Talk:White Aryan Resistance

POV

This article seems like it is just a manifesto by WAR with a few slight adjustments. It really should be cut down to size, especially the areas on their beliefs--we don't usually go into that much detail on the ideas of other political groups, especially not groups as obscure as WAR. The Ungovernable Force 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one responded I took the liberty to do it myself. If anyone objects, raise the issue here. The Ungovernable Force 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, I never. The nerve! The unmitigated gall!!! —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, be bold. The reason I'm so cautious though is that I realize I am highly biased on this topic, and I didn't want to get called a POV pusher for getting rid of all that crap. I can easily see someone taking it as a pov edit, even if I personally think it is more neutral now (then again, since I'm biased against this group, my idea of neutral might be different than, oh, say Tom Metzger's view). The Ungovernable Force 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo

I'm not sure which logo is more well known - the one present on this article, or the skull with the eyepatch? Thoughts? Drett 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say skull with eyepatch. In fact, other than on their webpage and here, I've never seen this logo we have now. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism due to political bias

A number of edits have been made so as to remove any connection between the W.A.R. and the right-wing of American politics. This has resulted in a dumbing-down of the article, all for what seems to be the political agenda of the author. Just as we don't allow left-wing editors to alter entries of unpopular political groups so as to disavow their relationship to liberal or progressive politics, it is similarly unseemly to allow a partisan hack away at information that serves to fully inform and enlighten readers. Specifically, only the racist nature of WAR remains, which is not its only political tenant. Those political tenants that it shares with mainstream right-wing, even those WAR considers extremely vital to its cause, have been removed so as to mask the right-wing connection. This is pov editing.

Any further efforts to affect the nuetral, unbiased, fact-based discussion of this entry will resort in a formal complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.104.50 (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• The lead sentence already calls them neo-Nazi and white supremacist. There is no need to clutter it up by adding more adjectives. Lead sentences are supposed to be simple and straightforward. It is obvious you do not understand what vandalism is, or you would not have falsely accused me of it. And by the way, how about you sign up for an account instead of making anonymous IP edits?Spylab (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascism?

I'm Italian and I find it offensive to list this racist American garbage with Fascism. Its completely unrelated, put it in the Nazi category for all I care but it has nothing to do with Fascism. Nazism is a distinct thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.116.53 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but by the definition of "fascism" - not the formal Fascist party of Mussolini - National Socialism is fascist. The militarists of the WW2 Japanese Imperial government are also considered fascist - even if the nominal "LEADER" of the Japanese Empire was basically a figurehead used and not a vehement radical politician in the manner of Hitler or Mussolini. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White Aryan Resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826114712/http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/Metzger.asp to http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/Metzger.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious support of self-described racism in intro

Regarding "It held views that they self-described as racist, as seen in the sections of its website titled "Racist Jokes" and "Racist Videos," as well as in the tagline for its newspaper The Insurgent: 'the most racist newspaper on Earth.'" It does not necessarily mean that they self-disribe as racists, it could also be that they make fun of others calling them rasists. (This does not question whether they are racists. It questions whether they genuinely self-describe as such.) Better then to refer to the quote "We are an openly white-racist movement." which states it explicitly. --Bensin (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and add additional references or rewrite the prose for specificity if you'd like. But given the context, I'm having a hard time imagining how anyone might imagine this could be sarcasm, and there is no way that the characterization is dubious. Generalrelative (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this WP:BOLD edit: [1]. I hope that addresses your concerns. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Good edit! I specified the year and origin of the statement in this edit. --Bensin (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)