Talk:The Turner Diaries

Should the terrorism list include ones where the perpetrator only referenced the "Day of the Rope?"

Bruce Hoffman links the book to a few attacks where the perpetrator referenced the idea [1] but the term has diffused so I am unsure in lieu of a more specific tie. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Is this a categorization question? Or listing attacks on this article (rather than the linking to this article from pages about the attack)? ButlerBlog (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog The list on this article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

My issue is, some sources do explicitly connect them saying that to the book, but it feels different to put that as well with people who we have proof actually read the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh, that helps clarify; thanks. I tend to be of the mindset that lists risk being a dumping ground for all manner of events, regardless of how deeply (or not deeply) connected it is. It's much better to have a section of prose that describes significant events that have a direct connection and why. So, I'm not actually a fan of the list we already have as it stands. Adding marginally connected events that are connected to the Day of the Rope as an idea are not, IMO, all that statistically significant if they are not directly connected to the book as a whole. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog See, I disagree with you in this case because the amount of terror attacks it inspired is the main reason it is notable. A prose section would be a list in disguise unless we only included McVeigh and cut all the other attacks, because every other incident is just that, an isolated incident that doesn’t flow into each other. I also think a list is due weight because Berger includes a very comprehensive list.

Wrt the “Day of the Rope”, I would agree with you, but my concern is that Hoffman does directly say two terrorists were inspired by the book, but only used as evidence that they used the phrase - so is it arbitrary to not include? Eh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

A lot of those that are included are not necessarily "inspired by". Berger uses "inspired" for some, and while with others he's more cautious in his wording - and likewise should we be - not to "downplay it" but because language precision is important in conveying an accurate picture of its connection to the event. Having it in their possession only indicates possession of extremist material (and some of these probably had other extremist material as well, which Berger also notes), it does not indicate inspiration. Only some of these were "inspired by", while in other instances it was only a part of the total. When it's a direct connection, it should be included. And I'm not opposed to inclusion of the others, but it should be clear where it inspired the act versus where it was a sum part of the total (but as notability, that's a slippery slope because this book is likely in the library of every extremist in America). I do have a physical copy of Hoffman as well. There as well note the precision in language. When referencing the Capitol attack, he points out the similarity, but doesn't say it's a direct connection. But when he discusses Earnest, he's more direct (and should be). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Then should we remove the “inspired perpetrators in over 200 killings” bit? Because that includes all of the more dubious ones. Really that goes for all the entries here I wouldn’t say any besides the Order are direct. Even with McVeigh it is unclear to what extent it served as “inspiration”. And why should he be more direct wrt Earnest, since there’s no other reference to Turner besides the quote that has diffused out from the book’s context? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd certainly keep McVeigh. He loved the book so much he was selling copies of it at gun shows. That's certainly significant. And to clarify, I don't have a problem with it being pointed out that it is found in the possession of a lot of extremists. I just want to be precise with the wording of how that's presented. I know you're doing a lot on the article recently, so that's a good thing. It's in a lot of watchlists and no one's reverted anything you've done so far (I don't think) so it must be good so far. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not advocating we remove McVeigh I’m just trying to figure out where the line is so to speak. I get what you mean about the language I will try to make that section clearer.

My goal is to get this to GA then FA. That I will actually achieve that is doubtful but it’s a goal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

GA should certainly be do-able. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"Inspired by"

PARAKANYAA I have checked both of those sources.

‘The Turner Diaries’ didn’t just inspire the Capitol attack. It warns us what might be next [Title]
...When historian and author Kathleen Belew watched a white mob of Trump supporters attack the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, leaving five people dead, she immediately thought of the novel, partly because others have thought about it too: the white supremacists who stormed the Capitol and the law enforcement agencies that monitor them. The FBI has called “The Turner Diaries” “the bible of the racist right.”...
...One of the books most widely read and cited by extreme far-right groups like the Order and the Aryan Republican Army, “The Turner Diaries” has inspired hate crimes and terrorism in the U.S. and beyond for more than 40 years....
"...First, let me talk about how we know the novel is important to these activists. I just saw a video of Proud Boys telling a journalist to read “The Turner Diaries” that was going around online. It shows up everywhere. In the 1980s, there are all of these stories about people finding the book in bookstores all around the world. They kept stacks of them, not just one copy but 15 copies in the book house of one white power terrorist group. They distributed them at paramilitary training camps...."

— LA Times

Note that it's explicit in the title, and the double-quoted exceprt is the answer to the question about other events that might have been inspired by this, where the interviewee starts by talking about events surrounding Jan 6 to preface their answer.

...The accelerationist strategy that produced the Christchurg and Poway attacks and surfaced again in Washington, DC, on January 6th, 2021, is far from new, and its sulfurous legacy can be traced back decades. This terrorist strategy is in fact part of a long tradition of extreme, destabilizing far-right violence: indeed, each of the social media posts, dangerous plots, and violent incidents recounted so far reveals the dangerous, continued resonance of the accelerationist strategy that Pierce always admitted to advocating in The Turner Diaries. To understand why and to put those events in broader context, one has to view January 6th, 2021, as another milestone in a trajectory that commenced in the late 1970s and gathered momentum throughout the 80s...
...No other book has had so pervasive or sustained an influence over violent far-right extremism in the United States as The Turner Diaries...
...And a makeshift gallows was erected outside -an unmistakable evocation of The Turner Diaries' summons to "hold accountable" America's elected representatives...

— Hoffman & Ware

That's not even getting into how we can best summarize the overall message by Hoffman & Ware, which is clearly that, at least in part, January 6th was inspired by the subject.

I can't see any rationale for "...or otherwise compared to..." other than trying to downplay the connection. There's literally no mention of the subject that doesn't at least imply a causal connection. If you were to write "...inspired by and compared to...", that would seem to be due, but the "...or otherwise compared to..." language doesn't accurately summarize what I'm seeing in the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hoffman & Ware do not explicitly say "inspired", and pulling that out of the text is WP:OR. They say it was an "evocation", and say it inspired far-right extremism in the US, and the tie both to the overall accelerationist terror trend, but they do not say it inspired Jan 6 directly, and we cannot make it say that. An evocation is not an inspiration. That is what the first source says so if we want to just cite that to her that is fine (that is what the article did before I added citations to Hoffman & Ware), but we cannot pretend Hoffman and Ware say something directly that they don't say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The first snippet I quoted from the book is absolutely explicit that Jan 6th is "part of a long tradition" of "the accelerationist strategy" in the subject, and which you just admitted the authors claim is inspired by the subject. You haven't mentioned the other source at all, so I'm taking that as a concession. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants No, because it doesn't say that Pierce originated that tradition, just that he promoted it. It also says the Christchurch shooting was in that tradition. We cannot use that paragraph to say it was inspired by the Christchurch shooting. The issue was never about the news source. Do you want to take this to the WP:ORN noticeboard? Maybe other people could weigh in as to whether this is OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No, because it doesn't say that Pierce originated that tradition, just that he promoted it. You yourself explicitly acknowledged that the subject inspired that tradition just above, and that inspiration is literally the point every single time the subject is mentioned by Hoffman & Ware.

Regarding your repeated mentions of OR, perhaps a reading of WP:SYNTHNOT would do some good.

Also, there's no point to pinging me in a discussion I started. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no section on that page where they explicitly say those words. That Pierce was influential on far-right extremism obviously does not mean we can say it inspired every far-right extremist attack, because the book does not directly say that a specific attack was inspired by the Turner Diaries! That it inspired something related does not mean it directly is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You are arguing that because Pierce influenced far-right extremism, every single far right extremist attack is therefore inspired by it, which is not what they say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You are arguing that the authors are somehow allowing some exception for Jan 6 from the narrative they are establishing in the book, despite literally every mention of Jan 6 in the book very clearly doing the exact opposite, and there being absolutely nothing in the book to even hint at such an exception. I really feel like you're confusing the concepts of them being "explicit" and them saying it "verbatim". One cannot possibly read and comprehend that book and still believe that the authors were not making it clear that subject inspired Jan 6. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

We cannot base explicit article text of off a debatable implication. They do not say on that page that the Turner Diaries inspired January 6. They don't need to say it verbatim of course but they don't say it explicitly. It says there is that both the Turner Diaries and Jan 6 utilized the same accelerationist strategy, not that the book invented it, that the book itself influenced far-right extremism (but does not name Jan 6), and that it was an "evocation" of the Turner Diaries (not an inspiration). I am not ruling out the rest of the book, but we are citing that page, and that page does not say that. If it says it on another page we can change the citation and include it that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Circular logic. The fact that you're arguing doesn't make it debatable, it just means you're arguing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, PARAKANYAA, but this edit by User:MjolnirPants, I agree with it and I don't see why you'd disagree. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Drmies - I'd be inclined to see PARAKANYAA's wording as a more accurate description of both sources. Hoffman and Ware specifically say "The scene evoked the imagined 'Day of the Rope'". In the LA Times piece, I don't see where Kathleen Belew specifically says that it inspired the attack. That's something the staff writer says about the book in general ("'The Turner Diaries' has inspired hate crimes and terrorism in the U.S. and beyond for more than 40 years."), but she's not the expert in that source - Belew is (author of Bring the War Home). ButlerBlog (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Belew calls it a “clear point of inspiration”, which is fairly direct IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

In the LA Times article cited? She says "clear point of reference". ButlerBlog (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

ah, sorry I’m away from my computer right now and relying on memory. There may also be an issue there with how we are representing that source but it is less of one than with the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The page we are citing does not actually say, directly, that January 6 was inspired by the book. It says it evokes it, and that the broad far right extremism it sources from is - but not the event directly. The news source does but we are citing it to two statements and stating it was said by multiple people and not just her. It is not synth but it is extrapolating more than what is actually on that page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• I just reworded the whole sentence, as the thing read really awkwardly, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

"Bible of the racist right"

Hoffman & Ware say a very interesting thing that indicates that the "bible of the racist right" quote may have been made up by Pierce for publicity reasons, and was not actually from the FBI. From page 14:

An apocryphal claim appeared on the back of the 1985 edition that similarly noted how the FBI “has labeled The Turner Diaries ‘the bible of the racist right.’ ”9 Often repeated, it was most likely penned by Pierce for publicity purposes.10

This cites note ten, which says:

"The authors could find no open- source official records (e.g., public testimony, press releases, and published FBI/DOJ reports) of either the U.S. Department of Justice or the FBI having ever described The Turner Diaries in this way. In addition, the South- ern Poverty Law Center was contacted on June 5, 2020, regarding the quote, which appears in their discussion [...]. The SPLC was unable to provide any additional information, clarifica- tion, or sourcing regarding the quote’s origin. The FBI allegedly stated this, but the quote could not be substantiated through open- source means."

As noted this is an often repeated quote. Should we remove it from the lead, at least? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of what's in the article. If you have to flesh out the detail in the lead and it's never covered in the article, then it likely doesn't belong in the lead. Seems like an interesting point that might be fleshed out in the article, though (which then might make it relevant to the lead)? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)