Talk:Bill White (neo-Nazi)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.


Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Why?

Why is there a page for Bill White? Does Wikipedia allow just anybody to have a page? I have my own website, I am politically active, and I have an IQ over 150, just like Bill. Does that make me eligible for a page on Wikipdia?

Shouldn't this page be taken down? In what way is Bill White significant enough for a Wikipedia site (aside from the adulations of his ex-girlfriend, below)?

I suggest we consider this.

Can you cite numerous appearances of yourself in the media? As objectionable as he may be, White is a figure who frequently garners the public eye. - N1h1l 12:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also into politics and have my own website. I had some friends place my listing on wikipedia to help keep information current as I am also an officer of my party to help record additional information for history. I guess they only let in nazis and not democratic socialist at wikipedia. (Comraderedoctober 09:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia has lost criteria these days. Any piece of shit can have a page now, if 2 or more people visit their website or give a shit about opinions.--200.222.3.3 18:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but Bill White is such a common name that I have people asking me if I am the same Bill White. I am Bill White (formally William J. White), Synchronicity Expert and can be found at http://www.successradio1111.com I am in no way a bigot or a socialist. I find this Bill White's views not only repugnant but an insult to the name.

To you and all the other Bill Whites in the world please be assured that we took great care and discussed at length about what to name this article, what to include in it, and even whether to retain it all. We also had a similar debate about a similar person with a similarly common name, Don Black. Having a common name, you must surely face mistaken identities more than most other people (though at least you don't have to spell your names over the phone every time!) Hopefully, confusion due to the coincidence of name will be unlikely due to the title of the article, the photograph of the subject, and the detailed biography. -Will Beback 08:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians with articles

I'd like to notify editors of this article about two related articles. These articles, Erica Hardwick and Chuck Munson, concern associates of White, were heavily edited or created by user:Baxter2, and now anonymous editors (who may be the subjects) have appeared and are protesting Baxter2's additions. (Well, blanking actually. I take that as a form of protest.) Hardwick's article has too many non-notable events in it while the Munson article has too few (though too much for at least one editor). -Willmcw June 28, 2005 05:06 (UTC)

[edit] unpaid for 4 months

Pravda offered me a full Russian journalits salary, in rubles, the equivalent of which was $150 US per month. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to verify his pay, or time of service w pravda. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 4 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

The links may be changing underneath us. I found this page, titled, Libertarian Censorship: Antiwar, Neo-Cons And My Resignation From Pravda, which says:
  • And with that February 18, 2002, letter, I left my brief four month jaunt as Washington Correspondent for Russia's largest English-language news publication.
  • They agreed - and I agreed to do it without a salary (Russian journalists make $300 a month. I make $2000 a week from my 40-hour day job. I told them to save the cash.)
I'd like to urge any editors who doubt it to check the link while it is still there. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw July 4, 2005 23:15 (UTC)

If were going to use that, it would seem unfair not to mention that he refused pay, and wrote prolificaly. It does seem an acceptabl;e reference tho. I am placing the entirety below. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a minor point, but we should strive for accuracy in the smallest detail. I wouldn't mind a longer discussion on the Pravda writings later in the article. White's writing is prolific whether for Pravda or his own blog/news service. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'll be the first to admit I havn't read the entirety of whats below ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

I've moved the article, previously "below", to */References. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:59 (UTC)


[edit] Recent changes

I've put the neutrality of this page in dispute and I will make some suggeted edits later. You can read my objections below. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this page is written entirely by anti-racists for the purpose of smearing me, and that Wikipedia is a bad joke all around, but please stop inserting false information -- and then repeatedly enforcing the insertion of false information. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, this article consists of things I've said taken out of context, negative news articles on me quoted without regard to positive news articles, and is a generally professional smear job that can't stand up to scrutiny but can probably be BS'ed as meeting Wikipedia's "standards". Given that the chief moderater, "Willmcw", has a stated personal dislike of me, this is not a surprise. Unfortunately, my real world life doesn't afford me the luxury of being able to edit this page every few days to add back in the untrue statements that are made.

However, I have changed a lot of the specific lies that I see being made here:

First, there are a number of comments about how I "describe myself" that are untrue -- they are dated and they are conflated with current comments in order to create a deliberately misleading picture.

Second, I have run for office several times in Montgomery County, Maryland in nine and seven way races and won, pretty consistently, 7% of the vote. I have never run as a write in and I have copies of the old news articles showing the election results, even if they are no longer available on the Montgomery County Board of Election websites.

Third, White Web Publishing, Inc, did not go "bankrupt" (if it did -- source the bankruptcy papers. I've never filed a bankruptcy in my life). I sold it off to a friend of mine when I moved from Maryland in later 2003.

Fourth, I own thirty three housing units in Roanoke Virginia, but renting housing is a secondary business for me. My primary business is the construction and the re-construction of abandoned houses.

If there is anything that is really notable about me, other than my publishing ventures, it is the amount of hatred I engender from anti-racists. I can't think of another white activist who is viscerally hated by antifa the way I am. -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Will editors please refrain from adding line breaks into paragraphs? It makes it very difficult to follow the changes. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Gay activist"? "Psychiatric hospital"? While some of the additions here are good, (like the ShopWhite material I've been meaning to add myself), others seem out or left field. May I suggest that rather than re-writing the article wholesale user:Patrickcochran could please change a section at a time so that other editors can review them? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the linebreaks, which shows the changes are less sweeping then they appeared before. Even so, I'm removing the two points mentioned above until we can get good sources. -Willmcw 07:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
After reviewing other parts of PC's edits I found that some were totally unsupported by the provided citations, and seemed fraudulent so I've reverted the whole thing again. The subject has led a sufficiently interesting life that we don't have to make up additional details. Let's stick to the verifiable facts. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill White: The Person

Personally, I do not like this article. Any middle of the road, average American who might happen to read it would automatically gain a negative image of William (Bill) White due to his past affiliations and current beliefs. If I had to write a mini-bio on White, I certainly wouldn’t have chosen anus.com as a website. It just doesn’t sound like a very credible source of information for anything other than anal activities. While this article is full of information about White, it is severely lacking in who the person behind the name and semi-notorious fame is.

Many things, both good and bad, can be said about Bill White. Luckily, I had the opportunity to get to know White outside of his activism and can speak of the person. When I first met him, I too thought he was just another shallow and egotistical person with a very warped view of society and life. I continued talking to White and found him to be very educated, very well polished, and very passionate about his beliefs. No goose-stepping. No white robes hanging in the closet. No empty beer cans littering the front lawn.

As a friend White will have no problems speaking his mind with you. White does not coddle. He will not sugar coat things to make you feel better and this has upset some of those who used to be included in his close circle of friends and loved ones. For those people, I say this: grow up and listen to him. You might hate to hear what he has to say, but his advice comes from wisdom and concern. I know that if I ever face troublesome or confusing times, I can go to White and he will give much needed advice, friendship, and guidance. I frequently find myself saying “why didn’t I just listen to him?”

After a brief romance with White, I learned even more unimaginable things about him. Although it might later be denied, there is escaping the fact that White has a heart the size of Rhode Island. He is extremely compassionate, fun-loving, and an all around good guy. I thoroughly enjoyed the time that I spent with him. Plus, White’s pictures just don’t do him justice; he is an awfully attractive young man with amazing eyes. He just has to beat the women off of him with a stick.

In today’s age, it is hard to find people like Bill White. Instead of obsessing over the latest “in” thing, White spends his free time cultivating himself and trying to improve the world. I for one am impressed that he is so passionate about his beliefs, stands up for them, and tries to spread them. Far too many people have not even a tenth of the courage that White has. I feel lucky that I have been able to call this great man my friend. --Jmr2005 04:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

All right, you should have said earlier you were his bitch, so I wouldn't have had to read through your ass-kissing message. Attractive?? he's a fat, fat racist. Thank you very much.--200.222.3.3 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You should do what I do in all thses long write ups, read the first and last paragraphs to see what started it and what ended. I have been just as active on the political left end of the spectrum but nazis seem to be the only ones welcome at wikipedia. (Comraderedoctober 09:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Recent edits, reverted

Amalekite's recent edits were very PoV under the guise of correcting to NPoV. I've reverted it all. Despite the similarity of the edits to those of certain banned editors with racist/neo-Nazi/white-supremacist views, I'm assuming that that's just generic, not evidence of sock-puppetry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Somebody moved the article without explanation, from Bill White (activist) to Bill White (fascist). I think that White's politics are too complicated to include a designation in the title, and I don't see a reason to chage it from the NPOV "activist". Any explanation? -Willmcw 19:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I can't see how he can reasonably be described as an "activist", a term which is any case so nebulous that it almost completely lacks meaning. The current title accurate summarizes the ideology for which he is best known, and is therefore per Manual of Style the most appropriate disambiguation term. White himself would surely not disagree with the sobriquet. Fawcett5 01:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The only purpose of the term is to distinguish him from the baseball player, etc. It is not intended to summarize his life. Such terms are usually as generic as possible. This particular choice was the result of a long discussion. This title change was the result of no discussion. "Activist" was chosen a more generic alternative to "nationalist". Unless we are going to add politicla epithet's to all biographies, I don't think we should start with this one. -Willmcw 04:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
A result of the move is that this page has somehow lost its link to the archives, etc. What was the original reason for the change? Is White not an "activist?". Other title disambiguations that have already been tried and discarded are "politician" (but he never really ran for anything), and it started out as "agitator" (which seemed more POV than "activist"). Despite these evolutions when I mentioned "long discussion" I was actually mis-remembering it with Don Black (nationalist). The discussion mostly occurred at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don Black. Though the individual is different, the principles are the same and I recommend reading the VfA (really a re-name discussion). -Willmcw 05:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, Willmcw, it seems that in the Don Black discussion, your point was based on the fact that the term "activist" was being used for Bill White. Now you're pointing toward the Don Black discussion as evidence for your point. No offense, but I think you're using a bit of circular logic here. My concern is that the word "activist" has a positive connotation. I think "racialist" is the best term. Mwalcoff 19:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
When the Don Black discussion was ongoing this article's title was settled. That discussion brought up many issues which I think are also germane here. Terms used for this type of disambiguation should be as neutral as possible. I think it's better to err on the side of being slightly positive than negative. Overall it should generally reflect a person's vocation. "Racialist" is more of a philosphy, while "activist" is more of a job. It was originally "agitator", which is a job of sorts. I'd rather see it go back to "agitator" than to "racialist". -Willmcw 21:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, this is how other media have refered to him: "Neo-Nazi" (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6/26/05); "national figure in the white-supremecist movement" (Sarasota Herald-Tribune 3/6/05); "straight-up Neo-Nazi" (Southern Poverty Law Center in Roanoke Times article). Now if we were talking about someone like Pat Buchanan, who is accused of being a bigot but denies being so himself, calling him "Pat Buchanan (bigot)" would be biased. But I don't think it's bias to call someone a racialist or a bigot or a Neo-Nazi if he calls himself a "Unit Leader" in the "National Socialist Movement." Should we go RFC? Mwalcoff 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Media-applied epithets are interesting, but not the major factor. The key factor should be whatever Wikipedia guideline covers this area. To be honest, I can't find it. Before we go to RfC, we should make sure we're working within the existing guidelines (if any). Do you know of any guideline that applies? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I can't find any, sorry. BTW, I think the parenthetical statement about seders is relevant, because it demonstrates White's ignorance of what he says he hates so much. Mwalcoff 22:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the "seder dance", maybe there's a better way to present the issue. If the point is to show he doesn't know about Jewish culture, then perhaps it'd be better to write something like "White illustrated his ignorance of Jewish culture when he wrote...." The parenthetical aside just seemed unencyclopedic. Also, I'm not sure I understood the odd formatting. Were the sentences supposed to be on separate lines? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That's how it was in the database. I've redone the seder sentence in a non-parenthetical manner. Mwalcoff 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I bow to consensus and have moved it back. Regards, Fawcett5 11:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome RFC readers

Hello,

The dispute -- more of an open question than a bitter battle -- is whether this article should be titled Bill White (activist) or something like Bill White (neo-Nazi). I think "activist" has a positive connotation that does not fit the subject matter, while Willmcw disagrees. You can read the discussion above for more detail. Mwalcoff 22:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I vote Nazi. White calls himself a Nazi, so there's no issue of unfair characterization. It's a much better, and more informative, descriptor than the generic "activist." It's also worth noting that there's absolutely no mention of "activism" in the first four paragraphs of the article. It's further worth noting that Bill White's accomplishments as an activist wouldn't by themselves merit a Wikipedia entry; it's only because he's a neo-Nazi that his scant accomplishments are being noted, presumably as a warning to others. (Though, even there, this guy can't even get 1% of the vote in a school-board race.) Mark Potok's analysis, quoted in the article, seems precisely correct. What has this guy done other than issue obnoxious and ignorant statements? His main "accomplishment," if you can call it that, was that he beat up his equally anonymous girlfriend. -- FRCP11 01:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

At one point I renamed it "Bill White (fascist)", which I thought fits the bill. Personally, I find that the term "activist" is so vague it could mean almost anything. Anyway, people seemed unhappy, so I moved it back.. Fawcett5 03:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd be surprised to find that Bill White (activist) was the neo-nazi if I were looking for the neo-nazi. Bill White (neo-Nazi) is acurate but looks... odd. I'm not sure why, it just doesn't seem to talk about what he does, which is how those disambigs usually read. What about Bill White (neo-Nazi activist)? — mendel ☎ 04:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
With the help of others, I have found some guidelines on this type of "clarifier". See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between brackets or parentheses. -Willmcw 19:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
"try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand" would seem to imply "Nazi" rather than "activist," which isn't as recognizable or applicable. Again, the only reason Bill White has an entry is because he's a Nazi. -- FRCP11 05:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as he's a self-identified Nazi, then I don't see the problem using that in the title (I didn't like "fascist" because its meaning is different, and it wasn't obvious to me that he fitted it; he doesn't seem bright enough to be a fascist, which is a genuine political position, whereas being a Nazi doesn't take any intelligence at all). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nazi or Neo-Nazi? Nazi by itself has strong connotations of time and place that don't apply.Fawcett5 17:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I think "(neo-Nazi)" would meet the requirements best. — mendel ☎ 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. -- FRCP11 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to renaming the article Bill White (neo-Nazi) then? If there are no objections within a day or two, perhaps one of us could make the move. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've already stated my objection but since the consensus seems to favor a less neutral indentifier I won't object further. -Willmcw 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of election results

Someone had written that White received 7% of the vote for school board in 2000. Based in info from the Montgomery County Board of Elections website, I changed that to 0.7%, based on the write-in total for the general election.

Looking a little deeper at the pages, however, it seems White -- or someone with the same name -- did receive 6.6% of the vote in the primary election that year. However, White is also listed as a write-in candidate for the general (run-off) election, the one in which all write-ins combined got 0.7%.

I am unfamiliar with Maryland election law here. Is it possible for someone to run as a write-in in the general election after losing in a nonpartisan primary? Mwalcoff 13:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine -- revert explanation

I'm sorry -- I don't see the fact that Dylan Klebold's mom was Jewish has anything to do with this article. Bill White claimed to be an anti-racist back then anyway. -- Mwalcoff 03:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The shooters were messed up but they were not neo-nazis any more than goth kids are vampires I think this Jewish bit should be pointed out because based on his track record I don't think Bill is telling the truth and see no reason to give him the benifit of the doubt.

132.241.245.132 03:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not about giving Bill White "the benefit of the doubt." We can't have complete speculation about someone's reasoning with no evidence behind it. -- Mwalcoff 04:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. If someone wants to dig through White's comments on Overthrow, he may have said something there. Until we find something specific, we shouldn't speculate. -Willmcw 04:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

  • born Antonio E. Little in 1977

Source?

I went to Middle School and High School with this guy, and I always knew him as Billy White, for whatever that's worth.

THE HECK WITH ANTICHRIST!!!!! A BUNCH OF SCUMBAGS!!!!!!

Who is deleting my Comments and words in the Article????-LUTHER B.

Please do not insert comments into the article. -Will Beback 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Born Antonio E Little? LOL -- Bill White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White is out of the NSM

Bill White was expelled/resigned from the NSM and is alleging that the leadership worships Satan (literally)[1]

Never a dull moment. Homey 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

One minute they're atheists or members of the Creativity movement and don't believe in satan, and the next they accuse their enemies of being satanists.
It just shows how stupid these people are.
--Yunipo 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New edits

user:68.10.35.153, identifying himself as "Bill White", has made a number of unsourced edits to the article. Factual claims require reliable 3rd party sources, and most of these changes did not provide those sources. We're all eager for this article to become more accurate and more neutral, but we can only do that by referencing accurate, neutral sources. -Will Beback · † · 09:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Rewrite of 11-17-2006

While I am no fan on this guy, I'd have to say that the changes Bill White made on November 16th aren't really unbalanced. They are partially sourced, though not by third party sources. However, the previous version that it has been reverted to is equally unsourced. I think that Bill's changes should be put back in, to some degree. When I get some downtime, I'll review them, remove anything too biased, salvage anything worthwhile from the current revision, and put up a new compromise version.

Oh and Bill, create an account.

Sadena 13:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


I have gone through and merged all the edits. I have removed many unsourced statements by both sides. While Bill's recent edits were revereted as being unsourced, I was amazed to see how many unsourced allegations were in the pervious version as well. Once you go over it line by line that is.

So I've cleaned it up, balanced it out, and thrown a dozen citation needed tags in it. Please do not revert this rewrite en masse. Please address the specific points, add citations, etc. I'll be going over this again in a month, and if the citations don't turn up I'll start pruning, from both sides.

Sadena 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/Talk%7EBill_White_%28neo-Nazi%29_5afb.html"