Talk:Identitarianism

Regarding this revert:

Strictly from a language perspective, Identitarianism and "Identitarian movement" mean precisely the same thing. Splitting the article appears to be a WP:POVFORK.

As a glance at Talk:Identitarian_movement will show, there has been a lengthy discussion about how "European" this movement is and whether or not it is appropriate to group both the North American and European groups together. Bypassing this by creating a separate article is completely inappropriate. Finding a handful of sources which discuss one term over the other is not an excuse to create two redundant articles about the exact same ideology. If this is about the supposed difference in racial attitude between the two continents, Wikipedia is not a battleground for white supremacists to quibble over "optics". Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Identitarian is commonly used in the United States to explain left-wing racism and identity centrism as well as the right-wing, European movement. Repeatedly clearing this page constitutes vandalism and will be treated as such. DavidBailey (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, many seem think the scope of this term has enlarged significantly. My problem with black identity, Hitchens Wouldn’t Be Welcome at The Atlantic Today, A center that can hold DavidBailey (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion articles could, depending on context, be used to expand or supplement Identitarian movement. Without a very reliable source specifically differentiating "identitariansims" from "identitarian movement" this remains a flagrant WP:POVFORK, which is completely unacceptable for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

To include more interested editors, I have started a discussion here: Talk:Identitarian movement#Identitarianism vs. Identitarian movement. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The Identitarian movement article discusses only a single aspect of identitarianism- the European white supremacist one. Insisting that it is the only valid coverage of the topic is itself WP:POV. DavidBailey (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell and deplore your assertions of vandalism, DavidBailey. The two articles are about the same thing. The cure to your alleged (and unfounded) "The Identitarian movement article discusses only a single aspect of identitarianism- the European white supremacist one" is to improve that article, not to fork a new article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You can certainly agree with burning man template creator all you like, but identitarianism is a lot more than just the European nationalist movement. This article shows other aspects, whether you politically agree or not. DavidBailey (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

burning man template creator continues to do unilateral content removal without consensus. I will continue to revert them. DavidBailey (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus seems against you, with as far as I can see everyone else here disagreeing with you. Put me one in support of Grayfell's edits Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that your "consensus" seems set to remove all the content that makes this article WP:NPOV. DavidBailey (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• You can add me to the list of people supporting Greyfell's edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, referring to Grayfell in that way ("Burning man template creator") looks like a bizarre personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You may be unaware of the political underpinnings of the festival. I was pointing out that the political views of Grayfell are going to make it extremely difficult to provide a WP:NPOV in this case. DavidBailey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You mean Grover Norquist's favorite festival? I agree with Mpants that this seems like an uncivil (and frankly weak) ad hominem attack. Nblund ^talk 19:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note. This discussion has been pointed to at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism#Identitarianism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources do not clearly differentiate between these two concepts, making this a WP:POVFORK. The quantity and quality of sources used for Identitarianism is inferior to those at Identitarian movement. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the sources used for this version of the article:

• I've removed these:
  • Simple Psychology - Doesn't mention "identitarianism" or any derived term. We already have a good article on social identity theory which has dozens of better sources than this tertiary overview.
  • Wiktionary entry - Wiktionary is user-generated content and is not usable as a source on Wikipedia. There are also WP:CIRC concerns. Links in "see also" sections are strictly for convenience, since Wiktionary is a sister project to Wikipedia.
  • Washington Post opinion - Doesn't mention "identitarianism" or any derived term. Suzanna Danuta Walters's opinions could reasonably be included with attribution, but she would have to be giving an opinion on identitarianism. WP:SYNTH won't cut it, and we already have articles on intersectionality, the Me Too movement, and transnational feminism, which are what she is discussing here.
  • Quillette - This is redundant. Why, exactly, are we using two sources for the opinion of Remi Adekoya? Since the Quillette article's headline is "Identity Politics Does More Harm Than Good to Minorities" this opinion might be a better fit at identity politics, but only if it's saying something significant or novel, which would generally require commentary by reliable independent sources.
  • Guardian profile - This is just a list of articles written by Remi Adekoya which has nothing to do with identitarianism.
• This leaves these sources:
  • Spiked - This interview is usable for presenting Remi Adekoya's opinion as his opinion, but there should still be some indication that this opinion is significant to the entire topic.
  • Oxforddictionaries.com - This is fine, but see WP:NOTDICTIONARY. We do not automatically include articles for all words.
  • PRI - This source is unambigiously about the identitarian movement, and is used at that article. It also discusses Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs and uses "identitarian" interchangeably with, or as shorthand for, "follower of the identitarian movement"
  • The American Standard - This is an opinion piece which makes several highly controversial conclusions that need to be clearly attributed as opinions. Again, there should still be some indication that these opinion are significant to the entire topic.
  • The Weekly Standard - Per the source: While subtle differences might exist between white nationalists, white supremacists, racists, and identitarians, all four groups share the common philosophy of dividing people along racial lines. This suggests again that this usage overlaps with the identitarian movement article. The linked version of the article misrepresented this source, though. The source did not mention anything about American "white nationalist identitarians" as a separate subgroup of identitarians, and there are no grand claims about a European influence on them. Since the source is mainly about identiarianism's close overlap with eugenics, and Richard B. Spencer, any summary of this source should also mention these aspects.

If there are any sources specifically about the difference between "identitarianism", the "identitarian movement", and "identity politics", I would very much like to see them. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that the word choice of Remi Adekoya and Sam Harris really rises to the level of making this "a thing". They're primarily talking about identity politics as normally understood; they're just using a slightly different term. That seems like it may suffice to add a hat note for Identity politics on the article for the far-right European political movement, but it's not clear that identitarianism as a broad concept actually exists as distinct in any marked way from identity politics such that it would warrant a stand alone article. GMG^talk 12:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I think this problem runs deeper than just this article. As Identity politics now explains, the term means very different things to different people. When used by pundits, based on sources I've looked at here and at neighboring articles, I can't escape the opinion that it's most often used to dismiss one "identity's" problems as being irrelevant or inconvenient. It's a more acceptable way of saying "social justice warrior", even sharing the same peculiar anxiety over college kids. This isn't always the case, but even those which support the concept seem to be on the defense about it.[1][2][etc.] The endless stream of hand-wringing punditry about the term fails to dispute the fact that all politics are identity politics. At least, they can be framed this way with trivial ease, but this framing doesn't actually make these concerns any more or less valid. "Identity politics" has become a pejorative term, and if we're going to expand this topic here or anywhere else, we should pay very close attention to attribution and synth. Political commentary is very, very cheap, and we get what we pay for. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Opposed. This is just silly. You're doing a hatchet job on the article.

• The Simple Psychology article was about ingroups and outgroups which are a core part of identitarianism.
• Wiktionary- Fine remove it. I was trying to link to existing content about identitarianism.
• Washington Post article was an example of left-wing identitarianism based on the definition of the word. Not to show examples of where media uses the term. Adekoya is a researcher specifically about identitiarianism and how it impacts racial-defined communities.
• I am not citing two sources for content, I'm giving two references for the material.
• This was giving a resume for who Adekoya was since I expected you to attack his conclusions.
• Adekoya is a distinguished researcher and journalist, in addition to providing commentary. His contribution is noteworthy. He is not a mere opinionist.
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but a link to a dictionary definition is is useful and proper when people argue over the definition of the term.
• Weekly Standard - Feel free to add in relevant content you feel is missing.
• References of different words - Again, feel free to add relevant content you feel is missing.
• An encyclopedia article discusses the different perspectives, it doesn't remove the one you disagree with. This is what WP:NPOV means.
• Identity politics are different from the idea in identitarianism that social identity is based mainly on gender, sexuality, race or ethnic background. Identity politics are much broader and don't deal as much with the issues of in- and out-groups.

I understand that it is a potentially triggering-offense for some to hear the identitarianism discussed outside the scope of white nationalism, but it exists and deserves to be represented without a condescending tone in the article.

DavidBailey (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You created this article, and have consistently failed to follow good BRD practices. Wait for other people to weigh in, and drop the frivolous accusations of vandalism and petty insinuations about this being "triggering". Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You have also failed to follow good BRD practices. Being bold, than reverting isn't supposed to remove all the content you personally disagree with. It's supposed to refine and improve the article. DavidBailey (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed the dictionary definition supported the first paragraph, as a simple statement of definition. It doesn't.

• "identitarian". Oxford English Dictionary.

This source is about "identitarian" as an adjective and noun NOT "Identitarianism" as an ideology or belief. The source says nothing about "mainly" nothing about gender or sexuality, and nothing about this being the "basis of the primary group with which one self-identifies." It DOES however, point out that the term is typically applied to "white people". The evidence is now that this article is WP:OR with sources slapped on to support prior assumptions. Grayfell (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The assertion that the Simple Psychology and Washington Post articles are about identitarianism "based on the definition of the word", or because these concepts "are a core part of identitarianism", as opposed to the source actually using the term "identitarianism" is also textbook OR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a great deal of material on the internet that support the perspective that other groups besides white nationalists use the term identitarian and identitarianism in different ways. The problem is that most of the media writes only about the progressive perspective, that it's an exclusively white nationalist-centric term. However, scholarly sociology articles, and political sources other than progressive often give other perspectives. Is this perspective to be banned because the New York Times and CNN don't use it this way? DavidBailey (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, so it appears this article was first created at Identitariansm (hist, note the typo). It was then copypasted here at the same minute it was tagged for speedy deletion as WP:A10 by Jmertel23. Even setting CUTPASTE issues aside, this is a very sloppy approach. This looks more like weird timing than intentional gaming, but this is also a good example of why copy-paste moves should be avoided in the first place.

So by my count there are three experienced editors who are concerned enough over this being a redundant article or POV fork that we've either tagged it for deletion or reverted to a redirect. This doesn't appear to be consensus to preserve this as a separate article. Grayfell (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't copy-paste it there, I edited it there. DavidBailey (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Support merge. Tomayto, tomahto. Unless and until some unsubtle difference can be properly sourced, it would be less confusing to keep this to one article if mentioned at all. (I found this discussion in an edit at WikiProject Conservatism). O3000 (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Support merge, though the existence of black identitarians (noted in this article) will blow a hole in the claim on the target page that it is a white nationalist movement; therefore, that claim should be revisited. Skingski (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I also support the merge. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support a merge. Unambiguous WP:POVFORK. There's no sources supporting the idea that the terms have distinct meanings. DavidBailey's comments above (I understand that it is a potentially triggering-offense for some to hear the identitarianism discussed outside the scope of white nationalism, but it exists and deserves to be represented without a condescending tone in the article) read to me like an unambiguous admission that this article was created as an intentional WP:POVFORK, solely because he disagreed with the tone of the existing article on this topic. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Merge - No indication that this is a separate topic. –dlthewave ☎ 14:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Merge This is just a POV fork, identitarianism refers to the identitarian movment, while leftist identity politics and right wing racism not specifically associated with the identitarian movement should be in a different article, maybe identity politics. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would European right-wing identitarian need its own article, but European and other left-wing identitarianism be placed in identity politics? This is inconsistent. Either both should be in identity politics, or both should be in a separate article. DavidBailey (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the right-wing movement is a well-documented phenomenon referred to as "identitarianism" by reliable sources, and is also used by that movement to self-identify (which has been reported in reliable sources). You have yet to demonstrate that anyone calls left-wing identity politics "identitarianism" other than a few opinion pieces. Until you provide better sources, your assertion that left-wing identity politics can be described by the term identitarianism is original research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge / restore redirect: an unneeded content fork. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Merge At best, the material presented here might warrant sentence or two in Identitarian movement. The term appears to have been sporadically applied to individuals and groups on the left who engage in Identity politics, but it doesn't appear to have been adopted outside of a handful of (mostly conservative) columnists. Nblund ^talk 19:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge/redirect - WP:POVFORK applies, even assuming good faith in its creation. There is no there, there, even as much as The Weekly Standard wants to claim there is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've redirected the page per the above comments. There's only two sentences that are sourced and not present in the target, both sourced to opinion pieces; not sure how much value is there in them Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm... MPants at work. Broad or not is an opinion. But we are explicitly supposed to omit links that are repeated in navigation templates or the body of an article. GMG^talk 15:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"As a general rule" yes, but an editor specifically looking to research this subject is going to want to prioritize the entries that were removed over the vast majority of wikilinks in the article. They're prime "See also" material. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Good luck trying to take that to GA or FA and argue it there on an article. Not repeating links is the essentially universally accepted standard. GMG^talk 15:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Not repeating links is also the most "violated" standard, and by experienced editors as often as not. For something like this, it literally makes no sense. What should a "see also" section be, if not links to closely related articles that contain much in-depth information about the exact same subject and the fundamental principles behind it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The merge should be from Identitarian movement into this one, Identitarianism, since this is the more general article- unless you think it would be a good idea to merge general, global information about identitarianism with the European movement article. DavidBailey (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No. The discussion had a very clear consensus to merge into the other article. You do not get to override that consensus just because you don't like it. You've already been blocked for edit warring, and the way you're going, it's likely to happen again soon. Take a deep breath, step back, and listen to what others are telling you here. You not "winning" this discussion is not a bad thing, for the encyclopedia or you. It's just what happened. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not overriding consensus, I'm following it. I'm merging the two articles. If you want to discuss, please do so here. DavidBailey (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

When merging, it's important to observe due weight vis-a-vis the content in the target article. As has been established by the consensus at this page and the target page, the sources discussing "identitarianism" outside of the context of the identitarian movement are fewer in number, and of a less-reliable quality than the sources describing the identitarian movement. Thus, content discussing non-identitarian-movement-identitarianism should be limited to a few sentences in a relevant section of the article, or a section toward the end at the very most. It is very much undue weight to rewrite the lead to give the various varieties of identitarianism equal weight when this is not supported by sources at all, and giant quotes from sources that you purport support a non-right-wing identitarianism are uncalled for (that the sources even support this is disputed, as per Grayfell's comment on the other talk page). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)