People are sneaking their POVs into the article

For instance a statement like this "Many white separatists argue that white separatism is not the same as white supremacy" is making it look like a white separatist has to "argue" or defend themselves from being a nazi when a white separatist by definition is not necessarily a nazi.

Just because a lot of white supremacist falsely label themselves as white separatists does not change the definition of white separatism or the real non violent people that follow it.

This article needs a lot of anti-white separatism POV clean up. Just last month someone had "white separatism" reverting to the "white supremacy" article. 108.32.4.7 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting and reverting

STOP POV MIS-DIRECTING and REVERTING this ARTICLE:

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.

A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."

Thanks! :D

--User:65.125.10.66, 17:50, 24 Feb 2004

STOP POV MIS-DIRECTING and POV REVERTING that Wiki NPOV ARTICLE.

PS--The only ones SPAMMING are the ones MIS-REDIRECTING the NPOV article to a Marxist-PC POV one!

--User:24.45.99.191, 18:28, 25 Feb 2004

Separatism --User:66.2.156.38 04:29, 26 Feb 2004

Individuals

Has Frank Salter identified himself as a white separatist? The external link goes to an Amazon book listing, but there's nothing there that uses the term "white separatist". Unless someone self-identifies, their inclusion on the list needs to be well-supported. (For instance, Abernethy has given interviews in which she calls herself a white separatist). Thanks, -Willmcw 23:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Salter's book has basically two parts. In the first part he comes up with a new theory of ethnic nepotism -- its fairly hard science and neutral. The second part is where he makes the case for ethnostate formation reconstructing something resembling the Ancestral environment or Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) for those individuals who can still be so classified (recognizing there are large populations that are sufficiently panmictic that they would need what I might call cosmostates). I don't have the book but I have conversed with Salter and am confident I can come up with the reference. I'll ask him for it. Jim Bowery 00:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the info is hard to find I'm going to comment-out the Salter reference until we can find material to properly label him. It'll still be there for when we've got it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I got a response back from Salter and he asked that he not be referred to as a white separatist since, in his opinion, it implies a primary orientation toward political activism. Jim Bowery 09:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that additional research. If no independent source identifies Salter as a white supremacist, and if he does not self -identify that way either, then there is no basis for that term in the article. If such a source were ever found then it would have to be cited, of course. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I remove the following because it's clearly complete rubbish.

Discussions of white separatism are generally difficult due to a conflict between two points of view, each accusing the other of supremacist hypocrisy:

Those opposing white separatism generally claim there are few if any white separatists -- only white supremacists claiming to be white separatists.

The white separatist general counter-claim is that by denying self-determination to whites, their opponents are supremacist hypocrites.

While the first point is covered elsewhere. The second is obvious rubbish, because opponents of white separatism generally believe in all races being treated equally in an integrated society. No-one could reasonably accuse such people of being supremacist. You can't even accuse them of denying whites their rightful place of superiority (remember, you're a separatist, not a supremacist). All you can accuse your opponents of in general is believing that the races should be integrated rather than separated, and that's not supremacist. DJ Clayworth 20:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, whether it is garbage or not is not to the point. It is a fact that self-proclaimed separatists accuse those who oppose white separatism of being multicultural supremacists and therefore hypocrites. Moreover, supremacist ideology needn't be racially based. One can, for example, be a Christian supremacist -- believing in the supreme authority of Christianity which should be universally recognized by all humanity. The belief that people should live in racially integrated societies is a belief like Christianity. It can be turned into a supremacist belief by the simple expedient of proclaiming it to be universally enforceable due to its moral superiority. The items remain. Jim Bowery 09:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

_____

No mention of white separatism outside the USA and South Africa. Doesn't Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National in France fall under the white separatist category? Or the British National Party?

I don't believe that the BNP is a separatist party within the meaning discussed here. The BNP would, at the very least, discriminate between ethnicities when it comes to immigration to the UK. That makes them racist rather than separatist, since they would discriminate on the basis of race.

In fact I wanted to ask a question? Does anyone have a reference from a white separatist describing how a white separatist (but not supremacist) society would actually work? I have yet to find anything resembling an explanation. Here are some particular questions:

It would seem from the article that white (non-supremacist) separatist would admit that the apartheit system was racist, and therefore that system would not be acceptable. That would seem to pretty much eliminate any form of racial 'separateness' where the races occupied by the same geographical area but had separate social institutions. Some institutions (like the army and the police) Don't really admit of separateness.
Does it therefore follow that all white separatists are really proposing that whites and non-whites live in different places?
Alternatively haven't any white separatists thought this through to this extent?

It would make sense to add some of the answers to this to the article. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves toiled

The reason why Negroes are around "white (people)" is that Negroes toiled in the fields when "white (people)" would not toil. That is the only reason why "white (people)" keep Negroes nearby to them. Superslum 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with this article and I speculate is a smear to make this article seem discriminatory.

108.32.4.7 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

The history section is simply two American presidents saying that the races should stay separate. But those quotations have nothing to do with the history of the white separatist movement. Rather they appear to be in the article as justifications. Unless anyone can find a source that tie Jefferson and Lincoln as the founders of white seperatism, then I htink we should omit the long quotations. -Will Beback 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that white separatist beliefs were being espoused by these presidents. The fact that this might be taken as "justification" for white separatism is a red herring. Jim Bowery 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear according to whom? We need either a self-identified white separatist, or a reputable research on the movement, connecting these quotations to the movement. There are quotations from Leviticus that we could add too, but those would not be relevant or help our article either. -Will Beback 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe that omission of the importance of CULTURE with so much attention devoted to skin pigmentation levels is indicative of the shallow thinking used by so many hereabouts and across the USA (and elsewhere) and a plethora of spewed/written knee-jerk rhetoric bandied about by those who devote little actual in-depth thought about anything even remotely related to the concept of race. Obbop 66.137.181.235 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV Creep

Once again this article is veering off into being a one-sided POV essay extolling White racism. Why is the criticism of this movement buried? Why is so much of the entry uncited blogging or unchallenged statements by well-known racist bigots?--Cberlet 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly POV creep in that the "criticism" section is replicated throughout the article in statements that question the honesty of white separatists. Jim Bowery 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also weasel wording that promotes the views of white separatists. It should all be cleaned up. Claims for and against need to be backed up by reliable sources. Spylab 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing the lead

added two sources to the lead. one from stormfront which, while not really a 'reliable' site as far as facts are usually concerned, is used only to cite the opinions of white separatists. the second is an excerpt from the journal of political and military sociology citing the anti-racist rebuttal. -- frymaster 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite Silly Indeed

The entire concept founding a homeland for whites is silly. There happens to already be a homeland for whites. It's called Europe.

Maybe you should take a trip to this "homeland for whites" called Europe. Its time to wake up, because you don't understand the world you're living in.--172.131.84.47 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of urban Europe actually have a white minority just as many US cities. It is 2008 and Europe has been undergoing mass third world immigration for quite a while... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Needs to be Reviewed

This entire article is POV misdirection. Half of the article is dressing

Views on Jews?

What are the White Separatism views on Jewish people? --Topk (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they mostly differentiate based on ethnicity rather than religion; IE, some Jews are ethnically white, many others are not. We can hypothesize that certain branches are pro/anti-Jewish, but by the definition of "white" in ethnic terms I imagine their opinion of including Jews would have to be split down the middle as Jews vary in origin from Germanic to Ethiopian!4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried a lot to make this concept not sound racist

But it is according to simple logical deduction: Why separate people that have white skin and not people that are ..tall for example? It is the only logical conclusion that people that believe in such doctrines are intolerant of other races (being in their group). According to them, people may speak the same language, have the same culture, have lived the same lives, and still be disallowed to be part of their clique. This is pure old racism, without the violence. Just because you don't want the extermination of other races and don't outright hate, or even don't think a race is superior it doesn't mean you can't be racist. The concept is racist because it simply proposes social separatism based on race. --Leladax (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's present unsupported discussion of the purported distinction between Segregation and Separatism is typical of the problem here. The differentiation of these two "concepts" is entirely dependent upon linguistics. Interestingly, "Segregation" is defined by the act of "Separation" and thereafter, "Separation" or "Separatism" or "separately" is defined by "self-determination" characterized by peace and harmony.

The "distinction" ultimately reduces to a linguistic POV and OR argument that segregation is the means to peace and harmony. It is not at all clear that the philosophy of homeland separatism can be expressed except by the action of segregation, and distinguishing the action (which cannot be undertaken except through some form of social or political compulsion or enforcement) from the philosophical motivation for such action does not define two different philosophies. My opinion? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Comments?(71.197.93.206 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that it IS 'technically' racist, in the sense that it acknowledges race as a divisive factor. However most of the elements which make racism taboo (oppression or conquest of other races) are absent from separatism. It is linguistic semantics of course, but in modern context racism generally means harming or oppressing based on ethnicity. Separatism would more be of a racial exodus or secession by a group whom feels oppressed and less desire to oppress others. There is a significant difference between ideology which preaches about oppressing others VS ideology which preaches about breaking away from perceived oppression. Agreed? black separatism and zionism are "racist" as well by the definition that they seek their own nations or institutions, but again, it lacks most of the taboo or violent aspects of historical racism.4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics matters. The argument in the article is an argument, and it is OR. The article describes separatism as including the effort to create homeland. This cannot be achieved and maintained except by compulsion based on race, violent or otherwise. There is no distinction between Segregationism and Separatism. Both require the exercise of political power to enforce social structures based on racial perceptions and concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.89.206 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I really know how people feel about this, but it is comparable I think- if it is so absolutely racist for "Whites" to have a homeland, than is it horribly racist for the Jews to have a homeland? Or the Palestinians? I personally think we could all just get along- if you have a place to go to and brew hatred it's only a matter of time before that hatred manifests itself into violence oppression and revenge. -Furbuggy May 26, 2009 17:58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.62.34 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoconservatism

The odd, seemingly random and and sourceless reference early in the article to paleoconservatism/white separatism being related needs to go. I wish I could elaborate with some giant essay but what more is there to say than; the two are not related? I'm sure there have been racists whom held paleoconservative ideals, but for example does one consider Marcus Epstein, a mixed Jew/Asian seem to be a "white separatist"? He is a fairly well-known figure in paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. The claim is just too sporadic. Paleoconservatives oppose amnesty and increased immigration but they also oppose collectivism of all types, which would disqualify race from carrying legal weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only South Africa

I would think it would be called nationalism or white nationalism and direct you to that article with maybe an exception for South Africa. The U.S. and Europe cannot have "white separatism" because they are already white. Yes, there are areas where whites are the minority but no one in the U.S., Canada, France, Brazil or Germany says let's give up our country and create a just white country. No, the discussion centers on nationalism and deporting the "non-whites". This article really should direct to white nationalism again with the exception of South Africa where there a movement for a minority white population in a HISTORICALLY black majority nation(which are the conditions of white nationalism comparing to black nationalism, Roma, or Kurdish people). to create their own homeland. A majority population does not discuss separation, it discuses deportation and immigration controls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.110.66 (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An older tradition than it appears.

White separatism began in America almost immediately after the end of the Civil War. Emancipated slaves returned to Africa by the ship load forming among other nations, Liberia. The Capitol, Monrovia, is named after President Monroe. White separatism and black separatism have grown up more or less together, each making demands that the other considers unacceptable. The KKK and Black Panthers have been quite belligerent, particularly the latter. Demands for revenge one against the other have created several problems: persons who detest racial segregation in any form risk being called "Uncle Toms" or "Scalawags," by those who still demand separation.

It is a disciplinary problem that seemingly will not go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocmike3 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made appear to be unsourced personal views. I'm going to undo the edits. If you can find reliable secondary sources making the same comments about white separatism then they can be restored. Will Beback talk 05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs more cites and less POV

I deleted some comments that were totally off topic. Could we please try to find more cites for this page? And more balance from scholars would also improve the page.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve the page by adding a reference and the entire passage(which was not written by me) was removed for the stated reason that the source "does not speak for all white separatists". Maybe it doesn't but the passage didn't claim that it was in reference to all white separatists, only that advocates make the claim that separatism does not equal supremacy, and the author of the article is clearly an advocate who makes each and every one of the points in the deleted passage. Furthermore, the critic's argument about a "façade" is allowed to remain, and there is no evidence that the source for that line speaks for all critics of white separatism. Now there is no balance in the presentation of advocacy and criticism about the subject. If a page isn't allowed to be improved, then their shouldn't be a call to do so. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the previously deleted content which was taken out only because I added a citation which an administrator didn't like. I have cited the same book that most of the other citations for this article use, and I have given a specific page number. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source back the text that says "Advocates of racial separatism generally say that separatism ..."

The full text is: "Advocates of racial separatism generally say that separatism differs from racial supremacy in that separatists believe that all races and ethnic groups have the right to develop their own culture separately and any race should not dominate another. They argue that racial differences are important and strongly oppose miscegenation." The link is here. No mention of any rights, no mention of no race dominating. A quote from a white supremacist and another from a separatist. That's the IP's 2nd try to source this statement. I don't see any possible way that it can be stated as a fact in any case (well, if you could do a survey you could report the survey). Doug Weller talk 09:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed text in the article (which I did not write by the way, with the exception of adding "generally" to pacify people like yourself) is not about stating facts. It clearly starts as saying that this is what "advocates of racial separatism generally say". It is providing balance to the following sentence which gives the critics POV, which is also not a fact, but what they claim. If you want to get into facts, it is a fact that advocates generally say just what is in the disputed passage.

As for the source, you have not only the two persons that the authors quoted saying what is written in the "disputed text" but the authors themselves, who are objective, believe that the distinction between the two ideas is valid:

"The separatist may well believe that his or her race is superior to other groups: however, we believe there can be a distinction between the supremacist desire to dominate (as in apartheid, slavery, or segregation) and complete separation by race."

I was not citing anything in the two quotations that you mentioned, only the analysis of the authors.

The miscegenation portion of the text is supported by this:

"While the extent of separateness varies in the movement, virtually all reject marriage outside the 'white race".

Furthermore, it must be reiterated that I myself did not write the "disputed text". I responded to a call to provide citations(see above). That text had been around for several years, and it was not until I began to provide citations in support that it had become "disputed". This seems to be more of an attack on myself then an issue with the content of the text, since it was in existence long before I arrived on the scene. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full reply later. You accused me of not reading the source although I had. A citation needed tag always means it's disputed and I wasn't watching this article earlier or I probably would have dealt with it earlier, so don't think this is all about you. Doug Weller talk 06:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source great. In order to justify the removal of the content you ought to explain why you think that the source does not address its elements. A citation tag just means that a particular passage needs a citation. I provided one, and it is from the same source utilized by other editors of this article. Methinks you are spending way too much time trying to suppress the presentation of a balanced treatment of the topic. Nonetheless, post your objections, and I will read them. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I explained all that in my first paragraph. Again, editors ask for citations because they are unsure that the text is correct. I've rewritten it and added a quote from a racist. But this article is badly out of date, far too short and relies too much on one source. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have essentially paraphrased what the previous text says, which is summed up by pg. 10 of the source, which you originally said was inaccurate. The text was better without Stoner's quote. So, what was this fight all about? 108.38.29.47 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "separatists believe that all races and ethnic groups have the right to develop their own culture separately and any race should not dominate another." Doug Weller talk 10:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That happens to be true, and supported by the source, and sums up your rewrite. Well done by the way, the article is improved, and people can read Stoner if they pick up the book by the two ladies, so I removed that quote.108.38.29.47 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe it to be true but that's not what the source says. The last thing that the article needs is streamlining. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is exactly what the source says. You even wrote it in your edit. It is true that the article can be expanded. I am just beginning my research into the topic and will do my best. I hope to add citations to the currently uncited content, and will start there. But, we don't need long block quotes lifted from cited sources in this article when readers can access the source and read it for themselves. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, as I cannot find the words "right", "develop" "their own culture", "should not dominate", or anything like in my edit or the source. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we were required to state exactly what a source said, instead of summarizing, this would not be an encyclopedia, but a compilation of other works. The meaning is contained in your edit, whether you see it or not. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Separatism"

The article needs to be revised in accordance with the formal definition of "separatism." The Oxford definition of SEPARATISM: "The advocacy or practice of separation of a certain group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender." Nowhere is the term "race" included in this definition. Also, "ethnicity" and "race" are two distinct terms per the Wikipedia article "Race and ethnicity in the United States". The article as presently written seems to establish a different definition of "separatist" that is specific to "white separatist." The fact that the article as presently written infers a connection between "racism" and "white separatist" suggests that at least one contributing author is incorrect is making such an assertion. Joseph Ellerbrock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffugue (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

our articles should reflect what sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS say about the subject " White separatism", not the individual words. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:TRUTH, WP:RS, and etymological fallacy EvergreenFir (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

@Beyond My Ken: I provided three reasons why I prefer "Advocacy for economic and culturally distinct white nations" as the short description for this page:

more closely matches article - in fact, it's copied straight from the lead
describes "separation" - it contains more information
shorter - A very high priority for short descriptions.

Can you elaborate on the reasons you prefer a different short description? Daask (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. Your description is vague "Advocacy for economic and culturally distinct white nations" could mean any number of things, while "Advocacy for white nations separate from other races and ethnicities." clearly spells out what the ideology is meant to separate: whites from other races and ethnic groups. Economic concerns are virtually unmentioned in white supremacy, and are not in any way a central part of the philsophy. Using "culturally distinct" instead of spelling out the separation of whites from others is very close to whitewashing the concept to make it more palatable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs further improvement before discussion of the lead or short description are worthwhile. Thank you for taking the time to describe your reasoning. I'll try to work on this article within the next few weeks. Daask (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Given this article's brevity, I recommend the also-short page White ethnostate which is part of this philosophy be merged into this page. Skingski (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. If anything, that page should be merged with Volkstaat and Northwest Territorial Imperative.64.183.139.174 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standard

Why is it that the white separatism article is inundated with ties to white supremacy while the black separatism page doesn't allude to supremacy at all? Frankly it would seem the latter is correct to omit any such comparison given that the concepts of separatism and supremacism are quite contradictory.

For reference:

Supremacism: "particular class of people is superior to others, and that it should dominate, control, and subjugate others" ― Separatism: "advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation"

Separatism (be it black, white, etc.) is not about subjugating other groups to anything, it is a focus on ones own destiny, which the current entry hardly reflects. Painting white separatism as "a form of white supremacy" or "a public facade" implies malicious intent when in reality it means the same thing it means for every other group - the freedom to pursue their own interests (separately). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consistere (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we only include information that come from WP:reliable sources. Definiitons that you make up yourself are WP:Original research and are not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but what on earth does WP:Other stuff exists have to do with what I just wrote? That page deals with the justification for the creation/removal of Wikipedia content.

My post was meant to point out the stark contrast between two articles whose premise (Separatism) is the same. Also, I'm not making up my own definitions ― "freedom to pursue their own interests" is a reference to the line "separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy" from the linked page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consistere (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal to White supremacy

Please see discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_supremacy#Merger_Proposal_from_White_separatism thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.155.212 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]