Talk:Identity Evropa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --EthnicKekistan (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The organization has become well-known in alt-right circles and is considered influential, I'm adding more information now. EthnicKekistan (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Name of "young woman"

Can we please post the name or names of the woman who was punched?

Cganuelas (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cganuelas: Possibly not on this page, though I have queried why it's not on the 2017 Berkeley protests. WP:BLP1E may apply. (Redacted) --220 of ^Borg 06:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"She isn't as innocent as she portraits herself"? According to who? Good lord, do you have any non-garbage sources for any of this? WP:BLP applies to talk pages, as well, you know. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Consider removal per BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced info on non-notable
"mouldylocks" as she was nicknamed not only claimed to want to "scalp nazis" on her facebook but was caught on video throwing improvised explosive devices, the guy who punched her, hes a military veteran, saw this happening and stopped her illegal assaults on innocent people thus saving others from death or injury 27.33.120.120 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

scalp nazis? Who doesn't want to do that? However, facebook isn't RS, and BLP applies here as well as on articles. Hatting above comment and advise removal per WP:VICTIM/PERP Edaham (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

References

During the 2017 Berkeley protests, Damigo punched a young woman

One editor keeps changing this to "sucker-punched", because the CBS article says sucker-punched.

However, I question whether this source is an accurate representation of all the sources on what happened. One can tell from watching the video that she grabbed the man's throat first. Additionally, the idea of a "sucker-punch" doesn't seem to be the press's consensus from reading all the articles about Saturday. I suggest this is a cherry-picked source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.166.60 (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Several sources use this specific phrase. In addition to CBS (which is a reliable source) we also have NY Daily, Slate, and a few others. Snopes weighs in to say that claims she was the aggressor are poorly supported by the limited available evidence. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Most articles appear to describe it as a punch, to me. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=punch%20antifa%20woman#q=punch+antifa+woman&hl=en&tbm=nws

We shouldn't be editorializing articles so they fit with the most far-left interpretation possible.108.6.166.60 (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added "quote" marks to make it clear this is what the source is saying. Though I actually don't agree, depending on your definition of Sucker punch it's a rather subjective statement. I have also watched this incidents video/o or stills (probably too many) from varying angles, and the young 'lady' was not there to have a polite discussion over tea and scones. She IS a self declared 'Anti-fascist' [1] 220 of ^Borg 05:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:OR is irrelevant. Do you have any actual sources? What does being "anti-fascist" have to do with anything? Does that somehow make her immune to sucker-punches? Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

innocent people do not claim beforhand to want to "scalp nazis" or throw improvised explosive devices into innocent bystanders http://i.imgur.com/RnthFrc.jpg 27.33.120.120 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Embarrassing

This article reads like it was copy and pasted right from the SPLC's website. Couldn't this have been written in a more objective fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.79.52 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what changes you think should be made? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Very sorry. I'm at 4 reverts on this page today, all removals of uncited OR edits. Could editors please use the talk page. Thanks Edaham (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Since none of the editors involved in the removal of apparently disputed material have followed BRD, I have requested (and have got) this page to be semi-protected. Edaham (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

71.244.249.190 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 well that was an easy one

Recent edit

The source uses "supremacist"; pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it neutral?Wikigirl97 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It's mainstream press. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV isn't about being neutral in the sense I think Wikigirl means. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are they right?Wikigirl97 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You want to maybe give us a little more to work with, here? They are reliable sources, so yeah, they are right as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We don't do original research, so sources are what we use. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

But if something might be false how do we reconcile that?Wikigirl97 (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTRUTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D46:350:60CD:4052:1FC5:35B0 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

White Supremacist vs Nationalist?

Why was it changed from nationalist to supremacist, and then locked, when the former has been the standard for quite some time? Where are the statement from actual leadership or spokespersons where they argue that the white race is superior?

Based on the following interviews with leadership, I say that "white nationalist" is a adequate compromise. They claim to be Identitarian Movement, which seems to be quite similar to White nationalism, so I would say this is more neutral.

Interviews

• 1
• 2
• 3

It would seem that the words of the organization itself clashes with what the SPLC and the ADL seems to say about the group.

sorry it took me so long to reply. Using those quotes, the most you could take from them is a sentence or two to say something like: A spokesperson or (person's name) for the group, identifies the group as a.... x, where x is what ever they said about themselves. We still have to include the stuff other reliable sources said about them though, and I've listed some of those quotes above. I'm not the most qualified editor to answer your question though. There is a rather lengthy debate going on at the moment involving an RfC on Jared Taylor's talk page. The outcome of this discussion, which has been taken up on the NPOV discussion page, will likely have an outcome on the terminology used in this page. At the moment the existing consensus is to refer to them in the article in whatever terminology or category they have been referred to by a majority of secondary reliable sources. Edaham (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my issue with that is the sources you mention all simply assert that they are a white supremacist organization without a quote where somebody in the organization asserts that the white race is superior. Jarad Taylor isn't a member of the organization so I'm not sure the relevant of that discussion. The work of the SPLC and the ADL are respectable for sure, but considering how controversal the whole issue is, I'm not sure if they can really be considered neutral in this case.

Take for example *this expose from the New York Times. They seem to differentiate the Identitarian movement from the white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups that were in attendance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:4201:8246:909E:E8A0:C36D:C02D (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

They say it's a subset of the looser movement, the alt-right targeting college age rights. The story also seems to use the words nationalist and supremacist pretty indiscriminately, which I think is pretty typical of media reporting on the issue. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

ADL calls it white supremacist.[2] Doug Weller talk 12:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

the ADL, being a jewish supremacist organisation is clearly biased and should not be used in this article at all. 27.33.120.120 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Domestic Terrorism?

What is the source on domestic terrorism being their mission? 60.50.57.92 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist organization

here are some of the sources (from the lede - there's others in the article) which say this organization is white supremacist

• 1
• 2
• 3

And below this line is the space where you put the sources you feel warrant removing this information from the lede and your neutral reasons for wanting to implement these changes to further improve the quality of the article. Edaham (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

--- <--- this is the line.

The tactic of introducing genuinely objectionable material into the article and then white washing it while performing a revert is making it difficult to restore the article as it has to be re-read and checked each time a revert is performed. Most of the changes being made require discussion as per this thread, which was opened after reverting some time ago. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

they have clearly stared that asians have higher IQ and that africans clearly have superior sporting abilities in most sports, so they are either asian supremacists or black supremacists NOT white supremacists. they are clearly a white identitarian movement started in part to combat the many "people of colour" and "feminist" type movements who seek to discriminate against white people (europeans) even in their own countries. 27.33.120.120 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the term "white supremacist" is that, while commonly used in newspapers and corresponding websites, it is often misattributed as a literal descriptor. Supremacy heavily implies desire for "dominance" or belief in objective "superiority", none of which apply in any capacity for this organization. The word is charged with certain preconceptions, and so its use in this context is heavily indicative of bias, and does not reflect the neutrality that Wikipedia is supposed to achieve. 205.175.98.67 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not up to you to deem these misattributions. Many white supremacists use an overly-narrow boutique definition of the term which allows them to distance themselves from the term's unflattering connotations. Wikipedia should not fall for this PR-minded silliness. Even the simplest definition has nothing to do with white people being literally better at everything in all cases. These constantly repeated comments about non-whites being better at sports or having a high IQ or whatever are a deflection. The belief that black people are better at physical activities was used as a justification for slavery, as one obvious counterexample. The underlying assumption is that these positive qualities exist in service to white people, or can be ignored or devalued when not useful to white people. This assumption is sometimes spelled-out, and sometimes merely insinuated. These beliefs and institutions elevate white people, either directly or by default. That's white supremacy. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bolding

@Drmies: Both Nathan Damigo and Eli Mosley are redirects to this article. In these cases, I've seen BLP names being bolded. However, I'm fine either way; just wanted to clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm OK--but I don't think that's a good reason to do something with the text, if that is the reason. Thanks for the note! Drmies (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Eli Mosley no longer CEO/Leader of Identity Evropa

This was announced today. "I was previously the CEO of Identity Evropa, and now I am the leader of Operation Homeland..." He states this in his introduction of this video, around 1 minute or so in. 2601:982:4200:A6C:D8F1:DBCA:9AB:2538 (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks for this notification. is that supported by any non-user generated verifiable source? Edaham (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be nice. I don't have the time or inclination to listen to this whole thing, so does he say anything else about his position with the group? "I'm not CEO anymore, but I'm still a member" or similar? Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

References

• This was covered by SPLC here: High-profile alt-righters form new umbrella group with Identitarian focus and Forward: White Supremacists Form New Umbrella ‘Alt-Right’ Group. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

pronunciation

how do you pronounce it? is it ai-den-tih-tee your-oh-pah?Wikigirl97 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

=/aɪˈdentəti/ /yoo-roh-puh/ The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Motto

The motto appears to have changed sometime between 2018-Jan and now to "We are the future". The previous motto "You will not replace us!" last appeared as the official motto in late 2017 although "We are the future!" is still reportedly chanted at some rallies it no longer appears to be the groups' official motto. I changed the infobox to reflect this. I don't know if adding another line to include a slogan is appropriate considering slogans are typically unoffical. The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Difference between Motto and Slogan

Key difference: The key difference between the two is that ‘motto’ is defined as a short sentence or phrase that expresses the principle or a rule guiding the behavior of a particular person, whereas a ‘slogan’ is defined as the group a words or a phrase that is easy to remember and used by a group or business to attract attention.[3] The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have a source for it being changed, we could use that to update the infobox. The first source you added was a local news article which doesn't actually say that it's a new motto, nor that it's a motto at all, while the slightly older Forward source does. The local source simply and briefly mentions the phrase "We are the future. America first. End immigration" as being used by the group's website. The other two sentences are not in the same place as the first, this moment, on their website, so this is ambiguous. That second source is unreliable without some secondary sources for context. Primary sources can be used for non-controversial details, but that's pretty limited when dealing with hate groups.

"Slogan" is not supported by template:infobox organization. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree a "Slogan" is not supported by template:infobox organization, The Forward source does not state motto nor could I find any source referring to "We are the future!" as anything but a slogan. If it deserves a mention it should not be in the infobox labeled as a motto. The Impartial Truth (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose. The source says The new “You will not replace us” motto appears to have been popularized by members Identity Evropa... This seems clear enough to me, but I can see some ambiguity here. Since the article already mentions it with proper context in the body, I don't object to removing the infobox entry entirely. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Overcitation / Telesur

I am in total sympathy with the motives behind this edit, but I don't think that we need six citations to say the same thing; I think that is classic overcitation.

I especially don't think we should be citing teleSUR, which is not a reliable source, and has been discussed at RSN for exactly that reason. TeleSUR is a Venezuelan state-run news agency usually identified as Bolivarian propaganda by scholars and media. (See, e.g., here (Council on Foreign Relations piece). Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda").

Essentially, there are plenty of good sources out there; we should not rely on sketchy ones. Neutrality^talk 01:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I was the editor who reverted your removal of a citation(s), but I did so because (I believe) you said there were too many, not that one of them was unreliable. If one of the sources is unreliable, and has been discussed as so on RSN, please feel free to delete it without hindrance from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, you're correct. Appreciated. Neutrality^talk 01:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence fails to tell readers where the organisation is based.

Why does the lede not include an obvious statement of fact from the beginning? Is there something controversial about telling people where in the world this organisation can be found? Or are people so concerned with arguing about details that they have lost sight of the need to actually inform readers of such basic details from the start? This is an American organisation. Say so. In the first sentence. Don't leave readers wondering why the ADL and the SPLC are relevant. 86.131.45.175 (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

change first occurrence of "contributed" to "attributed" Chhildeb (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've simplified the sentence to resolve this issue. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

Please make the following changes to make this article fair and accurate and to remove the accurate, in my opinion, accusation that it is politically biased and perhaps even racist.

"please change Neo Nazi to identitarian" because this group is a white advocacy group no different than any other group promoting a particular ethnic groups interests. This group is no different than AIPAC apart from the major difference that AIPAC has huge influence within the US Congress and upon the policy of the US government. There is no evidence that this organisation holds any National Socialist views and to say so is simple a smear and I say that as a non supporter.

"please change white supremacist to white advocacy" because this group does not advocate domination of any other group as is clear by their written and verbal output and non violent approach to campaigning, unless you believe 'it's okay to be white' is evidence of racial domination. Mactire22 (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia articles are based on neutral summaries of reliable sources, not editor opinions or false equivalence. Many, many sources say that this organization is neo-Nazi or similar. Likewise, these sources do not accept Identity Evropa's public-relations blather as sincere or significant. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Identitarian vs Neo-Nazi

This article is conflating the separate ideas of Neo-Nazism and Identitarianism and asserting the claim that this organization is Neo-Nazi without acknowledging there are statements presented by various sources which indicate these as separate and distinct ideologies. This distinction was not identified or discussed prior to the mass-edits (provided by a blocked sockpuppet account nonetheless) which had asserted this group is Neo-Nazi. There are SPLC and ADL articles [4], [5], [6] which identify and acknowledge the presence of a distinct "Identitarian" movement in the US, which the organization itself identifies as. To assert the "Neo-Nazi" claims made by some sources without acknowledging the difference in concepts provided by other reliable sources is ignoring the WP:NPOV policy to "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". It would be understandable to describe and cite potential links between the two concepts as they pertain to the organization in a separate section, but there is too much debate and evidence regarding the distinction itself to justify using "Neo Nazi" and "Identitarian" interchangeably. If this organization identifies itself as "Identitarian" and sources attribute their involvement in the "American Identitarian Movement", then I think we can all agree in good faith that the organization itself is "Identitarian". There is at least enough ambiguity here for all of us to agree that it is not Wikipedia's role to determine who and who isn't a "Neo-Nazi" if there is sufficient evidence to dispute this claim. Detailing their potential links to Neo-Nazism is an entirely different topic that would need to give various sources proper weight and should be assigned its own separate section within this article.Barbarossa139 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that says that IE is identitarian before neutrality even comes into play. I looked at all three of those sources. The SPLC and ADL sources don't say IE is identitarian and the Hope Not Hate source is unreliable, as far as I know. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you still understand my point that sources indicate Neo-Nazism and Identitarianism as two separate ideas and implies different sets of beliefs (although is seen by some as having overlapping beliefs), hence why the current usage and combination of the terms should be put into question and removed. But here are a few articles since you don't seem to be satisfied here: [7], [8], [9], [10]. They refer to this organization as distinctly "Identitarian" or categorize this group under the term "Identitarian". Don't pretend they don't. Barbarossa139 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The first three sources describe IE as a "white nationalist" organization that self-identifies as "identitarian." The fourth source states "Identitarian/Identity Evropa," but it's too brief and ambiguous to be used as a source.

The "neo-nazi" verbage was well-sourced, I'm curious why this was removed at the same time that "identitarian" was added. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The second article explicitly states "But unlike the various student organizations, events, and local businesses that use the lamp posts and bulletin boards to promote their groups, Identity Evropa is an Identitarian organization, an alt-right group rooted in pro-white values and beliefs. Born out of the French Identitarian movement, Identitarianism in the United States has grown in popularity, especially following the election of President Donald Trump.", The third article actually says it in the title. The fourth article draws the distinction between separate groups, similar to how this article is categorizing the different groups by their ideologies: [11]. More sources which indicate a distinction: [12], [13], [14][15]. If the organization itself is self-described to a system of beliefs called "Identitarianism" and sources acknowledge the presence of a theory and movement called "identitarianism", then how specifically does one indicate this group is primarily "Neo-Nazi" through contested outside sources? One could claim that certain beliefs might overlap between the two ideas, but the fact they are used interchangeably here in this article is putting undue weight on the Nazi claim specifically when a broader argument exists which differentiates the two.Barbarossa139 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Self-identification is sufficient to say that the group identifies in a specific way, it is not sufficient to say what the group actually is if neutral third-party reliable sources identify it as something else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Barbarossa139, you have only been a registered editor here for 4 days, and yet you seem to know (or think you know) a lot about how Wikipedia works. Your editing has also been almost totally about Identity Evropa. That brings up several possibilities: (1) that you are a WP:SPA, (2) that you are in some fashion connected to Identity Evropa and have a WP:COI due to that relationship, and (3) that you have edited previously under another account name. The community can judge for itself whether you are a SPA or not, but in order to clear up any misunderstandings, can you please tell us if you are connected in any way, formally or informally, to Identity Evropa, and if you have edited previously under a different account name or names and, if so, what that name or names were? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

In response to your questions, No, No, and No. I am interested in making Wikipedia a reliable source of information, and that this current article regarding Identity Evropa degrades the integrity of Wikipedia. It's important to protect Wikipedia against ideologues that would ruin its usefulness as a valuable source of information. Do you (1) have any conflicts of interest? (2) are you linked to any sock puppet accounts? (3) Are you involved with any organizations/beliefs which promote an agenda and seek to promote a particular point of view on this subject? If not, I would suggest keeping this discussion content-related. Are you still debating that no sources exist which assert my claims in prior comments? Thank you. Barbarossa139 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you cannot answer the first question, it's up to the community to determine if you're a SPA, and -- at least to me -- it's clear that you are one. As for your other questions, I'm sure you believe that you have scored some rhetorical points, but the plain fact is that with 250,000 edits in 13 years, and an account history that's completely transparent [16], you actually have no basis for asking them, which puts you in violation of WP:Casting aspersions without providing evidence. With you, on the other hand the evidence for the possibility of your having previous accounts and a COI in relation to Identity Evropa is available to anyone who examines your contribution history. [17]

As for content, your question has been answered on this page, numerous times in fact, and you need to accept the answer(s) you've been given and stop pressing the issue: the fact that you continue to do so is one of the factors that makes you appear to be a COI SPA. I'm of the mind to simply delete any further attempts on your part to continue to push this issue as a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't particularly care if Barbarossa139 is an SPA, and I don't see sufficient evidence to accuse them of a COI, but what I do see is a marked precociousness that strongly suggests sockpuppetry. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I see a lot of disruptive behavior on this page that is avoiding my original point, please see Disruptive Editing policy for more details. Concerns regarding my alleged behavior belong on my user talk page or on a dispute resolution page. Repeated questioning of my alleged intentions on this talk page in spite of my responses to your questions is against Wikipedia's Casting Aspersions policy. Please assume good faith according to Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy as well. I look forward to continuing this discussion with you all in accordance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Regarding prior discussions, tendentious statements/edits used to justify a certain point of view does NOT mean a Consensus has been made on this page - several users in this talk page have expressed their disagreement with the current state of this article which is a valid reason to bring this to discussion. I also see users injecting their own personal beliefs into the discussion to justify certain edits (re: Grayfell), which is also prohibited according to the Editing Policy. I would also like to remind everyone to read the policy regarding Tendentious editing prior to editing this article as well.

Back to my original point regarding the content of this page, I have provided valid sources which categorize this organization as belonging to a movement called "Identitarianism" or acknowledging the existence of an "Identitarian Movement", which is separate from the movement called "Neo-Nazism" ([18],[19], [20], [21], [22], [23],[24], [25], [26][27]. On the basis of this distinction, it would be more appropriate according to the Biographies of Living Persons policy (groups are mentioned here as well) to demonstrate the differences in opinion by discussing potential links to Neo-Nazism as they pertain to this organization in a separate area of the article. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to determine who is and who is not a Neo-Nazi, but rather to illustrate the differences of opinion while balancing the conflicting statements of various sources. Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: White Nationalist vs. White Supremacist

The organization is referred to as "white nationalist" throughout their own materials and in fact, this own Wiki page. According to Wiki rules, a group should be identified in the way that the group identifies itself. Criticisms of the organization by groups such as the ADL (a group with obvious enmity and bias towards IE) should go in its own section like "Controversies". TorontonianOnlines (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is incorrect for multiple reasons:

• Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and Identity Evropa isn't a reliable source.
• Wikipedia has no rule that requires us to describe organizations in their own terms. In some cases, we handle individuals' preferences this way, but not groups.
• Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising or public relations
• Wikipedia isn't a replacement for their own website
• Their own terms are not due weight.
• Using alternate terms to avoid redundancy is one thing, but Wikipedia avoids WP:EUPHEMISMs. White supremacy and white nationalism are virtually the same in functional meaning, but white supremacy is clearer for the lede.
• Disliking or opposing something doesn't make a source unreliable. ADL is a reliable source of information on hate groups, for the same reason that doctors are a reliable source of information on cancer.
• A WP:CSECTION would falsely imply that the label 'white supremacist' is a minority viewpoint, or is widely contested. This isn't accurate. Their beliefs are contested, but the label is accepted by reliable sources.
• A csection would also falsely imply that only some of their activity is controversial. Everything they do is 'controversial', and this should be made clear throughout the article.

There's more, but you get the picture. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

1. How is IE not a reliable source on the subject of Identity Evropa?

2. White nationalism and white supremacy are perhaps related, but not synonymous topics. Wikipedia itself has two separate articles on this but in a nutshell, white supremacy implies a belief that whites are superior to the other groups, whereas white nationalism is a desire for a white state. One is not equivalent to the other.

3. Judging from your statement effectively comparing IE to cancer, you are heavily biased on the topic and as such cannot be held to be a non-partisan, non-partial contributor on the topic. ADL itself has shown the same extensive biases, often labelling groups left and right as "hate groups". TorontonianOnlines (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Identity Evropa is not a reliable source. They have a negative reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. They are not usable for any statements of fact. At best, the site is a significant opinion about Identity Evropa, but that must be contextualized as an opinion. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising, and their claims are disputed by reliable sources, this context should be evaluated based on reliable sources.

Our articles on white nationalism and white supremacy explain that they overlap and are commonly used euphemistically to present offensive views as being more palatable. This is how reliable sources treat the terms, also, and that's what Wikipedia relies on.

Yes, I am opposed to racist and antisemitic hate groups, and I'm not interested in pretending otherwise to play some pseudo-intellectual game. Having an active interest in these groups is what's led me to read up on them, which is why I'm discussing this on the talk page. I compared hate groups to cancer, and my point was that those who oppose cancer are reliable sources for information on cancer. The American Cancer Society studies cancer, they are reliable for information on what is cancer and what isn't, what's benign, what's malignant, how to treat it, how to categorize it, etc. Likewise, there are organizations like the ADL, SPLC, and many others, which study hate groups and movements specifically to oppose them. Opposing something doesn't make a source unreliable. Wikipedia doesn't expect people to robotically pretend to "treat both sides equally" when dealing with deeply offensive things like this. Nobody should expect that, not even in a legal context. Neutrality doesn't mean humoring WP:FRINGE perspectives, nor does it mean false balance. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding reliable sources, I'll add that groups such as this often, as a matter of policy, aim to mislead the public about their true intent, so it is absolutely essential to use reliable sources and not simply report the propaganda of fringe groups.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not apply to this. To claim that the group's own website is not a good source for information on that group is a nonsensical claim.

"Deeply offensive" is a matter of opinion and not a factual statement. I'll repeat myself, you're not being objective here and due to your clear bias on the topic, you're hardly an impartial party.

White nationalism refers to the desire to create a white nation and doesn't exclude the possibility and right of other races to create their own ethnically homogenous state (e.g. The proposed black state of Malcolm X, or even the state of Israel). White supremacy on the other hand holds whites to be superior to all other people based ostensibly on the innate characteristics of that race.

To say anti-Semitic is one thing but one doesn't need to be a white supremacist in order to be anti-Semitic. "Racist" on the other hand is a red herring, more of a pejorative than a real term of description. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is exactly the reason we require reliable sources. What is truly nonsensical here is the claim that the group's website is a reliable source for anything. Defending white nationalism doesn't help your argument either.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's common practice for some neo-Nazis, like the Hammerskins, and especially their feeder-teams like Identity Evropa and their playmates over in the Rise Above Movement, to take a stance of "objectivity" when advocating genocide. This is, regardless of what any individual members might say, the end goal of these groups. How, exactly, would half of the 310 million people in the US and Canada be peacefully segregated into a "white ethnostate"? This is a supposedly critical distinction which any truly "objective" person realizes is a sad fantasy. It is, by design and necessity, a supremacist and violent mythology without any connection to compassion, reason, or basic math skills. This is not impartial logic and reason, this is blind hatred and neurosis. It is an intellectualized excuse, not an intellectual exercise.

So with that in mind, exclusively using and defending the childishly simplistic definitions of "white supremacy" and "white nationalism" being proposed suggests a clear bias. Expecting anyone to be "an impartial party" to genocide will lead only to frustration. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better! --I am One of Many (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The cited reliable sources do NOT call Identity Evropa white supremacist. The LA Times article says: "Nathan Damigo brought his message of white separatism". The Boston Globe article says: "white nationalist group Identity Evropa". The Guardian article says: "Identity Evropa, a white nationalist group". The LA Times article has white supremacist in the headline, and says that an anonymous flier called Damigo a white supremacist, but the article itself does not call him that. Therefore, going with the reliable sources means calling the group white nationalist or possibly white separatist, not white supremacist. Roger (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Schlafly: sources refer to the group as both nationalist and supremacist. Examples of the latter: NJ.com, Belleville News-Democrat, Phoenix New Times, WHSV, Peoria Public Radio, KQED EvergreenFir Roger (talk) (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Those sources are mixed. Some cite the ADL or someone else to say "white supremacist". Some use white nationalist and white supremacist interchangeably. No source explicitly says that white supremacist is the more accurate term. Since sources use both terms, then perhaps the article should use both, with sources for each. I don't object to saying that the ADL calls them white supremacist. Roger (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Using both would be appropriate I think. Sources certainly use both. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As a compromise, I suggest that the opening sentence say "white nationalist", and the next sentence say that the ADL says they are "white supremacist". I don't know what "identitarian" means, but if that is what they call themselves, then that ought to be in there somewhere. Roger (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I honestly think both belong in the first sentence. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so too. Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that there are separate WP articles on white supremacism, white nationalism, white separatism, and identitarian movement. Apparently some people think that these are useful distinctions, and some do not. Furthermore, some people do not agree with how other people use these terms. Eg, some say that white nationalism is just a euphemism for white supremacism, and other say that white supremacism is just a smear term for white nationalism. If these terms are loaded, then the articles on those terms can explain it.

For the sake of NPOV, I suggest describing an organization by how it labels itself. And then if there are reliable sources that say that it is labeling itself incorrectly, then go ahead and describe it using the terms used by the sources. But the sources here are mostly using these terms interchangeably. Maybe they are not making the distinctions that some WP editors believe in making, or maybe they are unsure of which term better applies, or maybe they are just sloppy. Either way, I don't think these sources are strong enough to override how the organization calls itself. Roger (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We can discuss how the group and identified, but that is not what NPOV is. NPOV is about neutrality representing sources. As such, we must include the descriptions they use (white nationalist and white supremacist). EvergreenFir (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, the cited sources do not match the current description. You could say that it is alternately called white nationalist, white supremacist, and white separatist. But no source says that white supremacist is the more correct term. Roger (talk)

@Schlafly: Sorry I was unclear. I agree the current description needs updating. I think a list like "white nationalist, white supremacist, and white separatist" would be good. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A link to a Newsweek article has been added, to justify "white supremacist". It does indeed say "Identity Evropa, one of the most influential white supremacist groups". But it does not say that "white supremacist" is the best description for this particular group. In fact a picture caption calls it "the white nationalist organization." So this article actually favors the term "white nationalist".

This is not a NPOV article anyway. Another sentence in it says "Trump, a man elected president on a platform of hatred, bigotry". Some people have that opinion, but it is certainly not neutral, and not suitable for WP. Roger (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

From your own description of the source, what it actually favors is the common-sense notion that "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are functionally interchangeable. A simple, plain-language summary is most neutral. "White supremacist" serves that function. Using both would not increase clarity. Implying that these racist euphemisms are subtly nuanced in vitally important ways would be non-neutral for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. From what I can find, most reliable sources use the term "white nationalist" and not "white supremacist". You know this, but you also know that news journalists will use this page as a source. I don't care enough to request any changes. Axumtoted (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Several of the sources use the terms interchangeably. None of the sources support the usage in this article, or your particular point of view. If your opinion is that these terms should not be distinguished, then I suggest you make that point over on the WP articles on those subjects, as WP has separate articles. Roger (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If sources use it, how does that not support our use of the term in this article? We've demonstrated that RS use both white nationalist and white supremacist. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does the pejorative term Neo Nazi[28] keep reappearing? While all the sources linked to that term clearly show white supremacist viewpoints by the members, none of them give any support to the term other than the article from Tab, where the author labels them Neo Nazis in both the title and the first section of the article. The author gave no reasoning for the use of the term. No claims by the group themselves or any of the other sources in the citations label them as such. Perhaps @Grayfell: will explain why this is reverted despite clear problems with sources?--Ejplaysintraffic (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It is supported by sources that this is a neo-Nazi organization, and that's all that is required. The sources don't have to give any reasoning for the use of the term. Wikipedia doesn't demand that every source supports and explains how it came to every conclusion that it comes to, because that's an absolutely ridiculous standard that no source could ever meet. Reliable sources apply the label, and Wikipedia's function as a tertiary source is to reflects those reliable sources. The group itself is not a reliable source, as it doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Even if this were not a hate group, the subject of an article is only of limited use, as Wikipedia favors independent sources over PR. Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editing policy [29] states that a neutral point of view is crucial to maintaining the integrity of this website. If @Grayfell: has opposing viewpoints to the organization listed in this article, then perhaps there is too much bias to accurately depict a neutral point of view within the article. If the first two descriptors of the organization in this article (Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist) are those which are commonly used by left-leaning media and sources, then there needs to also be the term "Identitarian" present in the description if this is what the organization itself and politically-right leaning news sources use to describe them. Since Identitarianism and Neo-Nazism are two distinct ideas and movements, and even have separate wikipedia articles to demonstrate this, (whether editors can agree upon this or not) then it should be portrayed as such in the article as well. Barbarossa139 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not in the slightest how our neutrality policy works. You would do well to read it before citing it. Our neutrality policy requires us to follow the reliable sources, regardless of their political persuasion. If there's a disagreement among the reliable sources then we must describe that disagreement. None of that makes PE's website reliable. If there are reliable right-leaning sources that call PE identitarian, then please identify them (sorry) so we can add them. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that this New York times article [30]states "[T]he A.D.L. classifies it as a white supremacist group and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes it as a white nationalist group.", so how do we determine which term is more appropriate in this case? Are there quotes from this organization which state they are superior over other races? I haven't seen any yet. In this Washington post article, it says they reject supremacy [31]. Barbarossa139 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course they do. A lot of white supremacists have realised that it's more userfriendly to call themselves nationalist. It's like the UK Football Lads Alliance complaining they are anti-extremist while giving Heil salutes at parades and having a secret Facebook page full of extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric.[32] Or organised crime leaders denying they are criminals and claiming they are just businessmen. But that's the real world, and we can only reflect what reliable sources say, so we should use both terms. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way I try not to look at our articles on White supremacy and White nationalism, as the last time I looked they seemed pretty confused. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

So you can acknowledge that a disagreement exists pertaining to the terms "White Nationalist" and "White Supremacist" among the broader scope of political discussion. Some people will argue these terms are one in the same, others acknowledge they are two separate concepts. To stay within the scope of Wikipedia's policies and the purpose of an encyclopedia, we should be focused on how these terms pertain exclusively to the organization itself and in what context, instead of casting broad generalizations based on the actions of outside individuals. It seems like the more we speculate on how all white nationalists apparently conduct themselves — as to justify content issues — the closer we get to inserting our own Original Research WP:OR with respect to this article's content. If claims of white supremacy are upheld, then statements from this group which indicate they denounce supremacy should also be included. Any other Wikipedia article regarding living persons or groups would do this.

Since this also involves WP:BLP, exceptional claims should require exceptional sources. If an exceptional source had proof this organization endorsed the notion of Whites being a "superior" race, then there is no question here. But since no such evidence exists to my knowledge, it is merely speculation and should be demonstrated as such on this page and quoted appropriately, otherwise it should not be included at all.

Also — by your logic above for including both terms of "White Nationalist" and "White Supremacist", then why isn't "Identitarian" included in the lead paragraph as well? Clearly sources indicate an "Identitarian Movement" exists. The ideology to which an organization identifies itself belonging to shouldn't be prescribed as something else by editors on the basis that these editors do not agree with the legitimacy of such claims. Describing potential overlap of ideologies using sources is one thing, but this entire article is written on the premise this is a Neo-Nazi organization — and seems more closer to a manifestation of Godwin's law in article-form more than anything. Barbarossa139 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

When you use a source like “Raging Chicken Press” you call into question the legitimacy of the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.125.16 (talk • contribs)

Since the MIllersville U newspaper mentions RCP as a blog, it probably needs to go. The other bazillion sources seem OK, though. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed as a bit superfluous. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit: Mexican Government statements on Identity Evropa

I think the activities section should mention the Mexican government's public reaction to recent activities of the group. I've drafted the following edit for the Activities section:

===Mexican Consulate Demonstration=== On July 28, 2018, a group of around 45 members of Identity Evropa, some dressed as construction workers, demonstrated outside the consulate, holding large letters that spelled "Build the Wall." Mexico's government said it had written a diplomatic note to the U.S. State Department about the incident, which it said worsened the climate for the country's relationship with the United States. "On Saturday a group of racist, ignorant and xenophobic people were at our consulate in NY," Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray wrote on Twitter the Tuesday after, "We reject and condemn these events." Identity Evropa said in a statement the same day that the Mexican government tacitly supported illegal immigration to the United States and that the group was a movement for European Americans against mass immigration and globalization.

Mehaveaccount (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• I have integrated a truncated version of the above into the report about IE hanging out a banner in Fort Tryon Park later in the day. I've left out the primary sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have found another reference for the story I think is worth adding, a Wall Street Journal article. Mehaveaccount (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

In the infobox, the following should be changed from: 172.220.33.106 (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Dispute in Activities section latest information

Barbarossa139 is doing his SPA thing again, attempting to control this article, as they have done before, without consensus, and in violation of WP:BRD.

Points to be made:

• Gothamist is not a blog, it is a local news source, and has been vetted at WP:RSN a number of times. Even before it was closed down, this was the case. Now that its re-opened and operates under the auspices of WNYC, that is even more true. B139 keeps removing the Gothamist citaton on the basis that it is a blog. This is not the case.

• The citation to the New York Times article only supports the statements in the article about the incident at the Mexican consulte. It does not cover the events later that day at Fort Tryon Park, as B139 would know if they actually read it. Nevertheless, B139 keeps trying to move the Times piece to the end of the paragraph, instead of at the end of the Mexican consulate section. The incident at Fort Tryon Park is supported by the Gothamist cite and the Wall Street Journal cite, both of which appear at the end of those statements

• B139 attempted to change some of the wording of the paragraph, but, unfortunately for them, the wording as it appears is what is supported by the citations, and the wording they prefer is not.

• B139 needs to follow WP:BRD and not re-revert instead of discussing.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For the last time BMK, you are violating the WP:Casting aspersions policy when you repeatedly accuse me of being a SPA. You failed the first time but you seem determined to try to delegitimize people who disagree with you and discourage them from contributing. Whether Gothamist is under new ownership or not, it still operates as a blog. I would not consider the quality to be up-to-par with various other sources which document this same event, such as Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Reuters. It seems like over-citation to me if the Gothamist blog is essentially repeating the same general course of events which are stated in the WSJ or NYT.

The WSJ article also says Identity Evropa themselves unfurled the banner in the park, so when you use language such as "Later that day, a group of several dozen people identifying itself as Identity Evropa and using its logo hung a banner in Fort Tryon Park in Upper Manhattan." it sounds like you are somehow trying to call to question whether or not it was actually them that did this. Is that your intention here? It's not the role of Wikipedia editors to speculate on such matters. The articles said they did it. Barbarossa139 (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You have a point regarding the WSJ's identification of IE. I've made that change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2018

I suggest the following change:

Identity Europa is an American white nationalist organization, and a hate group.

I think this is better for several reasons. One being that this is how the group is described in the most reliable sources. Another reason being that although white nationalism may be implicitly white supremacist, white supremacism does not imply any form of nationalism. Axumtoted (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit: Why is this even debated? When did news articles become more reliable than SPLC? Axumtoted (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I don't know about other editors, but I'm not even going to consider this request until the blatantly unreliable sources presented -- i.e. unpublished theses, student oral presentations, and college newspapers -- are removed, and the request is based solely on reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Those were not part of the requested change. The request is now updated. I have also trimmed down the sources so that you only have to read one article, if you are interested. Axumtoted (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

The article already contains several reliable sources from reputable outlets which use the term "white supremacist". If the SPLC has published something saying that this organization is not white supremacist, please present that source for discussion. The source you links specifically says that IE focuses on ...intellectualizing white supremacist ideology. This is, yet another, example of sources describing them as both. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not an example of that. The way I read SPLC's article it is implied several places that IE is a white supremacist organization, but it is never stated explicitly. I don't know exactly why the SPLC prefer using the term white nationalist. I have discussed this earlier. At the moment, the wikipedia article does not anywhere say that the group is nationalist, only that it is allied with white nationalism and have contributed to white nationalism. This is very confusing. Is the group white nationalist or just an ally that contributes to white nationalism? Should the article not make that clear?

If we are to choose between labels, then it is very reasonable to use the same terminology as in the most reliable sources. I understand that some would want to use the sentence "neo-Nazi and white supremacist" because it sounds more extreme and reflects their personal feelings about the group. If that is the state of wikipedia... fine, have it your way. Axumtoted (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In the future, please do not refactor your comments after other people have responded, as you did here. The talk page is intended to be a record of the discussion.

Projecting this as being 'emotional' is a common tactic, but it is still not a persuasive one. We do not choose terminology sole based on popularity, we choose it based on clarity to readers, as well. The SPLC source says that IE focuses on intellectualizing white supremacist ideology. Describing this as merely an implication is an understatement. IE advocates white supremacist ideology, which is a more verbose way of saying "IE is a white supremacist group". Many sources support it and none, so far, refute it, so it's fine to just state it as a simple fact.

White nationalism is a WP:FRINGE ideology, and Wikipedia doesn't validate fringe ideologies by accepting them for rhetorical purposes. If you believe that "white nationalist" is more informative, we can discuss that, but I would like to see a source which discusses IE as an overtly white nationalist organization. We already know that "white nationalist" closely overlaps with white supremacist, and is widely used as an intellectualized euphemism for white racist, so we should be able to support this as a meaningful difference in this context. I am not asking for sources about white nationalist in general, I am asking for sources about Identity Evropa being white nationalist. If this is about which term has more sources... maybe, but who cares? This doesn't necessarily mean that one term is a better choice than the other. Sources also call them racists, bigots, art-illiterate crypto-fascists, and countless other things which are even less flattering. Most of these are just different ways of conveying the same basic idea. We're not trying to compile them all, we're trying to explain this in summary. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the comment as requested by the other editor, and I am sorry if I misunderstood anything. I went trough every single paper I could find trough google scholar, and as a result we now know that google scholar is complete garbage. But let me make this clear, I absolutely agree that the group is white supremacist. What is implied, or a little stronger than implied, by the SPLC does not change the fact that SPLC label the group as "white nationalist". Again, the group is clearly white supremacist, but so what? Even Adolf Hitlers page does not start with "Adolf Hitler was a white supremacist", or "Adolf Hitler was the man responsible for the death of millions", it says "Adolf Hitler was a German politician..." and then continues the article.

I also disagree that white nationalism is a fringe ideology, but such as the article is at the moment it doesn't really matter because the article mentions white nationalism several places. Do you prefer all occurrences of the term "white nationalist" to be removed from the article completely? Changing the first sentence to read that the group is a white nationalist organization would improve the article, and clear up possible misunderstandings as I have pointed out. If it is also mentioned that the group is white supremacist, or neo nazi, or whatever, or if the entire article is rewritten, I wouldn't prefer one over the other.

On the other hand, if we are to chose between terms, as you have suggested, I do belive that it is you that have to provide the argument that "white supremacist" is the better term, as "white nationalist" is the term used by the most reliable sources. One of the sources I have provided even makes a discussion about unnecessary differentiation between far right ideology, and choses for clarity to use the two terms "white nationalism" and "hate group". I am sure you are not interested in reading that one. If you think white nationalism is a "fringe" ideology, then perhaps you could provide some sources for that claim?

At the moment this article is not very good. Axumtoted (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit request has been turned down, and no established editor appears interested in arguing in favor of your suggested edit. Please do not continue this discussion, which is veering into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I am intrigued by your unwillingness to remove the Neo-Nazi descriptors from this page, considering it was provided by a banned account User:MichiganWoodShop. According to another statement which I found in your edit history, [33] shouldn't edits made by banned or de facto banned editors be removable on sight? Why does this only apply in certain cases?Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

I looked over the sources and it seems to me that the evidence for "neo-Nazi" is pretty weak. Here a local news source gets the term from a professor of English, here we have a "youth news site" which doesn't substantiate the claim but seems to use it mainly for a headline, here we have some evidence that in a press release a university said one of their fliers had a neo-Nazi message but I don't know if Raging Chicken Press has the editorial wherewithal to dig into that appellation, and the SPLC has a former member chattering about Nazi stuff (I don't doubt that the guy is a neo-Nazi, BTW), and here is the most unequivocal identification ("Identity Evropa is a neo-Nazi and white supremacist organization") but it's made by a local news organization--made on 23 February 2018, and it smells like it was just copied from Wikipedia. No, I think that term should go; "white supremacist" is, I gather, well verified and agreed on. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi @Drmes, It had struck me as odd the first article sentence would say "Identity Evropa is Neo-Nazi" when "Neo-Nazi" is explicitly discussed as a contentious label here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FWords_to_watch and there is considerable diversity of opinion on what category Identity Evropa best fits in based on the articles linked to through the prior discussions on the talk page. I think we should probably have a WP:LABELS tag there and a qualified sentence that lists the contending views on how people describe the organization. I did see it as un-Wikipedia like that an article would use the contentious label "Neo-Nazi" and it doesn't seem the most reputable sources do this and I do think we should be sticking with how the most reputable sources such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal phrase things. Mehaveaccount (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I have been discussing the same point here [34] and here [35] for a while now. Exceptional claims should require exceptional sources, since such claims may potentially be a WP:BLP issue. Allowing claims such as this on the article could potentially result in violence or other real-world consequences against these people due to the highly-controversial nature of such claims. As I said in previous discussions, a permanently banned account User:MichiganWoodShop had added these Neo-Nazi claims back in January, without any nuanced discussion about the validity of these sources. Barbarossa139 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"Potentially a BLP issue" isn't really much of a danger here given how fine the line is between all these designations, and the risk to real people of an organization being called "neo-Nazi" when they are merely white supremacist is negligible (and that may overstate the case). I somehow doubt there's a death squad combining BLP and Antifa commandos, chomping at the bit while updating their Wikipedia articles. But I want to get the article right. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I could understand if there was a section which explained potential links to the Alt Right/Neo-Nazism, similar to the Identitarian movement article, but this article is currently written entirely on the premise that they are Neo-Nazis. It seems more appropriate to leave all claims/accusations of that nature separate if they come from good sources. Barbarossa139 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't follow you. Articles are rarely written on premises. I'm just taking issue with two words, or three if you count "and". I'm waiting on some others to chime in and at some point I'll go in and edit. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My search indicates that media and other reliable sources don't say "Identity Evropa is a neo-Nazi" in the first graf, but have no trouble using it as a synonym on second or third references:

• San Jose Mercury-News"Campbell takes down white nationalist posters": "Assemblyman and former Campbell Mayor Evan Low was among those who condemned the formation and existence of Identity Evropa and other Neo-Nazi groups in the South Bay."
• The Times Neo-Nazi propaganda spreads at US colleges: " Since 2016 the ADL has found 478 cases on 287 campuses in 47 states and the District of Columbia. One group, Identity Evropa, was responsible for 230 of those incidents."
• The Independent Washington republicans try to distance themselves from newly elected white supremacist "Mr Allsup recently explained this to the neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa, saying in an episode of their podcast..."

Honestly, this is beginning to sound like a debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if some journalists are just using Wikipedia as a source for describing this organization at this point, since these Nazi claims have been around on this page since the beginning of the year. If the SPLC and ADL don't even call this group Neo-Nazis [36], then I wonder if these news organizations are just using the term in the pejorative sense instead. This Yahoo article [37] even goes to the extent of categorizing various "Alt-right" groups and distinguishes Neo Nazism and Identitarians as separate ideologies. I do not see Identity Evropa listed as Nazis here, but under the term which they identify themselves as and are described as by various other sources.

Even the Donald Trump article could mention somewhere that he is a Nazi sympathizer, since clearly sources exist which say that he is [38] [39]. But I think if that term was applied to every Wiki article in which someone was accused of being a Nazi, then this website wouldn't have much usefulness anymore, would it? Barbarossa139 (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Michiganwoodshop's January edits cited multiple existing sources, and several of the current sources are dated 2017, so we can't write the whole thing off as WP:CITOGENESIS. Terms such as Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, White Nationalist and Identitarian have separate meanings and are not interchangeable, but this doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive descriptors. Groups can and do show characteristics of more than one ideology. –dlthewave ☎ 15:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Article Lacks Objectivity

Only liberal left-leaning sources are used to describe Identity Evropa as "white supremacists" and "white nationalists." SPLC is a radical left leaning organization that should never be used as a source. At least we could add the following sentence: "Identity Evropa denies the charge they have anything to do with white nationalism or white supremacism https://www.identityevropa.com/about-us " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77B2:400:41B3:D481:EB82:CEDB (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — 2001:569:77B2:400:41B3:D481:EB82:CEDB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2001:569:77B2:400:41B3:D481:EB82:CEDB (UTC).

How this group describes itself is not relevant when sourced to their own website; Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about it. If you have such sources that describe how they see themselves, please offer them. If you wish to challenge the reliability of a source, you are free to do so at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I don't think you will succeed. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Extraordinary articles require extraordinary measures. No, we don't care what some obscure neo-nazi gang calls themselves on their website. Unless their claims have been reported and acknowledged by reliable secondary sources, there's no way your proposal would get into the article. The article suffers enough violation of WP:NPOV as it is. Instead of calling them little nazi shit-head millenials, we have to talk of them as some notable group of people... But yeah, relaiable sources call them people... So it goes... byteflush _Talk 02:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: @Byteflush: It seems there is at least one WSJ article which reports them as stating "We do not permit advocation of supremacy, illegal activity, or violence in our movement... Any suggestion to the contrary is not supported by any statement or action by a current representative." [40]. Which may be notable enough in itself to warrant changes to the lack of neutrality of the article. Barbarossa139 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, as the source is independent. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the quote. Barbarossa139 (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh.. It seems like the same familiar faces are coming out of the woodwork again to prevent any hint of neutrality from touching this article. Clearly it has already been acknowledged and agreed upon that adding this quote is OK — it is coming from a neutral and well-known source. I'd love to hear why Wikipedia's policies don't apply here for the 100th time from these editors. @331dot: Barbarossa139 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing an anonymous spokesman is a good sign that this is just public relations blather. We don't include this crap for reputable organizations, even when a source bothers to repeat it, so why does this one get special treatment? We would need a specific reason to bother including this pablum, and it would also need to be contextualized. Who, where, when, and why was this statement issued? I'm asking rhetorically, of course, since providing this level of details would only demonstrate how trivial and irrelevant it actually is, making it undue. If everybody agrees that it's just public relations, it doesn't belong. If anyone challenges that it's public relations, the burden would be on them to demonstrate why it is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I would request that the reversions stop and discussion continue here. I will request page protection if needed(I will not do it myself as I'm involved). I also wanted to clarify I did not comment on this matter "as an admin" and that my views should have no special weight or consideration. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: There is a big difference between "public relations blather" such as saying "Company X is #1 at Y" and providing due weight to inflammatory claims and labels in the context of Wikipedia. If any institution, company, etc. ever embraced any such inflammatory language, then it would obviously not be an issue when maintaining such descriptions in their Wikipedia page. But since this organization in particular has denied espousing such ideas and the implications which may be associated with such labels, I think it is completely fair to include a quote from a reputable source which provides a more complete picture to viewers of this Wiki article. Anyone who intends to actually learn something from this article would at least want to know more details behind the various pejoratives thrown about the article from multiple perspectives. Grayfell has expressed strong emotional motivations behind such topics in the past [41], which makes me wonder if Grayfell is really the best spokesperson for determining what is considered "public relations blather" or not in the context of Wikipedia policy. Barbarossa139 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The quote should not be included for the reasons clearly stated in my edit summary: first, even with the grammar correction, it's still horrible grammar. second, it makes it seem like the dude is responding directly to SPLC or something. Third the "denial" mostly denies advocating violence ("wer're the pacifist bigots!") with "supremacy" thrown in there, but neo-Nazis always make those claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• For some reason certain editors seem to think that feeling emotions and admitting to having an opinion disqualifies me from participating. Let me repeat myself for their convenience: I am opposed to racist and antisemitic hate groups, and I'm not interested in pretending otherwise to play some pseudo-intellectual game. I stand by that. It is a pseudo-intellectual game, and it seems like it's an especially popular one among IE's members. It's a fantasy that there is some sort of pure "reason" and "rationality" underlying their torch-lit screaming matches and pipe-dreams about "peaceful" ethnic cleansing. Nobody else is buying it, dudes. This false notion that Wikipedia editors are required to be robotically detached from every topic they edit says far more about IE's misguided use of tactics than it says about truth or reality. I have a position, and am not afraid to admit it, but ya'll can have fun pretending to be robots if it helps you feel better.

As for the proposal, it started by saying "Regarding their beliefs..." but then failed to say anything meaningful about their beliefs. Listing opposition to violence and crime as a "belief" is pedantic to a fault. The statement just repeated pablum which could be found in the terms of service for countless organizations and website. The only relevant part is that they claim not to permit "advocation" of supremacy. This would warrant a single short and paraphrased sentence, at most, and even that would need very careful contextualization. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is anyone so eager to prevent WP readers from learning that IE denies that it is supremacist? Whether you like or hate IE, its official positions are relevant to readers. If you have other sources saying that IE is lying about its beliefs, then go ahead and add that also. Roger (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

We provide the reader links to IE's website, where they can consume their propaganda to their heart's content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Schlafly, there's a link to the website, for those poor readers who haven't yet discovered Google. Now, I'd like for you to identify which editor in particular you think is preventing readers from whatever. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Considerable additional information for the Activities subsection where Damigo is accused punching an unnamed "young woman".

The original (currently) states;

During the 2017 Berkeley protests, Damigo punched a young woman, captured on video that subsequently went viral. Footage showed Damigo punching the woman in the face, then running away into the crowd. The attack prompted calls for Damigo's arrest or expulsion from Cal State Stanislaus, where he is a student; the university subsequently said that it was investigating Damigo.

I had considerably expanded this with further sources and citations to explain more accurately what actually happened. This was reverted as I apparently need to reach consensus here first?

I would assume that this could potentially be made more concise, or more neutral, but it currently seems to not be neutral or fair to omit information that significantly changes the optics and potential interpretation of what actually happened.

To be clear, I'm not claiming he didn't do it. I'm claiming that the sources presented and the way it's summarized here omit vital information that makes it clear that most media coverage of this has been biased and factually incorrect as can be verified by looking at credible sources like Reuters' own photos, various videos of the exchange, additional context, statements by Marshall herself, etc. I think that the page currently fails to present a more fully informed NPOV on the event and needs to be corrected. The extent of that correction is what would seem to be up for reasonable discussion, but not really the fact that the correction is needed. JStressman (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

For a start, the YouTube videdo by Wearechange.org does not meet our criteria at WP:RS. See [42] and the linked but old SPLC page in that aricle, [43]. Look at this site containing a lot of his videos.[44] A Google search also turned up this example of a fake news site claiming the mainstream media is fake news."Fake News Kings Exposed! - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtLUxnd9Moo 10 Jul 2018 - In this video, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange exposes MSNBC as an unhinged fake news organization, and possibly the kings of fake news." Doug Weller talk 10:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Except that what we're sourcing isn't claims made by Rudkowski that rely on his personal reliability or the general trustworthiness of the opinions or judgement of "We Are Change", but rather a video apparently taken by him of the event in question. It is the content of the video of the event itself, the actual recording of the clash between Damigo and Marshall that is being sourced, and has been used by other reputable journalistic and critical outlets including the very news link and its video that you have allowed in the current wiki article. The act is confirmed by photographic evidence, interviews with those present, etc. If that is the only source of the video available, and it has been "good enough" for other reputable outlets to point to as the source of the video in question, including the very news piece you have included (which shows only the second punch, illustrating part of the problem about lack of context and a full recounting of the event, which is explained more thoroughly by other linked sources) and that currently cited news credits it to "We Are Change" then it would seem to be good enough here as the "best possible source" of the relevant key piece of evidence this whole incident and viral spread of it centers on. Again, we're not saying "listen to Luke's opinion on this", or claims Luke or We Are Change are making. We're saying "look at the video he captured at this event that then went viral and became a major news item that is literally the exact point being discussed here." You and the cited news piece can't really use that very video to make the claim that he punched a woman and then refuse to let the actual video be linked. JStressman (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said, this source doesn't meet our criteria and there is now a discussion at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't actually address what I said here or there. You allow a citation that itself uses the video as its source, but won't allow just linking the video directly because the group that released the video clip from the Berkeley incident happens to lean toward conspiracy theories about current events with mixed factual reporting on those current events. Being a reputable and unbiased news outlet doesn't seem relevant to the fact that they are the primary source for a specific video clip from an incident at a protest, where that video clip is the key piece of evidence in a national news story. A video clip that is cited by these other credible outlets as being from "We Are Change", with clips and stills from it being used in the coverage by numerous credible news outlets including the very source you currently have cited for that incident. We can certainly dig into the issue further on the WP:RSN page, but I just wanted to make it clear that you completely ignored the problem of allowing sources that use the source in question as their source, but not allowing the actual primary source itself by claiming that the outlet who took the video isn't a reputable source. In short, if you're not going to admit that the video clip itself is a credible piece of evidence here and the cornerstone of this national news story and primary source of that story and included in most coverage, then maybe you shouldn't allow that statement about him punching her or any other news story that uses that video as its source, as is currently the case.

Google for "damigo rosealma" (without the quotes) and almost every result in the first couple pages I checked includes the video directly or stills from it. 17 of the top 38 google image results for the same search were from that video. Again, if you don't allow the video as evidence, then you shouldn't allow any other sources that do so either, as they're using it as their primary source and you're just taking one step back from it, which only obfuscates the actual source where people can see it for themselves and not just see shorter clips or stills from it. The point of linking the video isn't the credibility of the outlet in general when it comes to their opinions on current events, science, etc... but the simple fact of the video clip itself as the cornerstone of a national news story and the founder of the outlet happened to be the one actually at this live event and who took the video in question. The fact of the video clip itself (and the incident it records as it happened live at the Berkeley protest) serving as the credible cornerstone of a national news story, and the general reliability of the "news" outlet run by the guy who took the video over-all when it comes to news etc are two separate things. "We Are Change" leaning toward conspiracy theories doesn't negate the factual nature of the video clip itself or the fact that that very video serves as the cornerstone of a national news story. The primary piece of evidence it's all based on. JStressman (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I should also ask the obvious secondary question. If we can't for some puzzling reason link to the primary source for almost all news coverage of this national news item surrounding the incident of this man punching this woman, then I assume we're still fine to link other credible sources, which in turn link to that video, include stills and/or clips from it, discuss its contents, etc... such as the linked Snopes article, etc. In which case the question becomes how we would format the rest of what I said to actually present more fully what actually happened with intellectual honesty and a NPOV. Linking directly to the video can be gotten around if no reasonable allowance for this exceptional instance can be made, since you already allow a secondary source to be cited which itself cites, includes video from, and discusses the primary source you won't allow to be linked. So then it becomes a question of how else the edits can be tweaked to be acceptable for addition. JStressman (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Anti Capitalism

Calton I can see nothing in the article or sources which support the anti-capitalism claims. SPLC and ADF don't mention it as an part of their ideology. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean ADL. They are silent on the matter. Student4N (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Leaked IE chat logs mention an organized project to modify their Wikipedia page

Recently leaked chats from Identity Evropa's Discord group show active, ongoing covert efforts to modify their Wikipedia entry. Specifically, it mentions "The Wiki Project" as an active, ongoing effort, led by Steve_NJ, who talks more about the project here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:200:916F:985D:FCFD:5587:88EE (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought the summer 2018 brigading was pretty obvious, but they were not even close to being successful.

"I have this whole point laid out for a wiki dispute already ... it helps to have other accounts supporting our stance ... the issue is that if we have 5+ accounts that are brand new vouching for my arguments then its gonna look suspicious and admins may be less inclined to make the changes I have suggested ... we all should start editing on Wikipedia and beef up our accounts".

Most of the involved meatpuppets are no longer active on Wikipedia. Blackguard 07:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline in membership

Regarding this edit, the cited source specifically says ... the SPLC reported that its team monitoring far-right hate groups had seen recent signs on extremist chat boards that members of the racist US group Identity Evropa have been leaving in significant numbers. This is also quoted within the citation template. This source also elaborates on the connection to the Unite the Right rally. It is common to cite at the end of whole statements, not individual sentences, and sources in the lede are generally only for convenience anyway. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Rebranding and reorganization into "American Identity Movement" after discord leak

I have added information regarding the group's reorganization into the new group "American Identity Movement" into the History section, and have updated lead and infobox accordingly. If I missed anything from the sources, please feel free to add. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarity, do any sources actually treat this as a separate organization? Those I have seen treat it as PR damage control following things like this:

• Weill, Kelly (18 March 2019). "Cop Working at High School Revealed as White Nationalist Organizer". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 20 March 2019.

Also, if these people are trying to present this as a new, separate group, what happened to the previous one? If it were legally dissolved, doesn't that mean that someone else can come along and reform it as a new organization? Some antifa group could reform it as a club for public urination fetishists or something, just to mock them. (the National Socialist Movement (United States) and some of the KKK groups of the past have faced similar problems). I don't think IE is quite stupid enough to let that happen, but I've been wrong about that before. If this is a new organization, it would have no claims to the old name, and if it isn't (which it isn't) it would merely be a 're-branding' and would have all of the same baggage as the old group.

For a group so focused on optics, they don't seem to be very good at this. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on the court filings from the Sines vs. Kessler case [[45]], American Identity Movement is not anywhere in the lawsuit. If Identity Evropa simply "changed their name" and was not a distinct legal entity from the American Identity Movement, then American Identity Movement would be added to the court proceedings.SamSamuel11 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, if these people are trying to present this as a new, separate group, what happened to the previous one? It's been retired[[46]] according to Patrick Casey. It still exists as a legal entity

If it were legally dissolved, doesn't that mean that someone else can come along and reform it as a new organization? Sure? But it hasn't been legally dissolved, and it wouldn't be the same organization. You said it yourself, "reform it as a new organization" Either way, no group has claimed to be Identity Evropa since it was retired, including AIM. Ribose carb (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Court documents are almost never usable by themselves, per WP:PRIMARY. So far, all reliable, independent sources treat this as a continuation of the previous organization, and there is nowhere near enough sources for this "new" group to meet WP:NORG. Therefore, this is a subset of the previous version. At some point, this article may have to be renamed, but if sources treat them as having the same membership, goals, leadership, etc. this article will also treat them this way. If you disagree, please present sources which treat them as functionally different, not merely a PR fiction or paper-shuffling. Grayfell (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, a tweet from the founder is not reliable, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I would say the court records of the United States are reputable. The court documents are useable because there is no allegation involved, merely recognition of the facts surrounding the case. In this case, we can see Identity Evropa has been named in the court filings multiple times since American Identity Movement's founding was announced. Clearly they are separate entities. As to your claim that "all independent, reliable sources treat this as a continuation of the previous organization," this is not the case. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/12/white-nationalist-group-identity-evropa-rebrands-following-private-chat-leaks-launches. "Just over a year after assuming control of the college-focused white nationalist organization Identity Evropa (IE), leader Patrick Casey said on Twitter that the organization “has been retired.”... Casey says he is now launching a new organization, the American Identity Movement (AIM)." The SPLC does not, as you claimed, " treat this as a continuation of the previous organization." Other sources also switch between calling it a re-brand and a new organization. The "re-brand" label has not been backed up by any of these sources, and the "new organization" label has only been claimed by American Identity Movement's leader, Patrick Casey, so there is no justification at this point for redirecting American Identity Movement to the Identity Evropa article. Beyond that, certainly there is no justification at this time from re-labeling the Identity Evropa article "American Identity Movement." Given the recent nature of the retiring of Identity Evropa and the founding of "American Identity Movement" and the labeling contradictions in the media who have published about these events, there is no justification for editors to be redirecting or renaming. So far, nobody has tried to make a new article for American Identity Movement. They have merely deleted unjustified redirects and labeling. At this point, the fact remains that Identity Evropa is one entity (currently defending itself in court) and American Identity Movement is another entity.SamSamuel11 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• It'd still be too early to write in wikivoice that the group has dissolved when most reliable sources don't treat that claim seriously. From what I read, most RS, the SPLC, and anti-fascist activists still treat what they're reporting/countering as IE, not AIM. I remember reading somewhere that AIM membership is "mostly identical" to IE, and the groups use same chat channels. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This page is popular, weird. From the information available from AIM, on their site, and the people claiming to have obtained chat logs, it appears they were removed from all of their old communication channels. The unicorn people seem to boast about it on twitter. Not sure that can be linked as a citation, but perhaps for the sake of veracity, that should be verified and clarified. Student4N (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a weird piece of history. Student4N (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SamSamuel11. It's clear that there is not sufficient evidence that IE and AIM are the same organization, or that one is a rebrand of the other. Further, there is evidence linked https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6168921/sines-v-kessler/ that demonstrates that they are separate organizations. Conflating the two is inaccurate, and irresponsible, and suggests an uninformed or biased position on the facts. Student4N (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect given that a majority of editors have determined there is no hard evidence to be conflating these organizations or redirecting one to the other. Media outlets use both "rebrand" and "new organization" without independently backing up either claim and published court documents evidence the organizations being separate entities. I understand some people find these organizations controversial, but in the interest of objectivity we should wait for hard evidence before conflating/redirecting. Please continue discussion here on the Talk Page before conflating or redirecting again so as to avoid edit warring.SamSamuel11 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:POFR. The redirect is a distraction. It is a link for convenience of people searching for information about the topic and nothing more. Since, so far, no reliable sources have been presented which discuss American Identity Movement independent of Identity Evropa, this would not meet WP:NORG. There are many reliable, independent sources which are now cited which support that this is a re-branding, regardless of legal technicalities. Again, per WP:PRIMARY, a court document cannot be used to indirectly support this distinction, therefore it is not a reliable source for this point. Many reliable sources treat them as very closely overlapping, so this is the logical target of the redirect. If you have a reliable source which interprets court documents, present it. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As stated previously and referenced to WP:PRIMARY, the court records are publications of actual proceedings, and they are a reliable source. Additionally, the question at hand with regards to the court documents is not allegation or argument, but merely recognition of the facts surrounding the case, in this case the organizations involved, which is Identity Evropa and not American Identity Movement. Secondly, your claim that no sources have been presented which refer to AIM as a new organization is false. The SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/12/white-nationalist-group-identity-evropa-rebrands-following-private-chat-leaks-launches states in their title "White Nationalist Group Identity Evropa Rebrands Following Private Chat Leaks, Launches 'American Identity Movement'". Again, "launches" and "rebrand" are different. From Google definitions--Launch: "to start or set in motion." Rebrand: "change the corporate image of." As previously stated, the sources are referring to AIM in both manners, so editors should not be cherry-picking based on their personal opinions on the matter. And again, no media source has backed up the "rebranding" label. The hard evidence of the two being separate organizations are the court documents. Lastly, the question at hand now is not whether AIM deserves its own article (so WP:NORG is not relevant), but whether editors should be forcibly conflating the two and redirecting people searching for 'American Identity Movement' to Identity Evropa's article. There has not been presented any hard evidence for "re-branding", nor consistent RS labeling as "re-branding," so editors who would forcibly redirect Wikipedia searchers or conflate the organizations would be doing so out of personal opinion and cherry-picking. Consensus does not need to be unanimous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus, and since a 3/5 majority had reached a conclusion, 1/2 of the minority had not responded for days despite 6 new posts being made, and the fact that the minority has not provided hard evidence to counter the majority nor refuted the claim of the majority that the RS reporting is inconsistent, I was justified in removing the conflationary redirecting. In order to avoid edit warring, I requested that the matter be discussed further on the Talk Page. This request has been unheaded and more edits were made, so I will ask again that the matter be resolved in a timely manner on the Talk Page before editing further. However, if editors in the minority fail to respond in a timely manner on the issue again, I will again side with the majority, and minority editors should return to the talk page to make arguments and build support before overruling.SamSamuel11 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC clearly says "The group’s rebrand offers further cover to smuggle white nationalist views into mainstream politics." National Public radio says rebranded.[47] The Daily Beast says renamed.[https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Fvirginia-cop-daniel-morley-revealed-as-identity-evropa-member&usg=AOvVaw1Dv0cEEeuT0JCt97G67DM2] The Chicago Sun-Times says " The Southern Poverty Law Center has said the group was a rebranded version of Identity Evropa,"[48] Vice News says "rebranded".[https%3A%2F%2Fnews.vice.com%2Fen_us%2Farticle%2F8xybkv%2Fleaked-chats-show-white-nationalist-groups-plot-to-infiltrate-turning-point-usa&usg=AOvVaw2dI_gostc-DVLLpYFMJC2A] WGNT-TV also calls it a rebranding.[49] Doug Weller talk 14:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller rather than attacking the reliability of some of the sources you mentioned, I will simply ask you to do the two things I have asked of all other editors who want to forcibly conflate these organizations. Nobody has done so: 1. Contradict the evidence I have provided that media outlets are referring to the organizations in both ways. Listing examples of media organizations referring to the groups as a "rebrand" will not do this. Rather, you must find a way to contradict the fact that media organizations are in fact also referring to American Identity Movement as "launch" and "new organization." If you can't do this, then you are implicitly acknowledging that you are cherry picking data to fit your narrative. 2. Provide hard evidence that the two are the same organization. The only hard evidence presented so far has been the court documents I provided which show the opposite. Without doing these two things, you have failed to confront the arguments we are making. Please address our actual arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSamuel11 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We evaluate sources in context, and in context, sources are treating these organizations as functionally the same. Sources are what "conflate these organization" and no force was needed, because they have the same goals, and the same members, using the same infrastructure, and one was formed the exact same time the other was "retired". The court document isn't hard evidence. It's not even soft evidence, since that's not how dockets work. It was filed in Oct. 2017, and these things are not updated instantaneously, and we don't care about that even if they were. The article explains that he "retired" Identity Evropa, and per sources, it explains that all further activity will continue under the new name. That's sufficient for now.

If you plan on continuing to lecturing us on how Wikipedia works, please also remember to sign your comments. Also, if you are a member of either of these organizations, you have a conflict of interest, and should act accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

1. I am not, and as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith you should not be making baseless accusations. Instead address the arguments. 2. The court documents are hard evidence and you have evidently failed to examine them, because they are publications of court proceedings which are ongoing. All the new publications continue to refer to Identity Evropa, not AIM. 3. In the interests of staying on point, I'll ignore your reliance on flagrantly biased and unreliable sources for the moment. I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BESTSOURCES for a refresher on Wikipedia's standards. 4. It is time for you to recognize that media sources are using both "rebrand" and "new organization," "launch," etc. You have cherry picked and despite my repeated calls to acknowledge the entirety of the reporting on these affairs, you continue to reiterate your cherry picked data points. Please address the fact, to start, that the SPLC in the title of their article says "Launches 'American Identity Movement'" and "rebrand." I refer you to the definitions I gave above to see that these are different things. Again, without hard evidence to conflate, and without consistent reporting by RS to conflate, you are unjustified in your conflation. You are cherry picking as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cherrypicking.SamSamuel11 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems only fair to ask that if you wish others to assume good faith towards you that you assume good faith towards them. But you haven't. And after only 50 edits you're giving experienced editors a lecture on sources? And again, titles of articles/headlines aren't what we are looking for. I'll accept that you belong to neither organisation. So far this is going nowhere. Let's wait to see what surfaces is the next few days. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Referencing Wikipedia rules to support my case is not failing to assume good faith. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Making baseless accusations is, however. 2. The title is absolutely legitimate to quote. Provide a justification for your dismissal of it or you are implicitly acknowledging that you have cherry picked data. 3. It is also an example of what follows in the article itself, which you yourself referenced as a source. You cherrypicked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cherrypicking quotes from the article, so I will provide more instances of the counter-reporting within that article: "This weekend the American Identity Movement held their first public action" "Identity Evropa and, now, its derivative American Identity Movement, are especially dangerous because they have been able to successfully launder their image." I could go on, but you should see at this point that the SPLC oscillates between conflating the organizations as a rebrand and referring to them as separate organizations. Additionally, neither they nor any RS has provided a basis for "rebrand," it is merely an inconsistent interpretation. 4. We do not need to wait indefinitely to continue discussion. We don't know if or when there will be hard evidence or RS to conflate. I have provided arguments here and if they remain uncontested I am justified in editing the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSamuel11 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So far, no reliable sources discuss American Identity Movement by itself. All of them discuss it in relation to Identity Evropa, mostly as a "derivative", or "rebranding", or they just repeat Casey's PR in passing.[50] While it may be a "new organization", in some senses, it's also a rebranding/derivative according to a growing number of reliable, independent sources. These qualities are not necessarily contradictory unless reliable sources support that this is a contradiction. From what I have seen, they do not, they treat this as a public relations move if they address it at all. Since we apparently now agree that American Identity Movement doesn't have enough coverage to meet notability guidelines, this article is the obvious place to explain what the American Identity Movement is. If and when reliable, independent sources discuss this division in any sort of detail, we can reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Again Greyfell you have failed to address my specific quotes from the SPLC. If you wish to discredit them, then do so directly with specific reference, because continuing to skirt around them and point to counter-examples is, again, cherrypicking as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. 2. Just because RS discuss AIM in relation to IE does not make them the same organization. Media may discuss a new company created by the owner of McDonalds in relation to McDonalds, but this provides no clue that the new company IS McDonalds. I can find examples of this if you wish. 3. "While it may be a "new organization", in some senses, it's also a rebranding/derivative according to a growing number of reliable, independent sources." Firstly you are partially conceding my point of inconsistency and uncertainty. Secondly, please provide links to this "growing number of reliable, independent sources," because I have not seen any new RS articles since we began our discussion here.SamSamuel11 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I added an additional source in my previous comment, and Doug Weller has also provided additional links which support this. If sources reported that every McDonalds closed down and coincidentally was replaced by a ShmcDonalds, then yes, I would expect the article to explain that.

What, exactly, is the change you are proposing? This organization is either "retired" or "rebranded". Readers of this article are going to want to know either the organization that replaced it, or the new name of the old organization. The lede currently provides that information with sources. The purpose is to provide readers with information, not the help anyone with with their PR problems. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It is completely absurd of you to be claiming consensus has been achieved. There are equal numbers in opposition and you have not responded directly to my cherry-picking RS claim with reference to my specific quotes despite numerous requests from me for you to do so, nor provided hard evidence for conflation. We need to handle this article objectively regardless of our personal feelings about the organizations. Objectively, you have not supported your conflation nor amassed broad support, so you should not be conflating forcibly.SamSamuel11 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Many source have already been presented and cited which describe this as a rebranding. That is all the support that is needed per WP:RS and WP:OR, and again, this conflation is not forcible, it is a reflection of reliable, independent sources.

Since you concede that this new name doesn't warrant its own article, this article remains the logical target for a redirect, therefore, per MOS:BOLD, this should be bold to help readers who followed that redirect understand why they were taken to this article. Since this organization, according to all sources which have been presented, very closely overlaps with it's "successor", the lede is the appropriate place to explain this change. Why wouldn't it be?

We are interested in policy-based arguments, not the raw quantity of accounts making comments or drive-by edits. Considering this organization's documented history of attempting to whitewash this article, this is especially important. Perhaps it's time to get additional input from a noticeboard or similar. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Numerous users have indicated NPOV issues with this page in the past - if certain claims pertaining to this issue indicate "rebrand" but then the same sources (SPLC article) contradict themselves, then it seems there is an issue with consistency for sure. SheepDirectory (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Greyfell how many times do I have to explicitly, with direct reference, point to quotes from the SPLC which contradict the "rebrand" label, and ask you explicitly to address those exact quotes, for you to address those quotes?SamSamuel11 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Activities subsection

I just restored a good faith reversion by User:Rhododendrites, the contents of which involve recent Identity Evropa (IE) activity in the area of Rochester, NY. That restoration has again, as I prepare this, been reverted by the same editor. I request editors to respond here so that a consensus for either retention or removal might be reached. My reasons for the restoration - and indeed for having originally added the material - are as follows. Firstly, the contents are consistent with the subsection topic, with the specific activity mirroring other, reliably sourced activities mentioned earlier on the page, including the lead. Secondly, the reported activity was performed by an individual associated with a university and (formerly) that university's College Republican student group. The content thus speaks directly to, and provides supporting evidence for, two of the admitted strategies used by IE and mentioned earlier on the page: targeting college students for recruitment, and specifically targeting ("infiltrating") college republican groups. Thirdly, the material is supported with multiple, reliable sources. Although in their edit summary the reverting editor expressed an apparent contention with reliable sources that are, in their words, "the localest of local," I disagree with such a characterization and, more importantly, I am unaware of anything in WP:RS or WP:BLP that in any way impeaches "local" reliable sources. If the material does not meet WP:DUE, well, that is a different matter that I hope will be resolved by this discussion.

Lastly, although the named individual has notable associations (with IE, a university, and the university's student republican group), they are not themselves notable. Because this matches the notability status of the unnamed individuals involved in, for example, the cited Block U incident, I propose that the individual's name be removed if consensus enables a restoration of the material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This seems straightforward to me. diff. Someone was ticketed for putting up stickers illegally. The content of the stickers was white supremacy/Identity Evropa. The campus newspaper and a couple very local news sources covered it. Aside from what was on the stickers, there's barely a connection to the subject of this article, so I would expect some huge amount of coverage would be needed to establish WP:WEIGHT. The sources cited were instead as local as it gets. There are also BLP issues adding a paragraph about a private person to a Wikipedia article based on coverage of receiving a ticket. I only looked at the page because it came up at ANI, saw the problems raised there had been addressed, but noticed this latter addition which seemed inappropriate. ... Can't believe my first edit to this article is to remove negative coverage of the group, but here we are. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the locality of sources is explicitly necessary when they're reliable enough. Although weight must be considered. Can't believe I'm here to trim negative coverage of a Nazi group either, but unless the person is reported to be an important member, a one-liner describing the situation without mentioning specific names would be fine without possible BLP violations. Considering that antifascists are actively outing them after the discord leak, we certainly don't need a bio on each of the members unless it is contextually necessary. @JoJo Anthrax: @Rhododendrites: Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Infowars

See [51] " Infowars is Working to Sanitize the White Nationalist Group Formerly Known as Identity Evropa". Doug Weller talk 19:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Internal meeting audio recording leaks

I have expanded the history section per new information published by Unicorn Riot here: [52]. This settles then. IE's membership roll and dues directly carried over to AIM: In a March 13, 2019 meeting, American Identity Movement leader Matt Warner told members that their "dues will carry over" from IE to AIM "so don’t worry about that".In a meeting on March 20, 2019, a member asked Matt Warner, "do we need to apply for AIM if we were already in IE?" Warner quickly answered that the American Identity Movement had simply absorbed Identity Evropa’s entire membership roll as its own. "Nope, if you want to leave, you can just let us know, otherwise we’re gonna assume you’re on board." These are the same group. Any further attempts by the group to distance themselves here would seem laughable. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we start using the name American Identity Movement in the article?

At present the article has "On April 27, 2019, hours after the Poway synagogue shooting, around ten members of Identity Evropa ..." According to this SFGate article Patrick Casey self-identified the group as "American Identity Movement" and "AIM" during his attempt to disrupt a talk by an author at a bookstore.

Thus, I believe at least the paragraph about this event should make it clearer that the April 27, 2019 event was under the American Identity Movement brand.

The SFGate article also has "Leaders of the American Identity Movement have denied that the two groups are affiliated." I suspect that denial should be added to this article. Once the group gets enough coverage as AIM the article can be renamed. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

May not be able to use this directly

But it might have leads to sources that can be used.[53] Doug Weller talk 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2019

I want to add new sources about Nolan Brewer and Kiyomi Brewer the Carmel, Indiana synagogue vandals who defaced it with the Nazi flag, Nazi swastika and Iron Cross in July 2018 they were confirmed members of Identity Evropa/American Identity Movement (IE/AIM) which Nolan just admitted and both him and his fiancee met two members of the group one female one male during dinner and mentioned that they donated $100 to the group just please get a affavidit PDF and articles from Buzzfeed News for example and you'll understand admin. 2605:E000:A44D:9200:1440:A4E1:9D94:30C1 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Identity Evropa member "officer" in Young Americans for Liberty

See [54]. Btw that article looks like it has an NPOV problem. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding your comment. Do you means "that article looks like it has an NPOV problem"? "Hasan" looks like a last name in your comment as it stands.Msalt (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Msalt: yes. I've fixed it. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Can someone update the organization's logo?

I'm trying to make sure that the Dragon's Eye isn't tied to white nationalism since they really don't have any connections. Since these guys rebranded, can we update the logo on the top of the page to their new one?

I'm fine with the Dragon's Eye being on the page somewhere but I'd love for it to not be the first thing people see, especially since it's no longer in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:4002:5D00:BD76:E2DE:C3C9:45E7 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is that why you also removed any mention of this organization from the article Dragon's Eye (symbol)? ST47 (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored the relevant information to that article, and have added it to myy watchlist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• The re-branded group's symbol as "American Identity Movement" has been added to this article. Their symbol as "Identity Evropa" has not been removed. The IP who started this thread is now editing as DragonEye616. Note that "616" is the corrected Number of the beast. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"You will not replace us"

At the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, where Identity Evropa was prominently active, this slogan was famously updated to "Jews will not replace us." Should we add this to the article? Msalt (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that supports that it was IE members chanting it, sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we would need to connect it to IE, rather than just bog-standard racists, to include it in the article.--Jorm (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the closest link I could find in a quick search (from the Times of Israel): "Identity Evropa participated in the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017 that ended with violence and a deadly attack on counterprotesters allegedly carried out by a white supremacist. During that march, the Identity Evropa slogan was echoed in the phrase “Jews will not replace us.” Msalt (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Msalt:@Jorm: That's probably not going to be specific enough to lay the changed chant at the feet of IE, as it doesn't specify who was saying it. Although, on second thought, something along the lines of "During the rally, Identity Evropa's slogan 'You will not replace us' could be heard being chanted as 'Jews will not replace up'" could be added using the ToI cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with BMK here. It seems worth including but I'd love a more specific source. The suggestion offered may be clear for it.--Jorm (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with BMK but we probably need consensus here. I'll keep looking. Msalt (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Article title

Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles are titled according to the majority of sources. Since it's been several months since the rebranding, it's worth looking at recent sources to see if they have shifted from Identity Evropa to American Identity Movement. Browsing Google news, here are some of the recent results. Most of these are local news blurbs covering graffiti campaigns and similar local media stunts.

Primarily uses American Identity Movement

• Swilley, Kristen (5 September 2019). "Cloaked in patriotic imagery, white nationalist group's stickers appear in Clifton". WCPO. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - Specifically describes the group's name as a tactic "to spread neo-Nazi-tinged white nationalism".
• Ponton, Brendan (14 August 2019). "Poster from group promoting white supremacy spotted at Virginia Beach Oceanfront". WTKR.com. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - Doesn't mention the name "Identity Evropa" at all.
• Sarder, Sarah (18 August 2019). "White supremacist group says it protested in Dallas, posts videos of small gatherings". Dallas News. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• Luther, Sam (9 August 2019). "With tweet, white nationalist group establishes presence in Chattanooga". WCYB. NBC. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• Lias, David (30 August 2019). "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Group Makes Presence Known At USD". Vermillion Plain Talk. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• Gladstone, Benjamin (25 August 2019). "This Innocent-Seeming Group Is Actually A Major White Nationalist Organization". The Forward. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - Substantial coverage of re-branding
• Townsend, Mark (24 August 2019). "Infiltrator exposes Generation Identity UK's march towards extreme far right". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - Passing mention

No obvious preference

• Smith, Bill (16 August 2019). "White nationalist group poster spotted in Evanston". Evanston Now. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• "Racist, Anti-Immigrant Flyers Posted On San Jose State Campus". KPIX. CBS. 21 August 2019. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• Healy, Jack (18 August 2019). "Amid the Kale and Corn, Fears of White Supremacy at the Farmers' Market". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• Cunningham, Lucretia (14 August 2019). "2 years after they organized a deadly rally in Charlottesville, this group has found its way to the Oceanfront". Southside Daily. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - The headline suggests they are the same group, but the article is ambiguous.

Primarily uses Identity Evropa

• Schmelzer, Elise (27 August 2019). "Colorado Air Force master sergeant remains in military after investigation into white nationalist ties". The Denver Post. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - Only briefly mentions "American Identity Movement".
• Snow, Shawn (4 September 2019). "The neo-Nazi boot: Inside one Marine's descent into extremism". Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - No mention of "American Identity Movement".
• Dickson, Ed (15 August 2019). "Are the Proud Boys Done or Are They Just Getting Started?". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 9 September 2019. - Passing mention of "Identity Evropa" only

Does this indicate that sources have tipped-over into primarily using "American Identity Movement"? Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would wait a while longer, but I wouldn't be terribly upset if the consensus here was to change. I just don't think it's quite settled in yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Sources seem more consistent in how they describe the group, but the quantity of sources has also decreased. Grayfell (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)