User talk:PaleOnePale1

Fourteen Words and David Lane
Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. I notice you've just recently started a new account, so perhaps you are unfamiliar with some of the rules regarding editing of articles. Generally, if significant changes are made to articles, such as the ones you made to David Lane (white nationalist) and Fourteen Words, they need to be supported by reliable sources. Secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, which means that an organization or individual's description of themselves is usually not considered as reliable as descriptions by other sources, as long as those sources meet the reliability criteria. Also, original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles.

I'm reverting the changes you made to both of the above articles, even though I assume they were made in good faith; I'm not the originator or even a primary contributor to either one, but I do think it's important to maintain a neutral point of view in both of them. I'd be happy to work with you to tweak the articles from where they are currently if you feel there are POV issues, and I look forward to the collaboration. Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for writing and explaining some of the rules in regards to editing of articles. I am a scholar in the fields of linguistics, religious philosophy, social studies and political science.PaleOnePale1 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For good reason, Wikipedia does not grant users privileges based on expertise.Rockypedia (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

David Lane and "White supremacist" vs. "White Nationalist"
After the first of your problematic edits, in the summary you state "SPLC labels the ideology White Nationalist, and says 'David Lane was the Renaissance man of late 20th-century white nationalism.'" Three points:
 * SPLC references Lane as a white supremacist in the very first sentence of their page on him: "David Lane remains one of the most important ideologues of contemporary white supremacy"
 * Numerous other secondary sources regard him as the same: 1, 2, 3, and 4 are ones that a quick Google search found immediately. There are plenty more.
 * The term "white nationalism" exists to provide a euphemism for white supremacy. You can find numerous references to that fact yourself, but my personal favorite is from an actual racist publication that admits as much, the Occidental Observer: "White Nationalist is the desired euphemism of the modern day pro-White individual, but any mainstream media coverage, or reference by non-sympathizers will always be the traditional verbiage (racist, White supremacist, neo- Nazi, etc.)"

When even pro-white publications are acknowledging that "white nationalist" is just a sanitized term for "white supremacy", I'd say that's ample basis for calling a spade a spade. Rockypedia (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

They're not regarding it as a sanitized term, they're saying that despite identifying as pro-white or white nationalists, they will still be lavebelled by the media and those hostile to them under buzz words like racist, nazi, bigot, white supremacist. The textbook definition of supremacism is not what separatists and most white nationalists are fighting for. There is no doubt it is still RACIST, but the whole white power subculture is not a homogeneous entity (pardon any pun) and as there are differing religious affiliations, there are differences in ideologies with a common pro-white racial theme unifying all, albeit not specifically supremacist. Supremacism is the belief due to superiority, said race must dominate or control the affairs of perhaps the whole world, and/or in a multicultural state (state as political country) and rule over non-whites in said state, or oppress non-whites in Africa and Asia. Separatism differs largely, and in the case of The Order, they were fundamentally separatist, as well as yes domestic terrorists. White Nationalism is distinct as well and I think your reverts are largely stemming from POV.PaleOnePale1 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You've only acknowledged my last paragraph, and have not offered any counter-arguments to the main three points. There are certainly plenty of reliable sources (Occidental Observer is not considered a reliable source, btw) that discuss the use of "white nationalist" as a euphemism to distance white supremacists from a term that they now consider too toxic for public consumption. But I suspect you already know that. Rockypedia (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

SPLC also labels the ideology as white nationalist. Accordibg to the definition presented on wikipedia, Lane or the 14 Words are not supremacist but they are racist. Supremacism is a form of racism, but so is separatism and also white nationalism. Vut they are differing racist ideologies, just as Creativity and Christian Identity are both racist, they are two differing ideologies or sets of ideology in the case of the latter.

And as per yoir first point, it says he is an ideologue of white supremacy. Their usage indicates a widely known figure in racist circles, which he was. They use white supremacy to refer to white racialism as a whole.

Yoir points are that white nationalism and white separatism shouldnt be listed because you believe they are whitewashing euphemisms for white supremacist. White Nationalist allows for a wider range of racist thought than White Supremacist, and Lane was separatist, not mperialistic, pro-segregation in a multi-racial state.PaleOnePale1 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what you're missing is that these are all your personal interpretations of David Lane, but on Wikipedia, the only things that are allowed on pages are facts that can be supported using secondary sources. Even the descriptions of Lane in this article that came from his own writings aren't from a secondary source, and they should all be prefaced with "Lane stated that he was.... etc." Regardless, reliable secondary sources say that Lane was a white supremacist, and so that's how wikipedia will identify him.  It's not a matter that's open to interpretation. Rockypedia (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PaleOnePale1. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)