Talk:Alex Linder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

ROFL! Is this guy for real? Bastie 10:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constant reversion of edits which actually improve the NPOV of the article and or fix errors of fact

Other than simply a bias against VNN, also known as a "POV", I cna see no reason whatsoever that my edits of last month were reverted to the prior extraordinarily flawed version which uses loaded words and hate language to deride Mr. Linder, rather than descriptive terms and facts. For instance, the current flawed version constantly refers to VNN and Alex Linder as "White Supremacist", whatever that is. I don't think there's anyone on Earth who is a "White Supremacist." There are "White Nationalists" and "White Separatists" (approximately the same) but no one who contributes to VNN has any time to worry about one race being "better" or "superior" to another. The position of VNN and of Alex Linder for that matter, is that we wish our race to survive, that our race is under dire threat from such Jewish-promoted schemes as miscegenation, integration, hate crime laws, "civil rights" laws, etc. VNNers don't wish to rule over or dominate other peoples, we seek only self-determination and a nation exclusively of our own people, not because we're "superior" to those other people, but because we believe that life is best and healthiest when our race can be unto itself and self-governing. Secondarily, there are other minor things, such as the assertion that Alex Linder left the NA after "allowing critisim of it on his site" or some such silliness. The simple fact is that Alex left the NA and began criticising it's new leadership after it became apparent that the new leadership did not share Dr. Pierce's vision for the organization, or for Our Cause, that the new leadership was likely corrupt, and certainly was not acting in the best interests of the race. The simple fact is, the article, being on Wikipedia, purports to be from a Neutral Point of View, yet it's written as though some ARA commie thug wrote it. This constant reversion back to edits done by moderators or "approved" commies, despite improvements to NPOV by those whose edits are being reverted, is getting very old, and gives wikipedia a bad name amongst those not squarely in this peculiar political mindset found here. One of the worst examples of POV bias is how you people always quote some ADL or SPLC jew hack and his inflammatory opinion about the subject, but when I put a blurb in about how VNN supporters find Mr. Linder's spintros appealing, that gets deleted too. So you can cite the opinions of those who hate Alex Linder, just not the opinions of those who like Alex Linder? WTF is that?!?!?

His statements that "[w]hites already know blacks are stupid, violent, destructive apelike creatures" and that "Jews are nation wreckers. We WHITE MEN created the nations they wreck. It is time for us to engage in wrecking of our own. DEATH TO THE JEWS" don't sound like someone who has "[no] time to worry about one race being better or superior to another." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is it that when factual material is published that points out the largely ignorant opinions of others there is suddenly a call to "neutrality"? Either Linder said these things, or he didn't. If he didn't we'll remove them. If he did, well then, who's stupidity is that? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added a quote, but can't figure some things out

The quote about "A woman who can think". There to show his sexism. I can't figure out how to get the precise date he wrote that... My bad most likely. There's also quite a bit in that news update showing what seems to be pretty heavy paranoia about the medical profession. Anyway, I put it up because while his sexism is often ignored in favour of his racism, it's pretty heavy. And actually counterproductive, given that if he wants the white race or whatnot to reproduce, it would seem sort of obvious that women might be desirable. Heh heh. --Edward Wakelin 19:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Boy- that is about the tamest piece of text on the page you got it from. That said, we probably have enough quotations. If anyone wants to add more we should either remove some or ship the whole set over to Wikiquotes. -Willmcw 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Tame, but telling... I've seen non-VNN racists mock Linder as, basically, a scared little boy... He's not married, is he? I know comments are made to the effect of "If he cares so much about the white race, why isn't he getting married and fathering white children?"--216.191.209.118 16:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (ED: Sorry, this was I, Edward Wakelin)

[edit] Recent story

I've removed the anon edits about this, because it's not being written up properly, but I'm leaving the link here so it can be added at some point. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just not big enough to mention in a biography, Slim. I think we need to steer clear of creating compilations of bad news and calling them bios (even if we don't approve of the subject). Indeed, a neoNazi getting arrested is barely even news. Must not have been much going on around there that day. Worst case, I think a single sentence would be the maximum merited. Grace Note 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on the above comment:

The original contributor put in a couple of misleading and untrue sentences, something about "the police had ordered Linder to leave the rally." and then linked to the reference given above. There was nothing in the story that said that. It looked like the contributor made it up. I corrected it - by quoting directly from the reference.

Then, the contributor replaced the actual quotes from the reference and replaced it with seemingly made-up stuff. It went back and forth a few times. How can untrue and misleading information, not found in the reference given, be "proper" and actual quotes from the reference be "improperly written?"

It's such a minor thing that it's not worth writing about at all, let alone improperly. Grace Note 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, neo-Nazis get arrested, but this was more than "barely" news. What's notable about a person is what's noted. This was noted in many news outlets. It's not like we're covering a drunk-driving arrest of a senator. If neo-Nazis are known for getting arrested then it's not an anomolous incident. I think we should give it a sentence, though it should probably focus on the rally (reported to have drawn 30 supporters and twice as many counter-protesters). ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that we should consider everything the press notes as "notable" in the context of an encyclopaedia article. The press doesn't tend to note the good things about a person. That's the problem with articles about near-nobodies like this: if they do make the press, it's rarely going to be for anything good. If we make it our policy, or our procedure I suppose you could call it, that we will include everything that the press notes and nothing else, we will end up with some very lopsided biographies. I think we have to use some discernment and not lose sight of the fact that our articles are about a person in the round, not just a collection of tidbits about them. And if we are having to focus on the rally, Will, it's not so much about Linder, is it? Grace Note 08:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

commenting:

I disagree, as the rally was a protest about 2 white kids being brutally murdered by a black group, and this was part of that. Apparantly no one in the major media feels it's worth writing about either, but that's another issue. It says the anon edits were removed because "it's not being written up properly." What was improper about the anon edits?

Actually, there's nothing that Linder has done that the major media has thought worth writing about. Most sources available are either local media or specialized organizations. If major media coerage is the standard then this guy isn't notable. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he is "notable" in anything but the loosest sense of the word. I'd like to note that it's not that I don't, or we don't, consider that two white kids' being murdered by a black group is not important, but that in the context of a person's whole life, getting arrested at a rally cannot be considered a significant event. Dude, I've been arrested more than once, and if I ever have a biography written about me, I'd not be expecting to read about that. Grace Note 08:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, to begin with he wasn't just "at" the rally - he organized it. He's an activist, so doing things like organizing rallies is a significant part of what makes him notable. Of course we don't want to glorify the event either. Second, I don't suppose most folks would want their arrests to show up in their bios, though that may be the opposite for activists. (The biographies of such figures as Martin Luther King, Daniel Berrigan, or Adolph Hitler would be incomplete without the record of their arrests while leading protests). The simple fact is that we (the public) don't care how good a parent someone is, or how kind they are to animals, as those don't make people notable (again, activists excepted). People get arrested at rallies all of the time, but this was comparatively well-covered by newspapers and broadcast stations. (Ah, I just found this: "These law enforcement agencies spent several weeks preparing for this rally." - That's an indication of how much went into this - 300 cops and weeks of planning.) One arrest while leading a rally isn't sufficient alone for an article, but this is a rare occasion for Linder to make it into the mainstream press. So far as notable things he's done, this is towards the top. It should be mentioned. How's this:
  • Linder organized what has been described as a "racially charged protest" on May 26, 2007 in Knoxville, Tennessee that attracted 30 supporters, around 60 counterprotesters, and 300 law enforcement officers. Linder fought with police and was the only arrest. [1][2][3]VNN
Is that neutral, brief, and informative enough? Also- I'm not sure what point you're making about the subject of the rally. It's hard to describe in a few words. Protesting "Black on While" crime? I think the AP writer got it best with "racially charged protest". Can we improve on her prose? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added some text like the above plus a little. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In reply to "Actually, there's nothing that Linder has done that the major media has thought worth writing about:" I wasn't talking about what Linder has done, I was speaking about the crime itself, the murder of 2 whites kids by a group of blacks, according to most news reports. Other reports have indicated that about 100 protesters showed up, not 30.

I've heard the crime being described as the "crime of the century," the story of two white kids being tortured, raped, murdered, and butchered by a group of blacks. As someone pointed out, Alex Linder was the organizer the rally, and since this is His page, how this isn't' newsworthy is certainly subject to debate - in my opinion of course.

In response to "It's hard to describe in a few words:" The murder of the couple was the subject of the rally. I don't think it's hard to describe in a few words at all. "A Knoxville rally in protest of a Murdered white couple."

And, frankly, I expected less opinion stated as fact from people editing a online encyclopedia. Calling someone a "near nobody" does not come across as professional. But it's your credibility, not mine.

But those are other issues. The original reason given that my anon edit was deleted was originally "because it's not being written up properly," not because it wasn't "newsworthy." No one answered my question which was, "what was improper about the anon edits?"

I'm pretty busy, so I have to drop this, but I would like my last question answered, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.246.221.56 (talk • contribs).

I've added a few words and a link to reference the actual crime being protested. I can't answer your last question as I didn't write the remark you asked about, but I can suggest that we focus on future edits instead. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this again. It's a minor incident. We would not include this in a biography of a figure we approved of, and I don't see the reason for the double standard. It hardly got major coverage, Will, after all. If you must include it, the very brief insert you gave above would be enough. Grace Note 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So I've reinstated the short piece from above. We don't need an essay on a minor protest, even if the guy did get arrested. He's a minor figure, barely noted, so I don't see any great need for a long piece about him. Also, I don't see what he has to do with Judaism, except for hating it. Grace Note 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

I've removed the "Quotations" section from this article, as stated in Wikipedia:Quotations: "...editors should try and work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand alone quote section. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote."

The quotations in this article don't add to it; if there's a point being made, then make it, and back it up with a quote, this isn't a place to advertise his "snappy" lines. -Toon05 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)