Religion: Interfaith Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bill White is not a Creator. He is a Radical Traditonalist. One follows Ben Klassen -- the other, Julius Evola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.211.165 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This silly, silly man (pardon my POV) is described as follows: "Bill White, is the leader of the American National Socialist Workers' Party and the administrator of the far-right, antisemitic website Overthrow.com." In a single sentence he is both "Socialist" and "far-right." This seems mutually exclusive to me. Since he is a self-described Socialist, and since "far-right" is Libertarian and not a variation of National Socialism, Fascism, or any other other political ethos that espouses state control of the means of production, "far-right" should not be used a description.

The man is crazy, he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist", what the hell does that mean?!?! He might as well call himself a "totalitarian anarchist" or a "liberal conservative". --RucasHost 08:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

I went to high school with Billy. He seemed like a really nice guy, I would never have thought he was a racist, or whatever. He got in trouble a bit. I think he got expelled for punching the principal (Mr. Graham), but he was very friendly. I remember he signed my senior year yearbook (I was a year or so ahead of him), saying one day he would be either famous or infamous.. Kinda funny...

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I agree. -- FRCP11 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I vote for neo-Nazi, but the guidlines say a single word, correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.210.154 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. I did not run as a write in -- my name was spontaneously written in. In fact, this happens all over the country. I won one of the first votes for President in 1992.  ;-D -- Bill

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"This IP address, 68.10.35.153 (host: ip68-10-35-153.rn.hr.cox.net), is registered to Cox Communications serving West Helena, Arkansas," Is Bill White from West Helena, Arkansas?

Anyone who considers the ADL, the SPLC, and the Jewish press "accurate, neutral" sources is a retard. Frankly, all of Wikipedia is a sick joke -- do read the articles on this site? Half of them are unintelligible garbage and the other half you can't believe without independent verification. The skewed, biased nonsense published on this page is just one of many examples of the crap you pinheads put out.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bill White is not a racist. Anyone who bothers to read his past accounts and activism can see that he does what he does for the attention he receives -both from the media and general public. His constant failed attempted take overs of several different racist organizations and his close friendships of media people like Isis, show his real intent.

He talks of waving a pistol in the face's of his enemies and has recently published a grand story of beating five bikers up all by himself.

Maybe you didn't notice -- White was picked up for brandishing in late 2005 and the video of him fighting the bikers appeared on TV news in Maryland in 2003.  ;-D

In short he is a sad little man living in a sad little story of a life of bedtime stories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.234.208 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He leads a group called the "American National Socialist Party", if that doesn't make him a neo-Nazi I don't know what would. Whether he is not sincere about his stated beliefs is an interesting point of speculation but that's all. Dimitroff 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source to verify this encounter [2] with Tom Short? ClaudeReigns 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here by accident, I was struck by this video--for I could not imagine how it could legitimately be used. I see it has been claimed as fair use, and that this has been questioned. I agree with the questioner, and I intend to remove it if the objections raised are not answered. If the video is legitimately on the internet somewhere, make an external link to it instead. DGG 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this page back to Bill White (activist), as the previous title may be a BLP violation. He seems to be more of a far right anarchist than anything else, or at least that's how he would see himself, I believe. We would need a few reliable sources before we could say neo-Nazi, or else he would need to self-identify as that. Perhaps his membership of the parties is enough, but I feel it's going a bit far having it in the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see he has swastikas on his website, so I'll have no objection if someone wants to move the title back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "racist?" That would cover any stripe of kook Bill White is and not provide the positive connotation of "activist." -- Mwalcoff 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if we could find something a little more neutral, even though it's clearly true. What about Bill White (overthrow.com). Or better still, William A. White, which is his name? SlimVirgin ^(talk)

I'd preferred "activist" because it seems more neutral, but the previous consensus favored "neo-Nazi", which is undoubtedly accurate. I'm not aware of anyone calling him "William A. White". -Will Beback · † · 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how do we move it back now that Bill White (neo-Nazi) already exists as a redirect page? -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to move. We should decide first which word we agree on. I do prefer activist. I won't fight neo-Nazi. I'd prefer William A. White because that's his name, even though he's called Bill now. Or Bill White (overthrow.com). Bill White (political activist). Bill White (white nationalist). Bill White (national socialist). Bill White (white supremacist). I'd prefer almost anything to Bill White (neo-Nazi). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with "activist" is that it does not sound neutral to me -- it sounds positive, as if we're legitimizing racism as a cause. By the same token, "white nationalist" is a euphamism used by racists themselves to make their movements seem legitimate. "National socialist" is confusing -- most people know the term "Nazi," but aren't familiar with "national socialism," which is a bad description of Nazism anyway. "White supremacist" may be OK, although Bill White claims his biggest issues are with Jews rather than blacks or whoever. "Racist" may be more accurate. -- Mwalcoff 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Racist" is more a quality than an identifier. Similar to "Bill White (Tone-Deaf)." The man is a neo-nazi, and wouldn't deny it. He dresses up in a Nazi costume and parades around, where's the dispute? He's either a Neo-Nazi or a Performance Artist. Sadena 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though "racist" is undoubtedly correct, moreso than I've seen from practically any other writer. Look at this. I think what's preventing the move back is that the other page has been edited, so I'll delete it, then you should be able to move it. I'm not comfortable doing it myself. It's too much like Adolf Hitler (murderer). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it should work now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather have Adolf Hitler (painter)? Sadena 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Bill White (National Socialist)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The term "Neo-Nazi" is specific and not necessarily accurate in this case. Perhaps Bill White (white nationalist) would be more appropriate, since it is more neutral, and less assuming. Sfacets 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill White correctly identifies himself as a National Socialist. This is easily distinguishable from the Socialism on the left by anyone who is interested in political minorities. "National Alliance" seems to be supported, as is "White supremacist", though opposition to Zionism should not be enough to justify it (some Jews also oppose it). What with seperation of church and state being what it is, Bill White (Creativity Movement) might serve as just as clear an identifier of political belief as any, and at least three citeable sources do contend that "Neo-Nazi" is the appropriate label--so I don't quite understand SlimVirgin's misgivings--but concede that some National Socialists might conceivably be offended in some way. Media have begun identifying him as "William A. White", but I do not necessarily support a move there because of this article. Thus a descriptive term will have to be applied one way or another. Another reason I do not support this is that he is simply not known by this name except in recent daily newspapers and court documents. Also, Robert Allen Zimmerman redirects to Bob Dylan and not the other way around. A very strong case should be made for a contrary position to this example. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a continuing problem with this page being written entirely by critics of White, and maintained by individuals involved in anti-racist causes. The facutal inaccuracy of the article is often simply astounding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 12:34, April 22, 2007

In fact, from lookin at the history, it is probably more appropriate to say this page is written and maintained regularly by a gang of White's critics, whereas the majority of editors -- anonyomous and user -- have regularly challenged their statements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 12:37, April 22, 2007

There's no easy way of figuring out the political and racial makeup of the writers, and those don't really matter anyway. What matter is the article, and we can address any problems with it that are specified. -Will Beback · † · 19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are factual inaccuracies, please do be specific because we want to address them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with a factually inaccurate statement "white first came to public attention in 1999 blah blah blah" then quotes the only public statement of Whites which he has publicly disavowed -- the statement on Columbine. It then ignores all the major media coverage of White for a minor quote at the end of the New York Times article, and concludes by identifying White as a "Holocaust denier" which, while true, is not a major element of who White is -- meaning, he's not David Irving or Ernst Zundel. He's known for this activism on a variety of subjects, and has never drawn public attention for his views on the Holocaust, except in the context of the Elie Wiesel assault.

I've watched this article for years. The admins keep coming in and telling you guys to cut out the POV garbage, you cut it out for a week or two, then you change the article back when no one is looking. Time to cut the crap. This article is so over the top in its inaccuracies and its lack of focus -- for a long time you asserted that White's real name was "Lee Antonio Smith" if I recall -- that, while it probably fulfills some id desire of White's critics, it does very little to discuss who White actually is, and strikes the average reader as a slander, which means its ignored.

You would be much more effective criticizing White if you represented him in a more truthful manner. One wonders how old the monitors of this page are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Y'all can discuss the content, the sourcing, the reliability, etc. to your hearts' content, but please do not remove the infobox or other WkiProject:Biography standards. Thanks. -- Avi 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was unintentional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Having watched the evolution of this article as well, I have to agree with the anonymous critic. The quality and misinformation posted here has been terrible. I wonder sometimes if the strange pathology White seems to evoke in some of his critics doesn't deserve its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.198.130.58 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

References

Why does this article include references like "Mikey Flugenock's Mikey Zine" when there are much more mainstream references, like the New York Times, Reuters, and the Washington Post?

Similarly, why cite groups like the "One People's Project" -- also essentially a blog -- when one could cite legitimate, if biased, anti-racist groups instead?

This isn't an advertisement for your personal anti-racist causes.

What is the Columbine reference requested?

Nevermind, I see them, and will add them soon.

POV edits

SlimVirgin: Please stop your POV edits. The intro to an article should be a comprehensive overview of the subject, including both positive and negative, not a selective edit to fit your agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your posts so we can see who's saying what.

Can you say why the lead you're objecting to doesn't provide an accurate or comprehensive overview? Also, could you say what my "agenda" is? I'm not aware of having one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the topic below. How does your version of the introduction touch on all the important points in a way the current version does not? What your version does is delete many of the important points to focus on a few that are, quite arguably, less important.

Just to add, looking at your edits to "Night" "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" "animal rights" "Lyndon LaRouche" and other topics, I think your agenda and your political views are very clear. Ironically, White, who is an animal rights supporter and a vegetarian, would probably agree with many of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs)

Could you be specific, please, and list which issues you consider important and which are missing from the lead you dislike? Also, I'm still not clear what my agenda is; please be specific about that too. And please sign your posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Look below at "major media references". I believe you delete at least half the subjects there. If you don't think one is worth mentioning, discuss it first instead of imposing your views on the article. And I think I just said what your agenda is -- you are clearly a far left "anarchist" "animal rights" militant of some sort who a) believes, mostly erroneously, that your views are diametrically opposed to those of National Socialism, and b) believes that slander is appropriate towards those you disagree with. Both views are very common in that section of the political world, and very inappropriate for Wikipedia. Here they are called "POV". Try stepping outside your POV and writing objectively, instead of writing political screeds and slanders against your imagined "opposition". 68.10.35.153 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to who I am, some of us believe in the original Wikipedia "anonymity" concept, rather than the new "Wikipedia can only be edited by known editors" concept.

Also, let me refer you to the admin comments on this [3]. You may want to read them. 68.10.35.153 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack other editors - we're here to discuss the article, not each other. If you feel the need to complain about an editor then there are better places to do so, such as user talk pages, WP:AN/I, etc. -Will Beback · † · 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask who you were. I asked you to sign your posts, which you can do by typing four tildes after them, like this ~~~~. This helps to keep the talk page readable, and helps with archiving, because it also adds the date and time of posts.

People who know my edits will be amused to see me described as a far-left anarchist, but no worries — I've been called worse. Can you tell me exactly what in the lead I wrote you would regard as "slander"? Also, please be very specific — give examples — about what is missing from it that is important. Waving your hand in the direction of the list of subjects below doesn't tell me much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an attack. It was an answer to a question. If you ask "what do you object to about my writing" and I state it, that's not an "attack". In any case, I agree we should focus on the substance of the article, and not people's personal views. And the NPOV version of this article is not exactly winning broad acceptance.

I don't think I said you were slandering per se, only that you were choosing to emphasize and de-emphasize certain points in an effort to distort the POV of the article. Again, I'm not the only neutral party in this dispute to notice that (see my reference to comments). My view is that all the major subjects should be touched on. If you can state a reason why they shouldn't, I'd love to hear it. 68.10.35.153 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 68. on this. Looking at the history of this article, the POV stuff, poor sources, and general silliness seems to be the work of a handful of editors producing the kind of stuff that has given Wikipedia our Unreliable" reputation. I'd like to see more serious discussion and less rhetoric and selective editing. 75.199.78.204 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no discussion and a lot of pointless revert bullying. Anyone want to discuss the issue? I agree the consensus is with the 68. version. Pointlessarguing 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very clear that SlimVirgin and WillBeBack are the problems on this article. I've made a complaint: [4]. Let's get some other, hopefully not personally involved, admins involved.

Would the anon please settle on one account for posts and edits, please? We need very specific objections. If you object to the current lead, we need to know "This sentence should be in it (sentence) because (reason), and here is the source (source). Ditto if you think something important is missing. General comments will just keep us going round in circles. Bear in mind that not everything can be mentioned in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to discuss this with a neutral third party, and I'll be happy to wait for one to arrive. I am 75. not .68. And ese up on the paranoia. You're clearly not in the majority. Pointlessarguing 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any discussion of what specifically needs to be changed about the intro. -Will Beback · † · 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the article should focus on something White has done in the past year to get national attention, and not what he did 11 or 9 years ago. The focus of the introduction should be broader, and should look like some of what is said about White in the press. If you Google the guy's name, you get tens of thousands of sources. Someone reading a broad variety of material should get a good sense of White from the article -- not your sense of him. 68.10.35.153 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has he done in the last year to get national attention? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go and click the links on the page you deleted. Try the national attempt to arrest and extradite him that happened to be on Canada's national television? And the CRTC complaint? Just because Canada is to the North doesn't mean it "doesn't count". And how about the North Toledo riots? White's best known adventure, which is not mentioned at all. And given that he happens to be the US' only publicly Nazi millionaire? That doesn't seem relevant? None of that "promotes" White. That's like saying Adolf Hitler was head of the German state "promotes" Hitler because being head of the German state is a good thing. The irrational approach you've taken to this article, and your abuse of the semi-protect status, is ... well, its the worst of Wikipedia. Pointlessarguing 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've seen any reliable source for White's net worth. Regarding the rest, we should certinaly have a balance that reflects the subject's life and notability. But recent events are not necessarilty more notable than older ones. As for the North Toledo riots, that was the activity of many people not just White. We discuss his role but it also needs to be kept proportionate. -Will Beback · † · 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we should certainly include somehting about this Canadian matter, if we cn find sources for it. Depending on its importance it might also go in the intro. -Will Beback · † · 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why was that deleted? Every news article about White describes him as a "landlord" and discusses his business. If *every news agency in the world* thinks its relevant, why doesn't Wikipedia discuss it in the first paragraph? 68.10.35.153 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add every single thing this person has done. The article can't be used as a platform either to promote or to attack him. I've added something about the Canadian thing. The article already says that he's a local landlord. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so we have to be selective. The things he did to get national attention last year, or two years ago, thus have priority over the thins he did ten years ago. And that's what's not happening here. Hell, the guy was a leftist back when half of what's in the introduction was done -- so what relevance does that have to who he is now? When someone comes to Wikipedia to get information, do they want to know what the guy said he was 18, or what he's saying now? And that's the deliberate distortion which makes the introduction such a problem. Pointlessarguing 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's recentism. We give an overview of what reliable sources have said about him. The material you're calling old isn't old enough to be considered irrelevant now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's also, BTW, why I made the discussion section below. Why should one element there be included and another not included? Want to take on that discussion? Why do you think the North Toledo riot -- one of the first things to come up when you Google White's name, isn't important, and Columbine is? Weren't other people involved in Columbine? The article implies White didn't even have a real role in that -- yet you give that priority over what he is best known for, and which appeared on CNN and every major TV station in the world? Your editing decisions are clearly POV and biased -- and that's painfully obvious, it seems, to everyone but you guys, who are using dishonest tricks, dishonestly, to keep this article inaccurate and misfocused. Pointlessarguing 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases I'd say that reades may know what the subject is doing "now" but may want to know the background. Regarding being a landlord, that doesn't make one notable. Yes, it's a part of how the subject earns a living, but it's no more important than what school he ewwnet to or other mundane details. We also have to take into account that this subject has a reputation for making outrageous statements and is not necessarily a reliable source even for his own biography. So, for example, we can't take his word for it that he was offered but refused payments for being a Pravda columnist. We need 3rd-party sources for contentious assertions like that. As for the Canadian matter, I don't think that the proposed edit was a neutral account of what the CBC article says. I'm sure we can do better. -Will Beback · † · 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.10.35.153 (talk · contribs) has previously indicated that he's Bill White. [5] [6] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that user doesn't believe in anonymous editing as much as claimed.[7] We can take this up elsewhere. -Will Beback · † · 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the major media things White has been involved in? I think it might be useful to list them and then try to figure out which are appropriate for the article and which are not. Some have been touched on here. My suggestions:

Richard Warman / Canada controversy (2006)

North Toledo riot (2005)

Columbine (1999)

Red Lake Massacre (2004?)

Lefkow Shooting (2002? 2003?)

1996 abused child internet event

Publishing Overthrow.com / other white websites (Vanguard News Network?)

Various National Socialist Movement activities (aggregated)

Various ANSWP activities (aggregated)

Various leftist / anarchist activites (pre-NSM)

Various electoral activities (1998 - 2002)

Business activities, including protests against them (aggregated)

Published writings -- Pravda, Washington Times, elsewhere

Any others that have drawn national media attention?

From the A.P. wire and reported on CNN 9/21/07

The FBI is reviewing an unnamed website that purports to list addresses of 5/6 black teens known as "the Jena 6", accused of beating a white teen. The "white supremacist" site "essentially called for their lynching," an agency spokeswomen said Saturday. CNN first reported Friday about the Web site, which features a swastika, frequent use of racial slurs, a mailing address in Roanoke, Va., and phone numbers purportedly for some of the teens' families "in case anyone wants to deliver justice." That page is dated Thursday. William A. "Bill" White, listed as the Web site's editor and commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, did not immediately answer an e-mail to his address. Calls to one of the two William Whites listed in Roanoke were not answered; the other said he was not involved with the site. This is not unlike Bill White's past alleged behavior, listing name and telephone number of an alleged abused teenage girl. The parents received endless harassment as a result of the posting on his website. The article is especially relevant today, as the Jena 6 trials are beginning to commence. JeNINfer 10:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotect}}

Requesting only anonymous users be banned from edits. Problem is with registered users and one admin, not anons.

SEMI PROTECTION SHALL NOT BE USED IN A CONTENT DISPUTE BETWEEN REGISTERED USERS AND ANONYMOUS USERS WITH THE INTENT TO LOCK OUT THE ANONYMOUS USERS 68.10.35.153 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes about page protection, and requests for semiprotection, belong at WP:RFPP. CMummert · talk 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

look at his blog - Bananas 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Shout at me for doing wrong![reply]

Thanks. We've seen that and the community is not concerned. It's harder to destroy Wikipedia than it looks. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thats good to hear ;) Bananas 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Shout at me for doing wrong![reply]

Here we go with the page name again. Someone changed it from Bill White (neo-Nazi) to Bill White (National-Socialist) without discussion. I moved it back, and now someone has reverted the change.

The page name Bill White (neo-Nazi) was decided upon after a lengthy discussion. The new title violates WP:MOS with its aberrant capitalization and hyphenation. While the term "neo-Nazi" is clear, few would know what is meant by "National-Socialist." While it is true the term "Nazi" came from the German words for "National Socialist," it's clear that "Nazism" is the universally understood term for the racist belief system of the Nazis, which was not simply a combination of nationalism and socialism but something different entirely. -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was a consensus for "neo-Nazi". "National-Socialist" is a less optimal qualifier for several reasons, both stylistic and substantive. I'm going to move it back and lock it. If the user would like to discuss the change I'm sure everyone would be open to hearing his reasoning. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term neo-nazi is a slang term where as national socialist is not, also bill is not the commander of the American neo-nazi workers party rather the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party. Just because some many don't know the meaning of National Socialist does not mean that the standards should be lowered rather they should be educated. Usnn 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-Nazi" isn't a slang term, but it may be pejorative. It's a term that's often used to describe him, but I don't see him describing himself that way. Even so it does appear reasonably neutral given the circumstances. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell bill himself suggested using National Socialist and was ignored completely.Usnn 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-Nazi" is hardly a slang term -- it is far better known and understood than "national socialist." It also is a better description. The Czech National Social Party is nationalist and socialist, for instance, but isn't Nazi. -- Mwalcoff 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this i was looking at the Bill White page and noticed a link to this page Bill White (Canadian politician) so what about Bill White (Virginian politician) as bill will be running for mayor of Roanoke. Usnn 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not what he's known for -- he's known for being a neo-Nazi. Plus, given this guy's electoral track record, it's doubtful he'll win any more than a few votes, so he can hardly be considered a notable politician. -- Mwalcoff 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his own words in response to a reporters question 9. Your group has been described as Neo-Nazi. Is that accurate? >There is nothing "neo" about us. We are National Socialists.Usnn 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the objection is to "neo", not "Nazi"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that hasn't come through in my posts, but yesUsnn 23:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what's the problem with "neo"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'neo-Nazi' is a better label than 'National Socialist'. Using the term 'Nazi' coveys a specific historical meaning. Revolutionaryluddite 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else needs to be said. KingmanIII 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry includes an inaccurate section stating that Bill White was an anarchist at one time. White was never an anarchist although he claimed he was. White was rejected by all of the anarchists he came in contact with, which probably accounts for his drift around various political ideologies. In fact, in a prescient sign of White's current ideology, when White first contacted the anarchist movement circa 1995, he was immediately given the nickname "Kaiser Bill" for his clear authoritarian views. White's "anarchism" was not anarchism, rather his skewed teenager's view of what anarchism was about. White went on to fabricate many things about his "Utopian Anarchist Party", including the ludicrous claim that it was the largest anarchist organization in the United States. In fact, the UAP was just Bill and a handful of his buddies. White's penchant for lying, fabrication, and character assassination is widely knwon at this point. This section needs to be changed to reflect the fact that White claimed to be an anarchist, but never was one. Chuck0 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with any biography of a living person, we need to have sources for any contentious statements. If there's a reliable source for this informatoin then we can include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an anarchist, I am very aware and can give you a great many sources demonstrating that his views were not that of an anarchist. Violent revolution except in a case of life-threatening, wide-spread need is against anarchist philosophy: "From my point of view the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no Anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what Anarchism stands for... " -Joseph Labadie, Anarchism and Crime. -Annon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.108.253 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section should be removed until it can be documented that White was actually an anarchist. Calling yourself an anarchist (or anything else for that matter) when you don't have a firm grasp of what it is that you are identifying yourself with should not be the basis for content here. The fact is that White was widely rejected as an anarchist. There is numerous material on forums and websites out there where anarchists disavowed White's "anarchism." A good article on this is "Third Positionist" Fascism In The US: A Case Study Of Bill White. Chuck0 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Bill White an anarchist is sort-of like calling John Shelby Spong a Christian, Lou Dobbs a populist, or Arnold Schwarzenegger a conservative. Regardless of what other political extremists labeled him, White self-identified as an anarchist in the past. Some anarchists might have viewed him as not a 'true' anarchist, but some anarchists also believe it is a contradiction to be a practicing Jew and an anarchist at the same time. Unless there's a reliable source disputing White's ideological status, it's a no true scotsman arguement that shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm the reliable source. I'm pretty familiar with his activities during this time period. I could cite emails from various email lists, but Wikipedia doesn't allow those kind of sources. So where does that leave the truth? This section should clearly state that White self-identified as an "anarchist" but this was disputed by actual anarchists. Chuck0 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to the Utopian Anarchist Party? Dammit, I want to have a party around where the first line in their platform is, "The UAP seeks to eradicate the government of the United States and not replace it" with their leader looking all bad-assy with his goatee and red beret. Now it's gone, Luke Kuhn is no longer waving the "Fuck the curfew: Just walk away!" sign (I don't even know where he is), and Bill turned out to be some far-right racist wacko.  :'( I want the old UAP back, the one that urged website viewers to request to radio stations that they play Homegrown's "She's Anti" after the Columbine shootings. Now all I see on overthrow.com is some swastika and some trip report from Mexico about how nonwhite people suck. Where's the clenched fist with "UAP" across it? Where are the drug and bomb recipes? WHERE ARE THE PYRO GIRL STORIES?!! It's not fair... 72.145.150.162 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added several links to correct and clarify the erroneous "Roanoke attack" story. I have a feeling the radical anti-Bill White elements here will now try to delete the entire section, but if it is to be presented, it should be presented as it was found to be true in the court, not based on some make believe hatred of the man, as much of this article represents.

The article only asserts one conviction, and that source doesn't say whether the 7 months in a county detention center was for a felony. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill went to Magruder High School. Rumor has it he was expelled for punching the principal, Mr. Graham. I know he went to Magruder because I knew him. He even signed my yearbook, so the article isn't accurate regarding his youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.134.31 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing text says:

• White was raised in the Horizon Hill neighborhood of Rockville, Maryland. According to an April 1999 interview with The Washington Times, he began to drift toward anarchism after reading The Communist Manifesto at the age of 13. [1] He attended Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, where he founded the Utopian Anarchist Party (UAP) and published a magazine that focused on opposition to the education system, psychiatry, and the police.

It's possible that he attended Colonel Zadok A. Magruder High School, was kicked out, and then attended Walt Whitman High School. But unless we have a reliable source for attending Magruder we can't add that. A scan of the yearbook would probably not be acceptable due to copyright restrictions. Even for notable people, the particular high school that they attended is rarely a major concern, so I don't know that this requires significant research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source states what sentence White could face if convicted. That's not crystal ball gazing. It's a fact, derived by the reliable source from the charges. Please stop inserting the consequences if he's acquitted. They're not in the source. David in DC (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that speculation on "possible" sentences runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Precedent is not to speculate on all possible outcomes, and, in fact, the speculation about a trial is currently under discussion in several places on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speculation - it is properly sourced.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Statements, however sourced, which refer to "maybes" are still speculation. Many times one hears of a person facing a thousand years of jail time, and the actual sentence is ten years or the like. We know he is a bad guy, but speculating on sentences does not make the article any better. Collect (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that White may receive if convicted is irrelevant to his ideology (but is very relevant to criminal charges against him). White is not charged with being a racist; he is charged with threatening others. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That is not the point -- is "potential" sentence relevant to a BLP in general? We surely do not call him guilty before trial - should we sentence him before trial? Collect (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really speculation. It is a fact that criminal charges have maximum sentences. There's nothing speculative about saying that someone charged with crime X faces Y years in prison if convicted. It's really no different than saying that if a person is recognized as Best Actor by the film academy that they'll receive an Oscar statuette, or that if elected to the U.S. Presidency Obama may reside in the White House, or that the winner of Survivor may receive $1 million. It's a logical and expected consequence, not speculation. We should be sure that we don't word it as a presumption, saying he "may be sentenced to as many as 55 years on prison" is perfectly correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is speculative as it was arrived at by multiplying maximum individual sentences by number of counts, and not by looking at the Federal sentencing guidelines, which would likely be far more accurate. I am not re-editing this, but making my clear position known. Can you offer a precedent on WP for doing the "multiplicative sentencing" before trial? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not doing the "multiply individual sentences to arrive at a total" thing, which could be original research. We're doing the "summarize reliable sources" thing. If you'd like to see examples of that type of editing in other article they shouldn't be hard to find. ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search: "faces up to" "years in prison" It looks like plenty of article report this kind of information. It's a standard and logical way of indicating the severity of the charges. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]