Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:57, 7 June 2005

White and anarchism

For Nahila,

There are some apparent intellectual contradictions in LNSGP rhetoric that make fair treatment difficult. I appreciate the difficulty presented by White's claims of both anarchist and national socialist ideology. But anarchism is the last ideology anyone can claim to exclusively own, so if people such as White want to present as an anarchist, it is simply a matter of fact that they present as anarchists. While any thinking person can cite contradictions in another's rhetoric, anarchists have no authority beyond the contradictions they can cite to claim White is not an anarchist, if he says he is. On the other hand, we are not obligated to take his word for it that his ideology is internally consistent.

It is important for readers to appreciate the difference between anomie, which can express as anti-social konTEmp 4 awl wrules, and ideological anarchy. It might seem to a reasonable person that White leans more toward anomie than toward anarchy. But Misplaced Pages is not a court of ideology, it is an encyclopedia, so we will do best to represent his position as dispassionately as we can -- hence the link to the LNSGP article.

The article is sourced on three contrasting advocacy publications, including an anarchist publication, to show that he is plainly not centered in any well-established ideology. But even if we are to mention his rental properties, as you suggest in your edit summary, we need to be careful not to accept the authority of an ideologically-oriented publication that these properties you or I have never seen are indeed "ghetto" properties.

In submitting the first version of this article, I didn't mention his unsuccessful local candidacies or his land-owner history because I had not yet verified details, the article can be encyclopedic without including every published detail of his life and nobody contracted with me to compose a complete article before any deadline. SpyRing

Is White even claiming that he is an anarchist at this point? My recollection is that he started calling himself an ex-anarchist in late 2000. Either way, "anarchist" has an established meaning (see anarchism) that is in direct contradition to national socialism. At the very least, it should be noted that White's (past) identification as an anarchist rests on shaky grounds.

Please explain why "the majority of anarchists" is a conundrum. Anarchists, like any other group, can be counted and quantified. The anarcho-fascism article was already deleted and so called "nationalist anarchism" has been delt with extensively on the anarchism talk page.

Anyhow, I will try to spend some time helping with this article later in the week. Thanks for getting it started. :) - Nihila 22:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His continued advocacty of libertarianism suggests where his anarchistic ideology has gone. Apparently he doesn't see libertarianism in contradiction with national socialism. We probably lack sufficient biographical expose upon which to base an explanation of his own view of his emerging ideological orientation. Interviewing him would probably comprise original research, which this encyclopedia apparently discourages.

Anarchists could theoretically be counted and quantified, but they have not been, at least not in relation to any matter presented here. The text of a single anarchist publication doesn't neccessarily indicate the views of a majority of anarchists. There has not been and likely will not soon be any concensus about any notion held by "the majority of anarchists" beyond very basic precepts that anarchy is a generic term for movements that tend to advocate elimination of imposed authority. We simply lack any reliable medium for polling and assessing the current views of a majority of people who present as anarchists world-wide.

That there exists a Misplaced Pages article on a topic is not final evidence that the subject has an "established meaning." Whatever established meaning the article might evidence is rendered vague by the language of the article -- "Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of imposed authority, including social hierarchy and coercive power."

However, a mob of anarchists such as those who threw rocks through store windows in Seattle attempts to impose authority, whether they admit it or not. So right away, we can find flaws in the Misplaced Pages definition which arise from a failure to challenge internal inconsistencies of the rhetoric of some professed anarchists. And pacifist anarchists, no matter how non-violent they might see their own ranks, lack authority to say those others who call their unruly movements anarchism are not indeed espousing a version of anarchy.

Most accurately, "White presented himself as an anarchist at one time." It seems to me the problem arises from a predominant style of writing in this forum, with a somewhat authoritarian overreliance on the passive verb "is" rather than on more accurate active verbs that tell us what a subject has done. A sentence can either refer to the writer's authority that something "is", or it can tell us who did what, with attribution to a published authority beyond the Misplaced Pages writer.

Other unsubtantiated passive wiggle-words often appearing here include perceptual representations, including "is considered" and "is believed." Basic automated grammar checkers flag passive statements that suggest a perception or count without identifying or accurately quantifying the subject. Either we name who considered somebody to be something, or we are simply stating our own individual notion of somebody else's perception.

Bottom line is, regardless our personal views, encyclopedic writing can neither defend an exclusively noble notion of anarchism, nor disparage a particularly offensive activist who claims anarchism as an ideology. Encyclopedic treatment needs to rely on precise language to present verifiable factual representations.

SpyRing 20:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that it is necessary to interview White in order to complete this article. His views are plastered all over the internet (I have been reading his articles off and on since 1999 and I have interacted with him on rare occasion). The real issue is sorting through all the BS.

I agree that the statement "White presented himself as an anarchist at one time" is accurate. However, Infoshop is not the only site to challenge White's claims that he was an anarchist. Among others, see OnePeoplesProject.com, PublicEye.org, and the Barricada Collective's statement on Indymedia. I have also seen White rebuked in the pages of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. - Nihila 23:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we had a baseline number of how many anarchists there are in the world, I would be interested in discussing what portion of them have formulated any opinion at all about his person. Otherwise, any summation of "anarchists" is a hasty generalization.

I don't know what you mean by "complete this article." Open collaborative writing is by its nature permanently incomplete. Even after extensively reading his written work, I would need to interview this person to report responsibly on what he considers his views at this time. At a minimum, I would need to listen to an unedited interview with an unbiased interviewer who was not working for a political advocacy publication, as all the sources for this article are. But because of his proximity to violent situations, it might have been worth my time to establish an entry here for this person. That doesn’t mean I consider open documents a reliable source for information about a person’s views.

At any rate, the article as it has evolved now more thoroughly summarizes whatever no-cost and easily obtained literature now posted on the Internet has to say about this guy. SpyRing 03:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The histories of William White (agitator) and William White (agitatator) have been merged after a copy/paste move. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bill White is similiar (but only slightly) to Troy Southgate. They have both espoused a variety of views (nationalistic or anarchistic -- and both). There are allegations that Southgate is an informant or a spy. There have been suggestions made about White, also. If it matters, I am an anarchist and probably (no, definitely) biased against both individuals (sorry). -- James

Libel

An editor removed a link to a "One Peoples Project" bio with the followoing summary:

• OPP lost a libel action against White for that bio, see court transcript under Hardwick; bio deleted, no need to bring legal proceedings against Misplaced Pages

I assume Hardwick is actually Erica Hoesch. Which court transcripts? Can you please post it here? The court links in that article don't work. Thanks, -Willmcw 12:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hardwick, Hoyt and Jenkins held a meeting to expound on a number of "facts" about Bill White that they asserted to be true -- that he is a convicted felon, former mental patient, etc. I have not read their bio on him lately, but I assume it still says the same things.

When questioned in court, White denied all of these charges. One of the authors of the OPP bio, Erica Hardwick, is also a convicted felon, currently in custody awaiting other felony charges, and has a history of convictions for lying to the court and to police.

White brought suit against Chuck Munson, original author of the "report" that served as the basis for the OPP bio, as well as ARA and several other anti-racist activists, for libel in Montgomery County, MD. I have not checked the status of that suit recently, and the results are not public info.

In short, the OPP bio of White is contentious, its authors do not have a character that would, say, allow them to give evidence in a court of law, and is based on information that is the subject of a lawsuit.

As such, it is not an appropriate source.

Baxter2 23:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link is not presented as a source for any information. It is provided as a resource for further reading. Just because someone has been sued does not mean that the large amount of information in that biography is entirely false. If you can find some reliable sources for it, you can add a paragraph to the article about how misinformation is being spread about White. But the link is worthwhile. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of sources - where are they? Very little of this article is based on anything that can be found in the pages linked in the "external links" section. A couple of Washington Post articles are mentioned. Let's get sources for this information before it's removed. -Willmcw 00:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Its as well sourced as your "white supremacy" article.  :-> I'm adding a (still incomplete) list of media references -- not all web-based. Baxter2 16:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm creating an "anti-racist and opposition views" section under media. Put your links there. Baxter2 16:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right now I have exactly 100 sources cited. I am adding more. Baxter2 17:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to tell how the sources relate to the article. Can you please use footnotes so we know which facts come from which sources? BTW, no articles on Misplaced Pages are "mine". Cheers, -Willmcw 17:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

All the sources relate to the article. I've sorted them into 27 categories so people can verify different categories of facts. If you want footnotes, do it yourself. I think this is sufficient. Baxter2 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page name -> Bill White?_Bill_White?">

Since the subject seems to be universally known as "Bill White" I propose that we move it to Bill White (agitator). Any objections? -Willmcw 22:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be annoying for everyone to update their links. Why not create a "Bill White (agitator)" page and redirect it here? Why does it matter? Why use "agitator", as opposed to "activist" or some more neutral term? Baxter2 23:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of the "Bill White" part. I see that you have been methodically "piping" the name back to Bill White, so it'd save future effort. But yes, "activist" would be a more conventional appellation. -Willmcw 00:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bill White (activist)? -Willmcw 08:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

LNSGP

I could not find any mention of White on the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party website. Is there a specific page where he's mentioned? Thanks, -Willmcw 17:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

White acted as their spokesman. I don't know if there is some specific page where he is mentioned, but I don't think its necessary, as he appeared on their behalf on Telemundo, the Alan Colmes show, and half a dozen other radio and TV programs. Baxter2 19:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why list the site if he is a former spokesman who is not mentioned on it? -Willmcw 19:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have never seen an article with 100 sources and it's hard to know what to make of it. Perhaps other editors can figure out some way of handling this unusual list and the other additions to the article. The subject is apparently a controversial figure so additional input should help keep it NPOV. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme links

I removed the excessive list, which seems to be every article that ever MENTIONED Bill White. I also removed many of the links because they were only mentioning him in passing. I think someone got a little wild with their love for Bill White and Lexis/Nexus.--TheGrza 20:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can see some trimming being done, but not w an axe. I was enjoying learning just how many sources have commented on the man. Besides, its not like its a big use of disk space. Sam Spade 21:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just taken a quick look at this, and so I don't know all the issues yet, but the large number of links is excessive. We should first of all create a "references" section, listing those articles used as sources for our article. Then we can create a short list of "further reading" from the links that are left. SlimVirgin 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to list every article that ever mentioned him. None whatsoever. The list essentially reproduced a Google search on the man, which you are free to do, but this is completely excessive and doesn't even relate to the man. This is far more listings then any other article I've ever seen, it takes this regular, even sometimes well-written page and fills it with nonsense. There is no reason a minor white supremacist needs more sourcing then the President of the United States.--TheGrza 22:21, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I havn't come close to reading every last one of those links, and those which meerely mention him should go. Those which focus on him (and are from reputable sources, relative to how many that leaves), or are written by him however should stay. I read like 2 of the links, and they were both higly relavent. Sam Spade 23:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV and unsourced

The first question is whether this person is worth any kind of entry, or whether this should go to VfD. If he's worth an entry, it shouldn't be as long as this one, and everything will have to be referenced. Regarding the links, White is clearly using Misplaced Pages as a link repository, calling his WP page "The Bill White Article Collection" on his website. See and

I've rewritten the intro, and made the links invisible until we decide which ones, if any, to keep. The first thing is to find sources for the article, particularly the introduction. We need a source (other than White) for the property investment claim; and for the New York Times claim: it's not even clear what he means by that. And also a source for "garnered attention," whatever that means. I also deleted the blurred pic, and moved the clearer one up to the top. We don't need more than one. SlimVirgin 22:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree, particularly on the image, The idea of using one so out of date is rather confusing. Sam Spade 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do we know it's out of date? SlimVirgin 23:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is simply vandalizing this page. This has already been voted up on the VfD. There is a significant politically motivated campaign to vandalize this page or derive information only from highly biased sources -- including some completely inaccurate communist ones -- and those alterations will be deleted. Baxter2 23:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source for the property investment claim is the Roanoke Times "Landord denies allegations of sinister agenda." Why don't you look up some of the sources before vandalizing this page again? 68.10.35.153 23:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)