Talk:White ethnostate

Northwest Territorial Imperative

Are we really trying to say that the so-called "white ethnostate" is different than the white homeland concept advanced by various "white nationalist" groups?

What is the purpose in trying to list Robert Mathews & the founder of White supremacist group Aryan Nations?64.134.162.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What are you asking, exactly? The source mentions that Butler proposed a white homeland in the pacific northwest. I've removed reference to Mathews, but if a reliable source lists him as an example, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If Robert Mathews & David Lane along with Butler have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of a racist haven called an "ethnostate" or what was added into the section then why was Mathews even listed? If the "Northwest Territorial Imperative" does however have a relation to the neo-nazi concept "white ethnostate" then it should by all means be listed. It seems like intense whitewashing otherwise64.134.162.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't get it, how is this whitewashing? I don't think reliable sources are taking this distinction between white homeland and "ethnostate" seriously, for obvious reasons, but that seems like a reason to maybe rename this article. Regardless of the term being used, the concept was advanced by Butler according to the cited source. This source also supports that Mathews pushed for this "homeland":

• Barry J. Balleck (2014). Allegiance to Liberty: The Changing Face of Patriots, Militias, and Political Violence in America. Praeger. pp. 122–123. ISBN 1440830959. Retrieved 18 April 2018.

Are you saying these sources aren't accurate? Are you saying that we should only use sources that specifically say "ethnostate"? Help me out, here. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

When I went to the page, I seen it referred to Cascadia as the idea behind Aryan Nations, or at least Butler & Mathews. Butler & Mathews weren't motivated by a Cascadia doctrine, they we're motivated by the idea of an all-white nation in the Pacific Northwest. Aryan Nations was dedicated to a world with absolutely no Jewish people & no non-white people so I fixed the article by re-directing it to the Northwest "territorial imperative" while retaining the Cascadia part but also adding David Lane's "territorial imperative" & the anti-American quote from SPLC. "White ethnostate" is the same thing as the "all-white nation" advocated by Mathews, Lane & Butler. The name is "accurate" per se, but the article should be linked to "88 Precepts" & "Fourteen Words" in my opinion as it's all related. Ethnostate should be synonymous with "white homeland", "living space", "whiteland", etc.. Hence why I added it and in particular Lane, the most prolific neo-Nazi writer. But I digress. Thanks for fixing the article.:) 64.134.162.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Okay, thanks for explaining. I agree that Cascadia doesn't belong here. From what I understand, Cascadia isn't tied to white nationalism.

The SPLC source barely mentioned anything about a white homeland, so it wasn't really suitable. Lane undoubtedly contributed to this nonsense, but to avoid creating a walled garden of white supremacist ideologies, Wikipedia should use reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhodesian Ethnostate

Rhodesia, at least in its later years, was not intended to be a white ethnostate as it is defined in this article. It was instead intended to be a white minority-rule country. Although Rhodesia did openly use some softer methods of rebalancing the demographics in favour of whites, i.e. sponsored birth control for black women, encouraging white immigration, the end-goal was to reach a proportion of whites such that confidence in the stability of a white-led regime could be maintained, not to have a nation entirely of whites. Aceedwin (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

Given the article's brevity, I recommend this page be folded into the even shorter White separatism page, since this is part of that philosophy. Skingski (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Duplication

Isn't the sentence under Proposed locations:

"After the end of the apartheid, some Afrikaner nationalist organizations, including Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, started to promote the idea of a Volkstaat that would be created in the Western Cape region."

Saying the exact same thing as this sentence under Historical attempts at creating a white ethnostate/South Africa:

"Post-apartheid, some Afrikaner groups such as Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) and Afrikaner Volksfront have promoted the idea of a Boerstaat or a homeland for Afrikaners only."

but with citations? Can we merge the sentences and have them be under South Africa or under Proposed Locations? Skingski (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, paragraph 1 under Proposed Locations repeats the same info as in Historical attempts at creating a white ethnostate/South Africa and /Nazi Germany. These paragraphs should be combined too. Maybe keep current ideologies about proposed locations here and historical ones under Historical attempts. Skingski (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Page order

Articles on movements, philosophies, etc. typically or always list historical events first and current events last. Perhaps Proposed locations should be placed after the section on Historical attempts. Skingski (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A consensus for removing an unsourced statement?

Why in the world would I need to reach a consensus to remove an unsourced statement TimothyBlue? The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes unsubstantiated claims. Can you cite any academic source that defines Nazi Germany as a "white ethnostate". Alcaios (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

At a glance, it appears there are sources making this connection. This book, for example, compares the alt-right's planned ethnostate to the Volk concept of Nazism. The term's close association with neo-Nazism tells us that there is something to this. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The source states that white ethnostate's "hyper-nationalist racism [is] reminiscent of the Nazi's historic concept of Volk". I'm not saying Nazi Germany and the Völkisch movement are completely unrelated to the idea of a white ethnostate.

My argument is that (1) no RS that I've found defines Nazi Germany as a "white ethno-state" or Nazism as a project towards a "white ethno-state" (2) Nazi Germany is the only so-called "white ethnostate" listed in the article that wanted to exterminate or enslave a part of "white people" (Slavs), because the article is using an unstable definition of "white" which could encompass anything the contributor want it to do (like: "the Young Turks wanted to create a white ethnostate". Why not? Turks are considered whites in US classifications – PS: I really don't like racial classifications, and I'm baffled that it still exists. – So do Armenians? It doesn't matter, we have the Nazi Germany precedent). Alcaios (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios First I wanted to let you know I intended no offense at reverting your change. I simply thought it deserved discussion. It's been a long day for me and it's not over yet. I promise a reply as soon as I can. I understand it's not a clear cut issue. I also promise to respect the consensus on this issue.   // Timothy :: talk  22:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the tone of my answer: I was just surprised that we need to have a discussion about something that is neither sourced in the article nor supported by reliable sources as far as I know. Alcaios (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios No worries I figured everything was friendly, but just didn't want to get off on the wrong foot. My reply is below. Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply.   // Timothy :: talk  04:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the use of racial classifications.

My sources for considering Nazi Germany as a white ethnostate.

Those primarily based on the connection between Nazi racial ideology and the ideology of white nationalists in the United States and the impact that had on Nazi Germany.

• Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law by James Q. Whitman
• The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective by Carol Kakel
• Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest by Edward B. Westermann
• The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism by Stefan Kuhl
• War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black

Works that discuss the goals of Nazi racial ideology that make the connection without the main focus on the United States would include

• Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Dialectic of Volk by Christopher M. Hutton
• The Racial State by Michael Burleigh
• Hammer of the Gods: The Thule Society and the Birth of Nazism by David Luhrssen
• Nazi Eugenics: Precursors, Policy, Aftermath by Melvyn Conroy and Tudor Georgescu
• From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany by R. Weikart

The term white ethnostate has been popularized recently, so none of these works use that term. But the works document it without using phrase.

article is using an unstable definition of "white" --because the concept of "race" is a myth, there can't and never has been a stable definition of white. (eg: How Jews Became White by Karen Brodkin, Working Toward Whiteness by David R. Roediger, How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev). But the Nazi's myth of Aryan and the myth of whiteness are rooted in the same fundamental racial grouping, even if the exact details vary.

to exterminate or enslave a part of "white people" --the definition of what is "white" is a myth of has evolved over time/place. Racially the Nazis didn't consider Slavs, Jews, etc as the same race as themselves. Nazis considered them as "subhuman" fundamentally different from the "master race" of northwestern Europeans

I agree with your assessment this article needs work.

I had started a wall of text but I decided to simply put these out and see where the discussion goes.   // Timothy :: talk  04:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

None of your source describes Nazi Germany as White ethnostate TimothyBlue, as you admit it. Once again, I'm not saying that there are no connection between "White ethnostate projects" and Nazi Germany, but that no reliable source presented so far describes it as a White ethnostate. Unless it is clarified in the article, and based on the sources you provided, this will remain in my view an elaborate attempt to escape WP:SYNTH. Alcaios (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That' why I lost faith in Wikipedia – at least 5 times a week I face contributors violating internal rules. I'm now semi-retired and I hope everyone will calm down when Trump is no longer president. Alcaios (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Thorpewilliam: @Gooduserdude: @Elli: Can we get a consensus on the short description here instead of engaging in a protracted edit war? Dronebogus (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are the options being disputed:

• ”state whose citizenry is limited to white people”— user:Thorpewilliam
• ”system of government”— user:Elli
• ”racist state whose citizenry is limited to white people”— user:Gooduserdude

Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus:, @Elli: had a good version which i support Gooduserdude (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what short descriptions are meant to do -- they're supposed to give an idea of the type of thing the article describes, not the specifics. It's not oversimplification to avoid detail in the short description; the details are meant to be in the article. What, fundamentally, is the concept of a white ethnostate? It's a proposed system of government. That's about the shortest, most neutral thing we can say on the topic, and it makes for a good short description. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I support the first option more since it summarizes the article Dronebogus (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

But if the second has more policy support I’ll yield. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions are not meant to summarize the article. They're meant as a concise explanation of the scope of the page and are primarily used for disambiguation in search results and shown at the top of the page on the mobile app. For both cases, I think "proposed system of government" is acceptable. Per WP:SDCONTENT: Editors adding or amending short descriptions should bear in mind that they are not intended to define the subject of the article. Rather, they provide a very brief indication of the field that is covered, a short descriptive annotation, and a disambiguation in searches (especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The shortdesc as it now stands serves its purpose. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

it would help if there was wider consensus than that Gooduserdude (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on shortdesc of White ethnostate

should the shortdesc of White ethnostate be the A: system of government (current one as agreed in the discussion above) or B: racist state whose citizenry is limited to white people (the original version) Gooduserdude (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• B, it has been consensus here for a very long time until the above users changed it, as the current one does not "very brief indication of the field that is covered, a short descriptive annotation" as per WP:SDCONTENT despite it being claimed to do so it the discussion above, also i think the word "racist" is important to be included in the shortdesc Gooduserdude (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• B, as it is a racist state without a doubt.Maria Gemmi (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• B no reason to pussyfoot around the facts. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• B Accuracy and specificity are important in an encyclopedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• B Most accurate description. Desertambition (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• B Precise and accurate. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• B might as well throw my hat into the ring. Per above. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"white" in the lead

This should be capitalized, as are all the other racial and ethnic identifiers in the lead. Not doing so implicitly affirms Whiteness as the standard and norm against which all other racial and ethnic identities are compared. Squirrel Nest (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now capitalized all instances of "White" and "Black" in the article, except in quotations, etc. Previously there was a mix of lowercase and uppercase for both words. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is ukraine and UPA in the article?

Ukrainians did not want to create a white ethnostate because they basically were one. Russians and Poles are also white. Actions of upa are just typical attempts at ethnic cleansing of other ethnic minorities but they were not racially motivatd. Ukrainians Poles and Russians are all white and slavic. Ukrainians wanted to get rid of Polish and russian cultures and languages from ukraine. If we classify actions of UPA as attempt to create a white-ethno state shouldn't countries like independent state of croatia be also included? Or even Poland ethnically cleansing Germans and Ukrainians in late 1940s could be classified as attempts at white-ethno state. 185.3.178.122 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I will remove the Ukrainian bit. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Nazi Germany as a "White ethnostate"

I removed the Nazi Germany section because it had no sources describing Nazi Germany as a "White ethnostate". User:Gooduserdude reverted this, claiming that this was already discussed at the talkpage, the result and conensus is nazi germany qualifies "Racist state whose citizenry is limited to white people (or what they defined as aryan)" also see the releveant sources on the talkpage. The only relevant discussion appears to be at #A consensus for removing an unsourced statement?.

I concur with User:Alcaios that there is no need to reach a consensus to remove unsourced statements. See WP:UNSOURCED, which says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. A list of books on a talk page, as was provided by User:TimothyBlue, does not fulfil the requirement here. The sources should be in the article, and the citations should have specific pages listed, ideally with quotations.

Also notifying User:Grayfell who participated in the discussion above. Un assiolo (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that the article is not about the term 'white ethnostate', it is about the concept of a white ethnostate. We requires that sources directly support attached statements, but we do not require that they use any specific wording to do so. "Ethnostate" is a relatively recent term which appears to have been coined around 1990, and reliable sources are free to use other terms to describe this concept. So what do sources need to say to satisfy your complaints?

Further, it is widely accepted for pragmatic reasons to briefly summarize topics while linking to other article if those articles have ample sources. No, it's not best practice, but to selectively enforce some rules while ignoring the larger historical concept of, say, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, Generalplan Ost, etc. is not productive. Nothing about the two sentences in the article on this seem even remotely extraordinary given the sources at those linked article, and this clearly isn't a BLP issue or similar.

So with that in mind, what, exactly, is the objection, here? Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: sorry user:Un assiolo but with your logic, meybe you shall instead start an WP:AFD? NONE of sources for NONE of the entries EXPLICITLY refers to them as "white ethnostates" or even "Historical attempts to create white ethnostates". as Grayfell pointed out above this article is not about semantics but about a certain concept Gooduserdude (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell and Gooduserdude: I did seriously consider taking the article to AfD, not because of concerns about notability (I think the topic deserves an article), but under WP:TNT. However, I concluded that there is still a salvageable article here once the OR is removed.

I think the entire "Historical attempts to create White ethnostates" section may need to be removed. I chose to focus on the Nazi Germany section first because it is the most blatant, being completely unsourced, and I also know no sources exist because German racial ideology was not about "White" people, but about Germans or Aryans or whatever – not the same as the modern American conception of "White". Keeping unsourced content is not merely "not best practice", it is in direct violation of WP:V, a fundamental policy.

For the rest, I will need to examine the sources, but it seems likely that none of them say these were "attempts to create White ethnostates". Concluding that is WP:SYNTH.

I will repeat that WP:UNSOURCED says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Anyone who keeps restoring unsourced content will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If you agree that there is a "salvageable" article, than you shouldn't be selectively deleting this based on flimsy and bureaucratic grounds. Nazi ideology wasn't about "white" people, because "white" is an English word, and "white" isn't a particularly coherent concept anyway, even in English. That's why I mentioned that this isn't about the term "white ethnostate" it's about the underlying concept. There are likely thousands of sources already cited on Wikipedia for this connection at Nazism, Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, Nazi racial theories, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, Generalplan Ost], Lebensraum, Master race, Nuremberg Laws, Aryanism, etc.

Here is the paragraph: Adolf Hitler planned to create a Nordic/Aryan superstate that would rule most of Europe, dominate its geopolitical landscape and eradicate anyone who was not considered "pure" by the Nazis. Nazi Germany's objective was to turn a large part of central and eastern Europe into an "Aryan" homeland by cleansing its population through the genocide and mass deportation of non-Aryans such as Jews, Slavs (i.e. Poles, Serbs, etc.), Roma/Gypsies, and homosexuals. This is both factually accurate and useful information for anyone who wishes to understand this topic. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've used template:excerpt to expand this section with sources. Since Greater Germanic Reich is a wp:good article, I trust that the sources are sufficient. It would, of course, be better to summarize some of these thousands of available sources to add a new, briefer summary of this as it relates to the topic. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The article can be salvaged by removing the unsourced content and the OR. Your comment and the word "whitewashing" in your edit summary suggests you believe I am denying Nazi Germany was racist. I am not. Rather, I am disputing the nature of their racism. This article is about the concept of a "White ethnostate". It is not about an "Aryan ethnostate" or about the "Greater German Reich". Saying Nazi Germany was acting on behalf of "White" people is ridiculous when they were murdering people who would be considered "White" today by the millions because of their ethnicity. They had a completely different view on race. That is why I believe a source doesn't exist. It's not just that it is currently unsourced, but that it cannot be sourced even in theory, because it is wrong. Edit: I am not saying the paragraph is not true, I am saying it is not relevant. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that, sincerely. I trust that your intentions are good, but I still strongly disagree with your conclusions. "White"/"Volk"/"Aryan" etc. have always been artificial and constantly shifting based on convenience. This is arguably a defining trait of fascism, since the in-group is constantly shrinking and the out-group is constantly expanding. This only works because concepts like "white people" can never be pinned-down. To put it another way, every attempt at applying Race (human categorization) to groups of people is going to run into this problem. There is no fair pass/fail test for whiteness or "Aryaness" or whatever. These groups get to use whatever test they want, whenever they want. There is a false precision baked in to these attempted "ethnostates", and we should not accept this kind of sophistry. I consider this to be a WP:FRINGE issue. The entire concept of a 'white ethnostate' is a form of pseudoscience with very serious consequences, and to imply that it has a single workable definition would be a mistake.

Contemporary sources did not call this a "white ethnostate" because that term did not exist, but the concept was already there, and more than anyone, the Nazis helped define it before the term was coined. In practice this is the template that later 'white ethnoostates' have had to either attempt to follow or attempt to explicitly reject. To omit this context from the article would make the article less useful. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell: How about a "Background" section that explains the origin of related movements (White nationalism, etc.), with reference to the Nazis, but without stating that Nazi Germany was an "attempt to create a White ethnostate"? I think it should be possible to find a source that explicitly links White nationalism to Nazism, eliminating concerns about OR/SYNTH. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

no, how about you to WP:DROP THE STICK and accept that there simply no consensus for your edits?. Gooduserdude (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that this is an OR case. I support your edits. Grayfell's arguments are just his own opinions not backed up by scholarship. The point raised about differentiating between a term and the corresponding concept is not convincing. I would say that except for obvious synonyms, doing so is OR. In this case, it's not obvious at all, as "Nordic" or "Aryan" isn't obviously a synonym for "white." JDiala (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Postcard showing a rural landscape in the Ozarks . A number of white separatists are proposing to create a white ethnostate in this region of the central United States.

@Un assiolo and JDiala: There appears to be some consensus around removing the section 'Historical attempts to create White ethnostates.' While I remain open to other perspectives if enough consensus is reached, we should apply the same logic consistently. If we remove this section, then the mention of Volkstaat in the South Africa section of 'Proposed White Ethnostates' should also be reconsidered, as it similarly lacks sources specifically identifying it as a white ethnostate. basically an american term for a american state, In the french and russian Wikipedias, the article on 'white ethnostates' includes this image with a similar caption. My proposal is that, if you agree to include this image like this (see older version of my sandbox), I would support removing the section 'Historical attempts to create White ethnostates' Gooduserdude (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the image is appropriate as it seems to paint a romantic picture of a "White ethnostate". But I suppose it's less bad than outright false claims. So, sure, go ahead, replace the current version with the one from your sandbox. --Un assiolo (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

South Africa in lead

Having a paragraph only about South Africa in the lead section is WP:UNDUE. I assume no one actually believes South Africa should be singled out like this, and this is just an artefact of how the article developed. I have moved the content down into the section on South Africa. If someone wants, they can add a summary of the "Historical attempts to create White ethnostates" section to the lead. Per MOS:LEADCITE, it does not have to include references. Un assiolo (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove the "Historical attempts to create White ethnostates" section

There are zero sources describing any of these as "attempts to create White ethnostates". Editors came to the conclusion that they are by taking the definition of "White ethnostate" from one source and then applying it to historical events described in other sources, which is textbook WP:SYNTH. The entire section needs to be removed. If there is no consensus to remove it here, I will take it to WP:ORN. Un assiolo (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#OR at White ethnostate.

I also want to object to the accusation of edit warring by Gooduserdude: I proposed the change on the talk page before doing it, and no one objected. I also haven't made a single revert, as this was a different change from the one I was proposing earlier. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: ok i should not have called that "edit warring" but there was several reverts/removals, against consensus, and while this technically would not pass as WP:3RR i felt there was a push from User:Un assiolo against removing things against consensus Gooduserdude (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently ORN is dead. I guess there will have to be an RfC. For now, I will repost my comment from ORN, if anyone cares to respond:

Suppose this were about a different term – for example, fascism. Would it be acceptable to take a definition of fascism from one source and combine it with a source describing a politician's words or actions, and then claim the politician is a fascist, without a source explicitly saying so? Clearly not. How is this any different?

"Ethnostate" is a very specific term with a very specific meaning, while the "historical attempts" described are generic racism. That is why I am nitpicking about sources: there are no sources because these historical events do not fit the definition. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead

This sentence was recently added to the lead: Proponents of ethnocracies for Whites believe that a nation would become an advanced country if its majority population is White.

It was added along with sections on Argentina and Brazil. The sentence may apply to those two, but it is clearly inapplicable to the United States, Australia or New Zealand, which are both already majority-White and are already developed/advanced countries. So it's a complete non sequitur.

I propose that the sentence be removed. Un assiolo (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

US, Aus, NZ became developed countries only after they were colonized by the whites, not before. These countries have historically made policies—to maintain their population majority white, and have more powers/privileges for whites so that their countries become advanced, apart from other reasons, all of which constitute to make them an ethnocracy for whites (a white ethnostate if you prefer). Seeing these historical developments now through the lenses of social justice/racism obfuscates one's understanding of the whole concept of white ethnostate, which is happening now in discussions of this topic. Rim sim (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Notifying User:rim sim who added the sentence. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: I completely agree with you, I strongly recommend reverting these latest changes. I still stand by my earlier comments that historical attempts to create White ethnostates should remain in the article. However, states like Brazil and Argentina, which followed Blanqueamiento policies, should definitely not be included. As Un assiolo pointed out, including these examples makes the other entries irrelevant and shifts the focus of the article to something entirely different. Gooduserdude (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, actually i have now made the changes per above as i now feel there is enough users agreeing to this and therefore consensus for that Gooduserdude (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that we can at least agree on something, but I have to ask: how is the Argentine/Brazilian racial immigration policy different from the Australian/NZ/US racial immigration policy? It is claimed for both groups of countries that the policy was simply excluding non-Whites and only allowing Whites to immigrate. What then makes Australia/NZ/US qualify as "White ethnostates" but not Argentina/Brazil? --Un assiolo (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

well its actually that Australian/NZ/US had a idea about racial purity (One-drop rule in USA for example), this article is essentialy about white nationalists (the states they created specifically) and the fact that no white nationalists from these historic eras would view Blanqueamiento as anything but Miscegenation Gooduserdude (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The sections on Argentina and Brazil that you removed only talked about racial immigration policies. They didn't mention miscegenation. In addition, Blanqueamiento says In the early Republican era of Brazil, miscegenation as a form of whitening was looked down upon, as it was thought that the mestiço population retained the inferior qualities of the Indigenous and Afro-Brazilians. It was for this reason that immigration as a form of whitening was preferred rather than through interracial relations. So immigration was the preferred means of making the country all-White, and miscegenation was discouraged, same as in Australia/NZ/US. If you want to say anti-miscegenation laws are what sets them apart, those only existed in some but not all Australian states according to Anti-miscegenation laws, and in some but not all US states according to Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. They never existed in New Zealand and interracial marriage was not unusual. So, again, what's the difference in policy between these two groups of countries? --Un assiolo (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this question if you agree to remove the entire section, as you said you would above. --Un assiolo (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

actually you have made such good arguments that i have no further objections to your reasoning or proposals to this article Gooduserdude (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)