for a felony. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

High School
Bill went to Magruder High School. Rumor has it he was expelled for punching the principal, Mr. Graham. I know he went to Magruder because I knew him. He even signed my yearbook, so the article isn't accurate regarding his youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.134.31 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The existing text says:
 * White was raised in the Horizon Hill neighborhood of Rockville, Maryland. According to an April 1999 interview with The Washington Times, he began to drift toward anarchism after reading The Communist Manifesto at the age of 13. [1] He attended Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, where he founded the Utopian Anarchist Party (UAP) and published a magazine that focused on opposition to the education system, psychiatry, and the police.
 * It's possible that he attended Colonel Zadok A. Magruder High School, was kicked out, and then attended Walt Whitman High School. But unless we have a reliable source for attending Magruder we can't add that. A scan of the yearbook would probably not be acceptable due to copyright restrictions. Even for notable people, the particular high school that they attended is rarely a major concern, so I don't know that this requires significant research. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence he faces
The source states what sentence White could face if convicted. That's not crystal ball gazing. It's a fact, derived by the reliable source from the charges. Please stop inserting the consequences if he's acquitted. They're not in the source. David in DC (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the material from the DoJ. Collect (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that speculation on "possible" sentences runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Precedent is not to speculate on all possible outcomes, and, in fact, the speculation about a trial is currently under discussion in several places on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not speculation - it is properly sourced.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

Statements, however sourced, which refer to "maybes" are still speculation. Many times one hears of a person facing a thousand years of jail time, and the actual sentence is ten years or the like. We know he is a bad guy, but speculating on sentences does not make the article any better. Collect (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that White may receive if convicted is irrelevant to his ideology (but is very relevant to criminal charges against him). White is not charged with being a racist; he is charged with threatening others. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

That is not the point -- is "potential" sentence relevant to a BLP in general? We surely do not call him guilty before trial - should we sentence him before trial? Collect (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not really speculation. It is a fact that criminal charges have maximum sentences. There's nothing speculative about saying that someone charged with crime X faces Y years in prison if convicted. It's really no different than saying that if a person is recognized as Best Actor by the film academy that they'll receive an Oscar statuette, or that if elected to the U.S. Presidency Obama may reside in the White House, or that the winner of Survivor may receive $1 million. It's a logical and expected consequence, not speculation. We should be sure that we don't word it as a presumption, saying he "may be sentenced to as many as 55 years on prison" is perfectly correct.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it is speculative as it was arrived at by multiplying maximum individual sentences by number of counts, and not by looking at the Federal sentencing guidelines, which would likely be far more accurate. I am not re-editing this, but making my clear position known.   Can you offer a precedent on WP for doing the "multiplicative sentencing" before trial? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not doing the "multiply individual sentences to arrive at a total" thing, which could be original research. We're doing the "summarize reliable sources" thing. If you'd like to see examples of that type of editing in other article they shouldn't be hard to find. ;) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Google search: "faces up to" "years in prison" It looks like plenty of article report this kind of information. It's a standard and logical way of indicating the severity of the charges. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The RS did the multiplying, and does not cite any federal guidelines. I am unsure that a RS is automatically still RS when is does that sort of reporting. WP definitely does not say that if an RS says something that it is automatically proper in a BLP. For example in the WP article on Kwame Kilpatrick, (another person not yet tried) the individual maxima are listed, but no "total maximum" is given for him.   In fact, I found no WP article for a person not yet tried which does this, other than the case instant.  In the Madoff article, which does mention the criminal charges, the maximum sentence is also not given, althoiugh it is in news reports.   I am certainly not defending White in any way, but have this funny belief in trial first, sentence afterwards <g>.  Collect (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed these examples: I guess I don't see what the big deal is. Do we have any explicit reason to doubt the reporting? Is there another reliable source that gives a different total, or that says no one ever receives the maximum sentence? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On November 15, 2007, Aldrete Dávila, the man shot by Ramos, was arrested at a border crossing in El Paso, Texas. A sealed indictment had been issued for his arrest on a variety of drug smuggling charges. According to the indictment, his alleged crimes occurred after he testified for the United States against the agents. If convicted he faces up to 40 years in prison.[3] Jose Compean
 * Eight members of New York's Lucchese crime family, including acting capo, Anthony Croce, on illegal gambling and narcotics charges by the FBI. If convicted, Croce faces up to five years in prison. 2008 in organized crime
 * He faces up to 88 years in prison if he is found guilty on all charges and only 4-7 years if he is found guilty only on tax evasion charges. Kazakhgate
 * Though the civil suit was dismissed, there is still pending a criminal suit against Newmont's top U.S. executive in Indonesia, Richard Ness, on charges stemming from the same allegations. His trial began in August 2005— if convicted, Ness faces up to 10 years in prison. Prosecutors have recommended financial penalties of US$110,000 for Newmont and US$55,000 for Ness.[4] Buyat Bay
 * On March 26, 2007, federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted Stockman in "a scheme ... to defraud [Collins & Aikman]'s investors, banks and creditors by manipulating C&A's reported revenues and earnings." At the same time, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil charges against Stockman related to actions he took while CEO of Collins & Aikman.[3] Stockman faces up to 30 years in prison. David Stockman
 * If convicted Mr. Roueche faces up to 220 years in prison and 8 million dollars in fines. United Nations (gang)
 * i dont see whats wrong with listing the max sentence. it says "up to" and that seems simple enough to figure out to me.  his sentence could be less or it could be that, but it cant be more than that.  thats not speculation, its fact.  speculation would be to make guesses at where in that range his sentence would fall if convicted.  at least he didnt break iranian law and lead us to mention their sentencing.
 * sorry, back on topic, i also find it silly to add something not found in the source like " If he is not convicrted [sic], he would not face that." thats like saying if he doesnt eat rat poison he wont die from rat poison.  its obvious and unnecessary, but most of all its wrong because it is the editors own sentence meant to support a point of view.
 * collect, i am all for innocence until guilt is proven and i do not think mentioning sentencing interferes with that. i would also mention that it is common practice to mention sentencing.  i understand not wanting to speculate on wikipedia about what may happen to people.  it would be unfair.  in this case i do not think that is an issue.  nobody is saying that he will get x,y or z- just that he could get up to 55 years if found guilty.  also, what does <g> mean?  Brendan19 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can do is state my opinion. Using google news, almost all examples of "faces up to" are for people who have already been found guilty, not people who are yet to be tried. Perhaps I am too loath to judge people in their BLPs before trial. Collect (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's anyone's intention to prejudge the subject's guilt, nor does listing the possible sentence have that effect. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A point you were making that I may not have addressed adequately: You suggested that perhaps the source incorrectly calculated the maximum sentence by simply adding or multiplying the individual sentences for each charge, and I believe you meant that the total could be incorrect due to other factors in sentencing guidelines. You're right that if they did so it would likely be a crude estimate that overstates the longest likely term. But that gives reporters too much credit. Prosecutors, especially those with ambitions, are known to occasionally overstate the severity of the charges. I'm quite sure that the prosecutors announced the figure, and the reporters are just writing it down without checking for themselves. (Looking around right now, I can't find the exact charges in any news coverage. That info will probably get reported when the case comes to trial.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref given makes the statement as to possible sentence without attribution. One real source is  which adds the specific qualifier "The Court, however, would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines."  which the ref given seems to elide.  lists the other indictments which actually seem like overkill for the actual events described. I think this covers all the indictments.  Collect (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That press release seems to mention only a ten-year sentence. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked through the two sources. The DOJ press release, from October, announced only one charge, with the "10 year/fines in the tens of thousands" maxima.  The JTA article reports on a superseding December indictment with multiple charges, leading to the "55 year/fines of more than a million" maxima.  I'll look for the corresponding December DOJ press release, instead of relying on the current one.  I'll bet it has the same boilerplate sentencing guidelines language David in DC (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No such luck. We need both DOJ press releases.  The latter one has the right charges and maxima.  The earlier one has the Sentencing Guidelines caveat.  I think I've integrated them correctly.  I'd appreciate other eyes looking it over now.  Collect, does this resolve your concern? David in DC (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as one has the caveat, I would suppose the matter is clear, I hope <g>.  Collect (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: 2 1/2 years ended up on the "high side of guidelines" for sentencing.   The "88 years" bit was the wonders of press release hyperbole at work. Collect (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prosecutor's statements don't have all the authority that they should have, due to these slight (!) overstatements.   Will Beback    talk    10:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * <g> I trust you now understand my prior position. Too often folks seem to want to paint BLP subjects in the worst possible light, and trying to prevent that is one of my goals.  Even if the person is despuicable, the aim is to make an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I do. We verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If the sources say he faces 88 years in prison then that's what we should report. If the sources say that he actually received 2 1/2 years, then that's what we report. I don't see how we're in a position to second guess a prosecutor before the trial is completed.   Will Beback    talk    17:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So far, I have rarely seen a prosecutor actually state a likely sentence <g>. Saying we should report press releases as fact is, moreover, a way of begging the issue as to accurately stating facts in an encyclopedia.  Which is why I insisted that the part in the press release stating that the actual sentence was up to a judge was a good idea. Collect (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sentencing is always up to the judge. In this, as in many cases, entire charges were dismissed before they even got to the sentencing phase.   Will Beback    talk    18:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In which event, ought we not cross bridges before the egg is hatched <g>? Where the charge itself is problematic, ought we not try judging the person by placing the charges in the BLP? Recall the Duke lacrosse team?  With names in it - even though the charges were later found to be baseless at best?   Is this not at the heart of the BLP problems for WP? Collect (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How are we to know that the charges are baseless? Conduct an investigation and then hold a wikitrial? We should report that the prosecutor thinks they're guilty and that the defense thinks they're innocent, or whatever positions they take that are reported in reliable sources. In Canada they apparently place press black-outs on reporting during trials. I don't see how that model would work on Wikipedia - just ignore that someone has been indicted and is in the middle of a criminal trial until such time as the judge sentences him?   Will Beback    talk    18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we should not make any statements other than what the charges are after an indictment, and not try guessing what the likely sentences could be unless and until the charges are brought to trial.  I recall such things as Garrison's charges <g>   (Clay Shaw) and the like - (see Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) for discussions about the use of allegations in BLPs which later turn out to be unsubstantiated entirely).   Let's leave some stuff to the tabloids until it gets sorted out. Collect (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We weren't guessing. We were reporting the statements made by the prosecutor. Would you have us omit the charges that the prosecutor is planning to bring, on the chance that some of them might be dropped or dismissed later? There's a chance that this conviction may be overturned, so should we wait until all of the appeals are complete before reporting it? So far as I know, there were no charges brought in the Copperfield case, so they're not the same situation. Civil suits are very different from criminal cases. I certainly don't think we should report every claim made in a divorce case, for example.   Will Beback    talk    18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) And the record of such statements is abysmal. Sufficient unto the day -- if and when the person actually goes to trial is "soon enough" (WP:DEADLINE) to report such stuff. I would also note the "Olympics bomber" case in Atlanta -- where the purported charges were, indeed, released to the press. As for Copperfield, the charges were indeed CRIMINAL charges and the allegations about the investigation made it clear that the editor assumed that he was guilty of felonies. Collect (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with the Copperfield case. I saw the part in the WP article that the grand jury failed to bring charges. As for the Atlanta case, I don't understand how we could have acted differently in a case like that. You seem to be saying that we ignore news of people being indicted and tried. Or what is it that you're proposing?   Will Beback    talk    19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not what I said. I say that until an indictment is issued, that the charges need not be expounded on in a BLP. And that until a trial occurs, that it is neither necessary nor wise to expound on the possible sentence. WP:DEADLINE applies for sure, as does the fact that articles are intended to be encyclopedic and not tabloidifications in a BLP. And look back in the Copperfield bit -- where one editor wrote on his talk page that it was his specific aim to show everything bad he could about  people he did not like <g>.  as one example.   Recall the extensive discussions about contentious material in any BLP.
 * I'm not interested in researching the editing of the Copperfield article, but if an editor said that then they should be reprimanded. That's a poor attitude to bring to an article and it's doubtful that someone with that POV could edit in a neutral fashion.
 * I disagree that we should withold information reported in reliable sources. If the AP is saying that John Doe was found with a bloody knife in his hand and is facing possible murder charges, then it's reasonable to include that in the biography of the victim or the alleged assailant. If the charges are dropped, or never filed, then that should be reported or, in some cases, the allegations should just be deleted. Regarding the specific issue of possible sentences, which started this thread, they are an indication of the severity of the charges and their number. They are routinely reported by even the most respected news sources, so "tabloidification" isn't the issue.
 * By analogy, a similar proposal could be made to not report campaign promises. Like maximum sentences, campaign promises are rarely fulfilled and they tend to skew coverage.    Will Beback    talk    20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We routinely "withhold" information in the news business -- the aim is to provide a proper amount of information -- we do not include (for example) people's blood types, even where it is "public record". As for campaign promises - if you can show me how they impact BLPs, I would be glad to discuss them.<g> At this point, I find that topic to be a non-issue.   And, yes, I would at the time have been opposed to having a Richard Jewell article asserting that he was being investigated for bombs.  And the word from on high appears to be that BLPs are a matter of some importance.  Collect (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that BLPs are important. The issue here is witholding information concerning notable people which has already been published by reliable sources. It's hard to believe that we would harm someone by reporting that the New York Times reports that the prosecutor in their criminal trial has calculated that the maximum sentence could be X years. I've never seen any outcry against newspapers for reporting that information.
 * In the case of civil suits, newspapers routinely report the amount of damage sought. "Doe has sued Smith for $4 million". Like with criminal sentences, litigants rarely receive all they sought. So, in your proposal, should we also withold the requested damages in lawsuits that involve BLPs?   Will Beback    talk   
 * The current practice is to usually show "damages in excess of (statutory amount)" (depending on the state or federal court) - the amounts sought are usually brought to the jury, and are not necessarily part of any pleading or official record prior to trial.  Nor are maximum possible sentence ignoring all sentencing guidelines typically a matter of court record. They are a matter of press releases only, and rarely bear any relationship to the facts. And the Duke lacrosse case pretty much sums up everything - the potential for libel vastly outweighs any value to the article.  "John Doe was unsuccessfully sued for $1 billion" is, IMHO, totally unworthy of inclusion in a BLP. I have known honourable men who were sued hundreds of times by a single person.   Should each suit be in there BLP?   Such is unworthy of a real encyclopedia, though fine for Enquiropedia, I suppose. Collect (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

These aren't press releases. The reporting of possible sentences is standard journalism, not "tabloidism". Reporting this type of assertion does not amount to libel, in so far as I know, though if it does there are a lot of newspapers who are guilty of it.  Will Beback   talk    03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted.
 * Townsville Bulletin. Townsville, Qld
 * If convicted, Barrera could face two to five years in prison.
 * Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill
 * Gary Dobson, who was cleared of killing the 18-year-old architecture student after the collapse of a private prosecution brought by the Lawrence family in 1996, faces up to 14 years in prison if convicted.
 * Mail on Sunday. London (UK)
 * With 13 tax evasion charges against him, Cheung faces up to 83 years in prison and US$4.75 million in fines if convicted. His wife was charged with one count of conspiracy, punishable by up to five years' jail and a US$250,000 fine.
 * South China Morning Post. Hong Kong
 * Kernell faces up to 50 years in federal prison if convicted of identity theft, mail fraud, and two other felony charges. 
 * Boston Globe. Boston, Mass
 * Austin faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted of the little girl's murder, said Deputy District Attorney John Thomas.
 * Daily News. Los Angeles, Calif
 * Vaughn Robert Biby, 46, of Fullerton could be sentenced to 75 years to life in prison if convicted.
 * Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.
 * If convicted of first-degree murder, Kung faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.
 * The Sun. Lowell, Mass.
 *  If convicted, she could get 60 years in prison.
 * St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla
 * If convicted of murder, Meade faces up to 18 years in prison.
 * The Herald. Everett, Wash
 * If convicted of murder, Anziani faces between 25 years and life in prison. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted of manslaughter.
 * Bangor Daily News. Bangor, Me
 * The victim lived, but now suspect Robert Lee Turner is facing life in prison if convicted of attempted murder.
 * San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif
 * If convicted as a felony, the sentence is a minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison, and the person's name is placed on the Georgia sex offender registry for at least 15 years.
 * The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Atlanta, Ga
 * Lecco, 60, could face the death penalty if convicted of ordering the 2005 killing of Carla Collins.
 * The Charleston Gazette. Charleston, W.V
 * If convicted, he could face a $250,000 fine and 10 years in federal prison.
 * The Island Packet. Hilton Head, S.C.
 * If convicted, Huertas could face up to a year in prison.
 * Virginian - Pilot. Norfolk, Va
 *  The two suspects have pleaded not guilty and face up to life in prison if convicted.
 * New York Times. New York, N.Y.


 * Collect, these articles are supposed to reflect what is reported in reliable sources. While you may be disturbed about how the far right is presented here, we are merely following reliable sources.  If you want to improve the image of the far right, you must persuade academic sources and mainstream media to accept your views.  If you are successful then these articles will present them differently.  TFD (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP is not a tabloid nor is it a newspaper. This is policy and guidelines. WP:BLP is a very strong policy.  The melange given above does not apply -- the examples above generally refer to mandatory sentences or sentences within sentencing guidelines - and were from newspapers reporting current news. WP is intended as an encyclopedia, not as a source of news.  The aim is to have an article which will remain correct, not to have one reporting on allegations which have not even reached indictments, nor of speculation about possible sentences outside legal guidelines.  As for saying "other places do it" - that is not a vlaid claim in WP.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages''
 * Is that sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in there that's really applicable to this issue. The New York Times is not a tabloid, so following its example does not lead to tabloidism or sensationalism. It's not clear how this information, already published in reliable sources, could harm the accused individuals.   Will Beback    talk    16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT was not called a tabloid by me, so I daresay that is quite an irrelevant point. Rather, the NYT is a newspaper.  WP is not. Collect (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's leave some stuff to the tabloids until it gets sorted out.
 * WP:DEADLINE applies for sure, as does the fact that articles are intended to be encyclopedic and not tabloidifications in a BLP.
 * My mistake. I thought you were saying, in these two comments months apart and in the policy you quoted, that listing a potential sentence is something that only tabloids do. Clearly, lots of respectable newspapers do it. So I'm not sure where the "tabloidism" comes in.   Will Beback    talk    17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of black mayor
Count 7 of the federal indictment of White charges him with communicating threats to a black public official, "CT". That's Charles Tyson, the first African-American mayor of South Harrison Township, New Jersey. (See pages 3-4 of the DoJ press release.) Partly as a result of White's actions, Tyson has now stepped down. CNN titled a report on the incident "Racism Wins in NJ Town". I've added some information to South Harrison Township, New Jersey.

Because the White article is a contentious one, I've decided not to be bold, but to leave it up to the editors here to decide whether any of this detail is worth adding to White's bio. The CNN clip includes some images of White but not any comments of his; his side is presented in a brief comment by his defense lawyer. JamesMLane t c 06:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC) \
 * IMHO, the current bio adequately shows White for what he is. Adding material in the interest of piling Ossa on Pelion might cause WP guidelines to kick in for balance. Collect (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the reference to "balance" here. We don't achieve a spurious balance by suppressing significant and adequately sourced unfavorable information; we achieve balance by making sure to add the available significant and adequately sourced favorable information.  If there's little or none of the latter, that's no justification for deleting the former.  The real question is the significance of a particular fact.  On the one hand, he was indicted for this incident, so it's not a mere casual instance of making one racist remark.  On the other hand, racist acts that would be significant in someone else's bio might not be significant in White's, because there are so many of them.  On the other other hand, this particular act contributed to the departure from office of a black elected official, so perhaps it's significant even in the context of White's bio, as one of his notable successes (and one that gained him coverage on CNN).  These are the arguments worth considering, not "balance". JamesMLane t c 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a common issue: someone is indicted for multiple counts and we have to decide how much space to devote to the details of the alleged crimes. When the violations are similar it is usually sufficient to simply mention them: "the subject was indicted on 12 counts of money laundering", for example. However, when individual acts are alleged, and when those acts receive individual attention in the media or other sources, then it is probably appropriate to mention them specifically. The text currently reads:
 * On October 17, 2008 Bill White was arrested in Roanoke, Virginia by the FBI. The arrest stems from an alleged threat White made against a federal juror involved in the Matt Hale case in 2004 and posting the juror's personal information online. White is being held without bond.[27] Other counts against White, filed December 11, 2008, include alleged threats he made against poor black tenants suing their landlords, and threats against others, including a Canadian human rights activist.[28][29]
 * Which entirely omits any mention of this allegation. It would not be undue weight to add another sentence. Something like:
 * An African American mayor in New Jersey resigned following alleged threats from White, citing concerns over his safety.
 * While we're at it, we might name the "Canadian human rights activist", who is notable in his own right and has a WP article.   Will Beback    talk    21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"self-appointed leader "
I don't think we need to say "self-appointed leader ". No one would expect the leader of a National Socialist group to be democratically elected. Further, it's not clear that there's even much of a group beyond him. Either way, it's not necessary.  Will Beback   talk    05:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * William Alexander “Bill” White (born 29 May 1977) is the self-appointed leader of the American National Socialist Workers' Party and administrator of a former website dedicated to anti-Jewish hate speech, Overthrow.com.
 * That makes sense. Also, you are right, it's not clear that there really is much of a group beyond him, and now that looks to be on his way into Prison, who knows what the future of the group will be.<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic;"> Wacko Jack <strong style="color:#D2B48C;">O   07:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Right-wing leanings
An editor has changed the section heading "Left-wing leanings" to the inelegant "Left-wing leanings, then Right-wing leanings". Since he achieved fame as a neo-nazi, emphasis should be placed on his neo-nazi period. Incidentally various people have altered their political views over time, but we describe them by their ideology during their period of polital notability. E.g., Hilary Clinton and Ronald Reagan are usually identified with only one political party although both of them were active in both parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We should include all of the groups and leanings he had that are verifiable, with weight proportionate to their significance. Some older versions of the article discussed his political shifts in greater detail, IIRC.   Will Beback    talk    00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While the article should outline the development of his thought, the section heading seemed to give equal emphasis on the his being left and right. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe split them out and have a separate section for the left-leanings?   Will Beback    talk    00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Full sections for single sentences? Here I thought "Moving left and right" was a substantially correct statement of the contents of the section.   BTW, he was achieved "fame" during his Communist period and Pravda period.  Collect (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Had he not become right-wing we never would have heard of him. Notice other biogs where someone moved to the right and gained fame:  David Horowitz, Irving Kristol, David Frum, Friedrich Hayek (nothing), John Thune.  In none of these cases is any emphasis given to former socialist ideology.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Youy might not have -- but since he was mentioned in a number of sources, it is clear that others did find him to be well-known. Meanwhile I suggest that to call Perot's Reform Party "right wing" will require specific reliable sources -- per WP:BLP If you wish, I think I can find sources for calling the Revolutionary Communist Party "left wing."   I trust you understand why this would require strong reliable sourcing. Collect (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why do you want to include his support for Ross Perot under ""Left-wing leanings, then Right-wing leanings"? While I am assuming good faith I cannot fail to remember your strong support of the argument that the far right is really part of the left.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I was not the one who insisted "right wing" be in the section title - my compromise months ago was "Moving left and right" which does not make any such claim. I do, however, feel that including the Maoist and Trotskyite organizations as "right wing" is absurd.  As for your claim that I argued that the far right is part of the left -- that is a palpable falsehood which you ought not make. Collect (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I restructured the section. That bit of the article is palpably the result of a very tenuous, very unpleasant compromise, one which rendered it unreadable. Read it one way, immediately read it the other way, and tell me with a straight face that my edit isn't a vast improvement.


 * I can't really figure out why we're worried about overemphasizing White's left-wing extremism. Leaving aside the fact that White is identified in the article's title as a "neo-Nazi," firmly and massively establishing his credentials as a right-wing kook, in the article itself, his right-wing lunacy outnumbers his left-wing lunacy 9 to 1, easily. Şłџğģő  05:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mainly because it exists. Meanwhile, I changed title to "Ideological shifts" abd restored the cites from the New York Times. Collect (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus looks pretty stacked in favor of not separating left-wing, right-wing, center, whatever, into new sections. It's a pitifully minor detail, but did you insert "Maoist" and "Trotskyite" to sate FourDeuces? Nobody else is disputing that the organizations in question (RCP and ISO) are far, far left, so it seems like a bit much, unless we're noting the ANSWP is "Hitlerian" or whatever. I'm moving the references to the backs of the words since they don't specifically confirm the entire sentences, just the "Maoist" and "Trotskyite" parts of them. Şłџğģő  18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, restored ce and cleanup. Wonder where some of that went. Şłџğģő  19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It sates no one except accuracy to have the New York Times references in there. Collect (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem consistent to describe the political orientation of the NSM and ANSWP, for the sake of readers. Also, the matter of Pravda Online is tricky. Though it took its name from the Communist Party newspaper, its orientation is nationalist rather than communist.   Will Beback    talk    21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)