Jump to content

Talk:White supremacy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

"For the main article, see Critical Race Theory"

Two big issues:

  • This is the "main article" on white supremacy.
  • Despite Brett Gasper's edits, "white supremacy" is not a term that only resides in critical race theory, although it also is used there. The article cites two critical race scholars (Ansley and Gillborn), a philosopher (Charles Mills), a feminist (bell hooks), and several antiracist activists (Neely Fuller Jr., Martinez), many of whom were writing about white supremacy before CRT emerged.

Why not just link "critical race theory" somewhere in the text of this section?--Carwil (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, Critical Race Theory is more like a "see also".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Use in academia

I'm adding a section called "Use in academia" describing the use of "white supremacy" to denote a system of racism that privileges white people regardless of the presence or absence of hateful intent. This definition is related in important ways to the topic discussed here, obviously, but has a substantially different meaning. I would appreciate some input a bit later on as to whether it should be branched off into a separate article, but for now it can simplify some confusion elsewhere.--Carwil (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps mention Critical race theory?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I Agree with ·ʍaunus: the main article, Critical race theory links to the Academic Use of white supremacy in this article and the link should be reciprocated to the main article. I do applaud the recent revision that includes mention of "white privilege" as another term for "white supremacy" in academia (eg. sociology as it pertains to racial studies, gender studies, native American studies and other branches of Marcuse's Critical theory). The article on White privilege also links to this article and should be reciprocated. Brett Gasper (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I dont think Critical Race Theory is the main article for any of the sections in this article. It also isnt the only paradigm engaging with White Supremacy in Academia. But it is an important paradigm and the views of White Supremacy and White Privilege that has emerged from CRT should be explained in at least a paragraph and CRT should be prominently linked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
To extrapolate, the main Article, Critical race theory (CRT), in it's thesis statement, defines CRT as "an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory" and, central to that thesis holds: "The movement is loosely unified by two common themes. First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination." As "white supremacy" is linked prominently, in the CRT main article, to the academic use in this article, it should be, at least, reciprocated as a fundamentally important it's academic use (as defined). This being said, there are only two dichotomy, in academia, that deal in white supremacy: history in dealing with institutional racism (eg. slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid, the Nazi doctrine of herrenrasse) and Critical Theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Brett Gasper (talk • contribs)
I disagree. The fact that the concept of White Supremacy is central to CRT does not mean that the same holds in the opposite direction (as an example: "stars" are central to understanding the discipline of Astrology, but astrology is not central to understanding stars). I have by the way introduced a link to CRT in the introduction of this article, but CRT is not in any way the main article for this one. I think it would be useful if you would write a section for this article on the understanding of WS in CRT - that section might well have a "main" link to the article on CRT.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a rather general problem lurking in the background here, though I'm not sure how to deal with it. This use of 'white supremacy' is not, in fact, an *academic* use of the term. Rather, it's a use of the term largely isolated to certain narrow academic disciplines that tend to be (a) largely motivated by leftist (i.e. leftish liberal and lefter-than-liberal) political ends and (b) tied up with a cluster of Continental philosophical views like critical theory (as noted above). Most discussions of race in academic *philosophy* departments don't seem to use the term in this way. The real problem in the background is difficult to deal with, and I'm not sure how Wikipedia would do it... There's a kind of rhetorical inflation in play that's adopted for largely political reasons, and it's trendy in areas of academia that tend to be leftist and closely tied to the view (e.g. in critical theory) that the proper goal of such disciplines is "emancipatory" rather than scholarly/scientific. Thus the rhetorical inflation is promoted for the political end of making ordinary racism seem even worse (by inaccurately *calling* it white supremacism)...but then people gesture at this usage as an "academic" usage, suggesting that the usage is prompted by disinterested scholarly/scientific inquiry... This is an important point, but, again, not one that's easily handled in an objective way. Of course Wikipedia itself also commonly ends up with a similar kind of slant with respect to issues of this kind...so that's another layer of the problem... The real problem I suppose is that scholarship and activism are so mixed together in areas of this kind as a matter of principle...so it's very difficult to find disinterested/non-political scholarly sources to gesture at... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.47.138 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality and standard of the article

Acording to the article about nazism and the respective sources, these people were not white supremacist. They thought the Germans were the superior race and that they should rule over all Germans (including lost land in WW1). Their hatred were mostly aimed at eastern Europeans and Jews.

This article is based on the idea that white supremacy are an ideology. It is not, just a word to describe colonialist thought. That it would be good for everyone if European powers ruled the world.

Nordicism don't have anything to do here either. They were the first ones to argye that the nordic people were superior to all other people. You do also have many other people arguing that their people were superior.

My suggestion is that we remove everything that has nothing to do with this term. I do also think we should remove the part about Ukraine, because the political strife has caused a lot of name calling and defamatory statements.

If you want to, you can go to the wikipages I have writen about and take a look at the sources they have used.129.177.144.192 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The part about Ukraine should definitely be in the neo-nazism article, where I have moved it to. There is definitely overlap between the white supremacist ideology today and neo-nazism. But in order to be factual all countries with neo-nazi organisations should be cited especially Russia, which contains the largest neo-nazi organisation of the world, (see citation in the article that I copied from the article on Neo-Nazism) five times more members than in the United States. Clearly the objective of the article on white supremacy with parts on Ukraine and the United States but excluding Russia is politically motivated and against Wikipedia guidelines. Veritas de terra orta est (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Swastika?

Why would white supremacists use the swastika as their symbol? Sounds like someone is trying to ruin the article...112.198.83.66 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Whites and blacks?

I am not a politically correct person but I do wonder if the terms' whites' or 'blacks' are the right ones to use in an article like this. I appreciate that using only 'white people' or 'black people' might become a little monotonous but I still think we should generally avoid the terms 'whites' and 'blacks'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I also find it interesting that where people in olden times would say "I am not a racist... but" they are now saying "I am not politically correct...but". Surely this signals a change in society's values.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That is an interesting comment. I think there is a difference between 'correct'and 'politically correct'. You can call me 'correct' if you like. There is some other terminology that a may comment on too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

White power a whole different concept

White power is a whole different concept with a different history of definition, should have a separate entry and not redirected here. --State of clarity (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I got here through the redirect too. I don't know too much about the subject, but my impression is that it's a subset and more contemporary than what this article mostly deals with. The Celtic cross isn't even mentioned in this article and that is the primary sign that reaches day to day life from this subculture, at least in my experience. 1Veertje (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
White power is no different than the Black Power movement, or the Asian Power movement, or the Gay Pride movement for that matter. White power can simply mean pride in being white, without hatred of anybody. Well not the extremists have hijacked the slogan, it should not represent in any way being proud of being white or proud of white heritage. James12345zxchuiS (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
We go by what the WP:RS say, not personal opinions on the matter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well said James. White power is no different than other race power pride, the same goes for race supremacy, it is no different. I didn't know that white power has a specific definition. Please get this changed as it is wrong. ActorBoss (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is completely biased and discriminating!!

As someone else said white power and white supremacy are two different subjects. Notice on the page of black power there is literally nothing morally bad said but on this there is. Why was white power redirected to white supremacy? Shouldn't the same happen to black power and be directed to black supremacy? I believe in white power but that does not mean I believe in exterminating and creating black genocide. As I said this page is incredibly biased as this is the new white power page and frankly I'm hugely insulted. The black power page says that the words "black power" is a positive political slogan yet the Black Panthers used and still use it despite the FBI in their own words saying "The Black Panther Party (BPP) is a black extremist organization founded in Oakland, California in 1966. It advocated the use of violence and guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government." Please change this and make different pages. If not I strongly encourage other people to battle against Wikipedia until this is done as this not acceptable and extremely unfair to the people that are proud of being white.

ActorBoss (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Take it elsewhere. Ogress 00:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
For someone who's been here since 2012 and worked on so many BLPs, you should know Wikipedia's policies by now... Go check out Talk:White pride/FAQ as most of that applies here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

East Asian IQ denial

White supremacists give lectures about the East Asian Intelligence control over the design of the IQ test in general. They simply claim that the Intelligence Agencies of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan (even Singapore that isn't East Asian but has a significant Chinese population) etc. use agents inside the companies or commissions which design the various tests, to produce a test that corresponds to the average mentality, abilities and faculties of the East Asian population. Also they claim that the East Asian probabilistic distribution (bell curve) of IQ per person, is "bumpy" and lacking statistical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410C:A00:2575:EF28:A5B5:25FD (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Should you mix up different racial ideologies?

I can see the authors of this article have tried to mix in different ideas here, probably to make a longer article.

The nazis belived the Germans and to a lesser extent the Germanic peoples to be a superior race/people. You write about nordicism, which are more or less what Adolf Hitler belived in.

The reasoning you use to justify this is the idea, is that there are different defenitions of white. Can you find sources for this? Have there been different defenition than European or a decentant of Europeans?

It is also kind of sad that you use Nazism as a kind of white supremacism, even though thousands of people from Poland died from German atrocities. Just like the Jews, who also look like Europeans.

Is there anyone who would like to at least check up on this. To me this article look like a mess. 37.253.211.21 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. White people explains that "white" has been inconsistently defined, and white Jewish people have often been excluded based on pseudoscience, racism, or whim. All of these notions have been characterized by reliable sources as forms of white supremacy, and reliable sources are what Wikipedia goes by. The Nazis were white supremacists, and nobody is saying that white supremacists are incapable of killing other white people, only that they consider white people supreme. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the article you linked to are very consistent, defining it as European or as the physical trait of having "white skin". On the other han, in "white american" article, it claims it has not always meant the same, but has no sources to back it up. I also read the "defenition of whiteness" article, it is very consistent in defining it as European. Legally every European were white acording to US law.
When the nazis did not talk about all Europeans, should it then be defined as white supremacism and not as Germanic supremacism? I find it illogical to use these kinds of defenitions, and seem to me only as a excuse to lenghten the article. 80.213.140.165 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"White people is a racial classification specifier, used for people of Europid ancestry, with the exact implications dependent on context." Context is the important word, here. White is loosely defined and sometimes includes (some) Jews and sometimes doesn't. This blurred line is well documented and frequently discussed by academics and within Jewish communities.[1][2][3] It's a social construct based only in part on physical traits and ancestry, but there is no pass/fail "whiteness test" or anything similar. It mainly depends on cultural context and what is convenient for the person doing the defining. White supremacists are as susceptible to these shifting boundaries as everyone else, although they tend to pretend otherwise. If you want to change the article, you should be more specific, and be willing to cite reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
While we all know that words can be used differently, by different people. I do not think you should take this into consideration here. US law said that a white person were someone of European decent, acording to the article I cited. That the nazis belived Germans and to a lesser extent other Germanic peoples were superior, are supported by most history books I have read, you can look up the sources used. When the nazis/Hitler at the same time though that the slavs were inferior and that German settlers should some of their land. This does prove that he were not a white supremacist when we look at their skin (Polish, Russians etc. have white skin) and they are of European origin. I am very certain that the defenition of the Nazis/Hitler as white supremacists are wrong.
But I do not think I am the right person to edit this article. Someone who are better at writing wiki articles should do that. 37.253.242.196 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of White Supremacists

I suppose this should ideally go in the Talk page for "white supremacists" category, but given that that the search term redirects here I believe a general discussion of what defines a white supremacist would be more useful here. The list of people included in the "white supremacist" category seems arbitrary and lacking in any cohesive theme. There are Klu Klux Klan members and the actor John Wayne. Given that a large majority of political figures from the 19th century and earlier subscribed to this philosophy, we could include them all, especially if their attitudes informed policy. Andrew Jackson is not included, but arguably should be considering that his "Indian" removal policies were fueled in part by his overarching belief in the superiority of the "white race." I tried to add Andrew Johnson to the category but was immediately reverted--and here is someone whose racist ideology was considered extreme even by many of his contemporaries.

So I suppose I am saying that the Wikipedia community seems to be having trouble come to grips with this concept. Some of the more notorious racists like John Calhoun are uncontroversial, but Woodrow Wilson's inclusion in this category would be met with outcry, even though there is ample evidence that he did believe in white superiority and that he and his cabinet directed segregationist policy based in part on those attitudes.

Many excuse the white supremacists of previous eras as "men of their times." However we cannot excuse or ignore their beliefs because they were commonplace or because they inconveniently tarnish their historical legacies. We should only see them in a different context than those white supremacists living today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1db2 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic?

Why would Catholic white supremacists be anti-Catholic? Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is saying is that such groups are typically opposed by white supremacist groups. White supremacy as a set of ideologies aren't confined to simply saying that white people are supreme end-of-story. The term is also used to describe ideologies which includes other beliefs.
Catholics, Jews, and immigrants (and Muslims, Hispanics, Africans, Asians, etc.) can all be white, as can people of color, but that doesn't stop them from frequently being opposed in various ways by white supremacists. As the article white people makes clear, "white" isn't a strictly defined concept, and it's common to see boundaries shifting based on convenience and convention. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Then why use what is transparently a description of one white supremacist organistion, the KKK, to describe all in the lede? White supremacists in Catholic countries can be anti-Protestant; should we put that in the lede too? Alfie Gandon (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
So are you contesting the point itself, or the source? The sentence makes a lot more sense as the end of a longer paragraph: "Different forms of white supremacism put forth different conceptions of who is considered white, and different white supremacists identify various racial and cultural groups as their primary enemy. White supremacist groups have typically opposed people of color, immigrants, Jews, and Catholics." Discarding the entire sentence because one word isn't satisfactorily supported by a source doesn't seem like the right way to fix this problem. The book is a 244 page college textbook which provides an overview the topic. It can be browsed online (at least it can where I am). I haven't found anything unambiguous for this, but it does support that they overlap.
Anyway, if you have reliable sources about Catholic white supremacists, then I would be curious to see them. Among sources I'm families with, there is a documented overlap between white supremacism and anti-Catholicism (in and out of the KKK), but those are biased towards the US. I believe this is true for South Africa as well, but again, I would like to see more sources about this. Is there a specific area of overlap between white supremacism and anti-Protestantism you are thinking of? Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
My problem's with the sentence, which is accurate for certain white supremacist groups in the US (e.g. the KKK), but not representative of those in other countries. I wouldn't have a problem with noting somewhere in the article that US white supremacist groups (and South African if you're right about that, although I've never heard about anti-Catholicism in SA) have a tradition of anti-Catholicism, but the article as it stands makes a sweeping statement about white supremacist groups that isn't true of most of them outside of the US. As it stands, it's unsuitable for anywhere in the article but especially in the lede. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't comment on that at the moment, but why aren't Muslims mentioned? And I agree it's an error to remove the whole sentence. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-immigrant?

White immigrants are often white supremacist; why would they oppose themselves? Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You would have to ask them that question, but expecting hate groups to interpret things in the most inclusive way possible seems absurd. From what I've read, white supremacists often oppose white people immigrating to non-white or multicultural communities, as it leads to race-mixing and other perceived problems. I've also read examples of white supremacists who accept white tourists, but reject on principle long-term immigration outside of (arbitrarily) defined boundaries. There's a survivalist group with supremacist ties in which adherents refuses to associate with anyone outside of a specific x-mile radius of their home, also. Sorry, I cannot remember the name of this group.
White people are sometimes immigrants, but they are also sometimes Jewish, and nobody is denying that they're identified as enemies, right? Jewish white supremacists exist, but that's piss-poor at deflecting antisemitism. Again, in context, the sentence is explaining "various racial and cultural groups" they identify as their enemies. Wikipedia is simply saying that they have been identified as enemies by white supremacists. The article isn't saying that it's a logical target. The statement on anti-immigration is not presented as being all-inclusive of every white supremacist, nor of applying to every single immigrant regardless of context. We could rephrase it to specifically say "non-white immigrants" but that seems pedantic to me and not entirely accurate. As a general overview in the lead, this seems sufficient. The point of white supremacy is the assumption that whiteness is acceptable and that non-whiteness is to be opposed, but how that manifests in practice is much more complicated, and that's what the article should attempt to explain. This is not confined to the US, either. European white supremacists tend to blur lines a bit more,[4] but the underlying tenet is the same. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
White supremacist groups in neo-Europes, e.g. the US and South Africa, are very much in favour of further white immigration. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Which doesn't make them pro-immigration however. They are still basically anti-immigration. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does. They aren't. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

McWhorter and Drum

This is regarding this edit. For the lead, no sources that I saw uses "lazy" or "mean". The source was one op-ed, which seems entirely insufficient for making such a stark claim with such prominence. Saying "has been argued" is a WP:WEASEL, and while the quotes were sourced, there were not attributed in text, which is very important for providing context. All sources added reference two people, Kevin Drum or John McWhorter. Conor Friedersdorf also agrees, but his article is specifically about social media arguments about Drum's statements, making this sort of... diffused. Their opinions are of interest, but I do not think they should be emphasized in the lead without more substantial secondary coverage, ideally non-opinion coverage, which is lacking. Maybe not, but saying it's "lazy and mean" isn't going to work.

The This CNN source from McWhorter is another example of him making his point, but it doesn't really discuss the usage of the term "white supremacy" in any depth, so I've removed it. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. The material deleted gives undue weight to a political argument that has apparently only arisen in the last year or so based on the references used. There certainly is no justification for including it in the article lede. It also seems to be a violation of NPOV by only referring to the criticism of whatever the "leftists" are allegedly doing. If we are even going to keep the remnants of Pengortm's edits (as you have done), then we should describe the "leftist activist's" position in their own words rather than relying of the critics characterizations (i.e."overly broad and misused to shut-down productive discussion") of a position that they oppose. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I have no attachment to that wording. There is something to this, but I'm not clear on how to include it, if at all. The article is about the entire global history of the concept, so even mentioning this feels like WP:RECENTISM. My take is that McWhorter's opinion as a linguist is the most useful, since this is specifically about the phrase. As columnists, the large volume of political noise out there makes the other two seem less relevant without non-opinion sources discussing their opinions. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the good faith edits and careful engagement on the article and talk page with my suggested edits. I'll look over it all more closely later. I believe the "lazy" and "mean" quotes came from the On The Media audio--not easily keyword searched--but in the source. I'll have to double check later if I decide those add substantively. -Pengortm (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh right, the radio clip -I overlooked that. I guess that shows that I didn't actually listen to it...
So having listened to it, it's an interesting interview, but I don't think we should over-state this. The words are used conversationally as part of a dialog, and were not highlighted with any particular emphasis that I could hear. The impression I get from that interview was that he considers the phrase "white supremacy" to be part of the euphemism treadmill, which does seem worth mentioning to me, but doesn't seem particularly surprising or controversial. Lazy and mean are both strong and unusual enough that they would have to be very clearly attributed to McWhorter by name, and I don't think the lead would be the right place to do that without a much more substantial source. Grayfell (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to listen. I think we're largely in agreement and also thank you for improving my first stab at things. I've made a few more edits trying to clarify the substance of the debates/arguments a bit and adding a sentence to the academic usage section. -Pengortm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I made a few more minor tweaks. It looks good to me, and it's useful to indicate how contentious the term is even among people with the same basic ideological goals. Even accounting for recentism, I strongly suspect there are more sources out there, but for now I think this as much as sources support. Anyway, it's better than it was, so thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I coincidentally came across this article from The Atlantic which discusses Drum and Friedersdorf's articles. The gist is that persuasion isn't necessarily the goal of the label, and Drum's argument only makes sense because of decades of hard work fighting white supremacy, work which was constantly decried as uncivil just as Drum himself is doing. Anyway, I'm going to resist the temptation to add this, but I'm sure it's just one of many on this topic, and figuring out due weight is only going to get more tricky. Again, non-opinion coverage would be ideal. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed.

I have tagged two unsourced passages as needing citations. I have been involved in editing this page for awhile on and off and am not WP:TAGBOMBing. These are simply things that should be referenced (I noted that I guessed one of these was true in my edit summaries). The two passages are:

"White supremacy has roots in scientific racism and often relies on pseudoscientific arguments for portray white superiority.[citation needed]"
"White supremacy has ideological foundations that at least date back to 17th-century scientific racism, the predominant paradigm of human variation that helped shape international and intra-national relations from the latter part of the Age of Enlightenment (in European history) through the late 20th century (marked by the abolition of apartheid in South Africa in 1991, followed by that country's first multiracial elections in 1994).[citation needed]"-Pengortm (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with this for a couple of reasons. While citations are very important, the number of potential sources supporting this routine point is very large. White supremacy is so closely intertwined with scientific racism that not mentioning it would be jarring. By tagging it, and tagging it very specifically, it's implying (without actually saying) that this point is controversial or contentious, or should be considered for removal, which is false. While I know that CN tags aren't always intended that way (I don't always use them that way, at least), that's definitely the message being sent when applied to such fundamental perspective. Using tags to cast doubt on academically accepted aspects of a controversial topic undermines the neutrality of the article. This is worse because the template:citation needed span tag alters formatting in a jarring and noticeable way. This draws a lot og attention to what otherwise would be a minor issue. This template is used less often in part because it's so distracting. Including this in the lead is even worse. Since leads summarize the body (and leads of subsections can summarize the body of the subsection) this doesn't appear to be a neutral or appropriate action, and the issue should be discussed first so as not to damage the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If material cannot be substantiated it should be removed. I suggest that if there is unsubstantiated language which someone thinks should be included but can't be sourced, it should be removed from the article and brought to the talk page until it can be adequate sourced. I don't think this material that I have tagged is highly controversial and that a tag is the best way forward. Your concerns about implications are simply not how wikipedia works as far as I can tell (please correct me if I am wrong). If there are a vast number of sources for a statement, than the job of finding references for it should be very easy. According to WP:CITENEED "A "citation needed" tag is never, in itself, an "improvement" to an article: it is nothing more or less than a request for another editor to verify a statement: a form of communication between members of a collaborative editing team." I think your reaction to remove CN tags runs contrary to the normal working of Wikipedia and makes the collaborative work we are trying to do together more difficult. Please point me to precedent for your deletions of my tags, put the tags back in, find sources for these statements, or remove the statements.-Pengortm (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The tags damage the article by implying a controversy where none exists. I trust your intentions, but the history of this and related articles means that such tags can introduce difficulties and lead to less neutral "compromise" language when none is necessary. This isn't just a slippery slope issue, this is from past experience. Both tagged sections were leads, and the content is discussed (somewhat obliquely) in the body of the article. The article mentions Arthur de Gobineau, Mendelian inheritance, Eugenics, Nordicism, and other concepts which are fundamentally connected with scientific racism. Summarizing sourced content is perfectly acceptable, although I agree that this could be handled better. Did you look for sources yourself? If you're specifically looking for sources supporting this point, it's not hard to find. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, you seem to be inventing new ways to edit on wikipedia based on your own personal experience and putting the burden on other editors. I've gone here to avoid an edit war, but resent the new hoops your making me jump through and the waste of my time when I am following normal wikipedia procedure and editing in good faith. To the substance of the discussion and setting aside the procedural issues, I don't know which sources you are referring to which of the tagged passages.-Pengortm (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to explain where I'm coming from and why I think it's a problem based on context and experience. If you want to label that an invention, sure, whatever. But yes, the burden is on you when challenging consensus on an otherwise relatively stable page. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, specifically WP:LEADCITE: Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. and The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. We "get" to use consensus for this, lucky us.
I'm not sure what the point of confusion is regarding sources. I don't understand your last sentence. That indirectly supports my point, actually. If your intention with tagging the article was not obvious, then it's better that we're discussing this on the talk page anyway. Here are some references, for discussion, that I found after a quick search:
Was this more about the significance of Apartheid? Tell me what I'm missing, here, and we can figure out how to fix it, but the tags are premature in this case. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Racist Ideology" in lede

Having "racist ideology" in the lede makes the article sound childish, and as such I will remove it. Post here if you disagree. Please don't revert edits that shouldn't be reverted. Deciduous Maple (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You've already been reverted, with ample reason. "Childish" is not a valid reason for altering long-standing consensus. The burden in on you to make your case, per WP:BRD and common sense. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It is very obvious that "white supremacy" is racist from the rest of the article. Having the word "racist" in the lede make the article very unprofessional. This was discussed at length in December of 2014, when the consensus was to leave the article in the form "W.S. is a form of racism." Now it seems someone is displeased with that outcome and changed it back to their way. If that is so, I will change it back to our way. In the mean time, I will change the article back to the compromised version. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
What's childish is actually having this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Volunteer Marek, long time no see. It appears you still haven't developed a mature style of debate and must still resort to low-effort put-downs in place of actual debate. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh lord, give me a break. It's pretty ironic to see someone try and gloat about being mature. Articles evolve over time, and edit warring is not appropriate. The claim that "Racism" is a made-up, artificial word used as a silencing tactic is so ridiculous that it undermines neutrality and credibility, and suggests that this discussion is a dead end. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Saying something is "ridiculous" is not an argument, mate. Explaining why something is not true would be more appropriate; why don't you try that instead? P.S. If you had seen Volunteer Marek's behavior in dec 2014, you'd understand why I am quick to call him immature - because he is. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Again with the irony! Oh, you're killing me! All words are "artificial" and Wikipedia uses words to define concepts. Playing pedantic games to try and downplay the connection to racism is against the overwhelming consensus of both Wikipedia editors, and of reliable, academic sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Grayfell and Volunteer Marek on this one. Current wording seems good and I think a more convincing argument needs to be made on the talk page before we consider changing it. As of now, I see now convincing argument and User:Deciduous Maple wasting other editors time. -Pengortm (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The other editors are wasting their own time. Since no one wants to have an honest discussion, I am going to change the article back to the compromised form. Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
True, but there's no reason to put that in the lede. It's a waste of words and makes the article sound emotive and childish. I never said it wasn't racist. Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I also think "form of racism" is more appropriate than "Racist ideology" —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 22:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is now. This whole thing started as a big troll organized off wiki. Even 'Deciduous Maple' is a trollish name, making fun of User:EvergreenFir who was the first one to disagree with this stupidity. DFTT folks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing "trollish" about it, m8. The word "racist" does not belong in the lede. You only call it a troll because you have no real argument - same tactics you used 2 years ago.
If no one "feeds the troll," as Volunteer Meek likes to put it, by providing legitimate arguments, then I will just change the lede back to the compromised version. That's because I'm here out of genuine care for the article and not just for a fun time. Deciduous Maple (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Having the word "racist ideology" in the lede is not an emotionally charged decision. It needs to stay there as "racism" (to which the word links) is the parent subject of WS. Having the word there gives an opportunity to link to the parent subject and therefore improves navigation. It also makes the article more explicitly clear to users who may not be familiar with the concept or term "white supremacy". Not everyone who reads English Wikipedia is English and therefore the lede section needs to make it clear what WS is and to what it belongs. I find absolutely no hint of childishness or emotionally charged tone in it's being there and see it as an appropriate choice in terms of clarity and navigational ease. You have already stated that WS is inherently racist, and therefore it only remains to convince you that an encyclopedia ought to be easily navigable and clear. Against this there are not many cogent arguments.Edaham (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"Form of racism" and "racist ideology" mean the same thing, but most will agree (not that that matters) that "racist ideology," and by extension, all "-ist" words sound childish, emotive, and generally less aesthetic and natural than their alternatives. For that reason, the lede should remain in the "form of racism" version, if it includes "racism" at all. A compromise was made two years ago to have it this way. Why did someone change it from that? Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Then what were the grounds for changing it to the compromised version? Pleasure seeing you again, BTW (not really). Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
English Wikipedia contains about 3.24 billion words. Your account seems to be dedicated to editing two of them. If everyone took your approach to editing English wikipedia, it would take a little under a quarter of the world's population. This is infeasible. Given the length of this discussion (not including this reply) regarding the two words, your approach to editing here, if widely employed, would also increase the size of wikipedia by about 2.4tb, which is also a pointless increase in data volume. That's why people who only want to edit two words and not contribute to the considerably more challenging task of improving and creating articles are considered not to be here to build an encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as this is not response to the question I asked, I suppose I'll repeat it. What was the purpose of changing the two words from the compromised version in the first place? I am trying to change it back to the version that was agreed upon in Jan. 2015, but others here absolutely must have it their way. Why them, and not the people in the talk page / RfC two years ago? If there is not adequate argument (not ad-hominems) made here in a reasonable amount of time, I'll be changing it back again. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you and your attempt to recruit people to edit this page have now been put up for administrative review. This has been a long time coming. The pattern you have observed of people not replying directly to your "arguments" should be quite apparent. The purpose of my previous reply was to encourage you as much as possible to see wikipedia as a broad ranging collection of topics and for you to find another area in which you might provide constructive input. Wikipedia has more than one topic. It would probably do you some good at this point to quickly make a note on your talk page on how you intend to be constructive in other areas of the encyclopedia as well as mention that your attempts to turn this talk page into a discussion forum have ceased.Edaham (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as this is not response to the question I asked, I suppose I'll repeat it. What was the purpose of changing the two words from the compromised version in the first place? Deciduous Maple (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

History in the US

This book] has some interesting comments not included in any way in the article:

"In the two decades after the Civil War, notions of white supremacy began to coalesce, based initially on British-Israelism. Although British-lsraelism peaked in England in the 1920s with only 5,000 members (Barkun 1997:13), figures such as C. A. I.. Totten found a much wider audience in the United States. Though not a promoter of British-lsraelism as such, Totten used it as the basis of his own version of white supremacy. This belief had great impact on a young evangelist, Charles Fox Parham, who on January 1, 1901, would claim that people in his congregation began speaking in tongues at several revivals, and this was a direct communication from God. He shortly thereafter founded the Pentecostal movement (Barkun 1997:20). Pentecostalism grew rapidly in the South and the Midwest, and gained another influential supporter in the form of J. H. Allen, who transferred the key belief of white supremacy into Midwestern Methodism (Barkun 1997:21). At this point, however, white supremacy was primarily a belief that Anglo-American whites would fulfill crucial sections of biblical prophesy. It had not yet acquired the persecutionary virulence of later versions, especially in the 1920s when the Klan reached the height of its national prominence, and again in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, the fact that white supremacy became a central organizing theme in the early days of two major evangelical groups is important. The issue of segregation after the Civil War, and slavery before the war, created divisions among evangelicals, and eventually disempowered evangelicalism during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and only recently are evangelicals in general drawing together against racist beliefs. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention, the single largest evangelical organization, did not renounce slavery or segregation until 1995 (Newman 2001). Prior to the 1990s, evangelicals would often travel in other, less tolerant directions. With the appearance of Reuben F. Sawyer in 1921, American evangelicalism in the South and the Southwest moved closer to the Ku Klux Klan. Klan rhetoric at this time emphasized both hatred of blacks, the focus of the first wave of Klan activity immediately after the Civil War, which Sawyer and others now joined with strong anti-Semitism and the need to preserve white culture in addition to what they saw as the genetic purity of the white race." Doug Weller talk 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

British Israelism was absolutely an early form of racial supremacism. While you say it was small, it included numerous high level politicians. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee
Actually I didn't say that, it's a quote, although you may be right. Who were you thinking of? Doug Weller talk 06:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
They're in this article, also more links to US: British-Israel-World Federation. I get the feeling this might belong in Christian Identity 64.223.126.42|64.223.126.42]] (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee
The BIWF article is pretty bad. I added the KKK thing only a few weeks ago. Two of the editors editing are the BIWF President and the membership secretary of a local branch in Australia. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead incorrect - you don't have to want to rule non-whites to be a white supremacist

We keep getting people saying X can't be a white supremacist because they don't want to rule over non-whites. Which is nonsense. The ADL paper o white supremacism[5] says " However, generally speaking, white supremacists of whatever sort adhere to at least one of the following beliefs: 1) whites should be dominant over people of other backgrounds; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own “culture” that is superior to other cultures; and 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. Anti-Semitism is also important for the majority of white supremacists, most of whom actually believe that Jews constitute a race of their own—a race with parasitic and evil roots." Doug Weller talk 10:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts

Not a forum: any further discussion should restart with specific, well sourced, proposals for article improvement. . . Edaham (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Although grammatically correct, the first sentence emphasizes the superiority aspect, to such an extent that it could be mistaken as the definition. It's not white superiority, it's white supremacy. The statement, "centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief", is the main culprit which makes the first part of the sentence outweigh the second part, which is the more important part. It seems that some people want to overemphasize this. This page doesn't have enough about the origin of this term, which was a term for the Nazi racial program, in turn a type of populism. Otherwise, racist ideologies were a response to rapid urbanization and migrations of the 20th century (like the 20th century KKK, for example). Trying to push it back much before this, you will have to prove ideologies existed, and racist science was created with a racist intent. The last thing I propose is to change the "Southern Africa" section to "Zimbabwe" and "South Africa". The reason is because Rhodesia is possibly the best example of white nationalism. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Is the first part of your post an edit request? If so can you restate it in a "change x to y format"? Also please provide a source for the second part of your request. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Also you are right that this section requires a citation.Edaham (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I edited my comment. You mean Rhodesia? I'll work on expanding it a bit and putting it in it's own category. It definitely deserves it's own category. I'm unable to work with words AT ALL right now, but I will say that it's unneccesary to say that an ideology is based on the promotion of a belief.
In case you all think I'm fighting something imaginary, here is Brittanica's definition, completely incorrect: White supremacy, beliefs and ideas purporting natural superiority of the lighter-skinned, or “white,” human races over other racial groups.
I still cannot understand from your post what part of the article should be changed to what material, and on what source material that change should be based. It might be beneficial for you to register an account and make the changes after having met the requirements for editing this page. If you do not register an account, consider placing the text you which to insert "into quotes"
   or a box
on this talk page. Also please sign your posts with four tildes to help archiving and maintenance of this page. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I also propose the deletion of the alternative title: "white supremacism". Supremacism isn't technically a word. White supremacism is even more fringe. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee
Not done: This appears to be a widely used term in current usage in most forms of news media. i.e. [this Washington post article] among numerous others. Edaham (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Supremacism is not in any dictionary. It has a place, I'll give it that, but it shouldn't go around replacing real words when they do quite fine. A google search for white supremacism brings up 60,000 results. The same search before 2015 brings up 4,000 results. Supremacism has 228,000 results. That is a paltry amount of uses. It was created and remains used only by the far left. White supremacy itself brings up only 3,800,000. Therefore use ratio is 1,000 to 1. It was created by, and is only used by fringe activists. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee
FWIW I checked out of curiosity, and it's in literally every dictionary I just checked, either with its own entry or an alternative form of "supremacist". OED: "Advocacy of, or belief in, the supremacy of a particular group, esp. one defined by race, religion, or sex; conduct which is motivated by, or is intended to enforce in practice, this belief." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't use figures from search engine results as sources for definitions of words. I'm not changing the article as you suggested as you have not provided sources to support your suggestions and you haven't made it particularly clear what x you would like to change to what y. This is not a forum and since your requests have been responded to, further discussion of the article's subject seems unnecessary as per this talk page's guidelines on forums. Edaham (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Talk:White supremacy/Archive 4/hat

white supremacy today

This article is well written and very complete, it focus a lot on a literal deffinition of what why suppremacy is. It will make the article more complete if it includes more information about the effects of white supremacy today.Yivi29 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Yivi29

Good idea, but I'd also urge caution. Such additions need to keep in mind that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and other Wiki rules and norms. -Pengortm (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {requested article} into this talk page's article was:

Not Done—No Consensus to Merge.
— — — — —

Proposed merge with Identitarian movement

Mostly poor sources, a subset of white supremacy. Most of the article should be scrapped. Carl Fredrik talk 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose, it is certainly not a subset of white supremacy. First of all, it is a mainly European movement; it started in France and then spread to other European countries. There sure is an intersection with white nationalism -- but white nationalism is more like the ideological umbrella and not an organization -- and many different organizations can very roughly be considered to be close to that ideology.
    It is a registered association in Germany. And in France the organization has -- according to political scientist Stéphane François -- between 1.500 and 2.000 members. 93.224.110.163 (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) PS The statement about the allegedly "poor sources" is in no way substantiated. PPS Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs could be merged with Identitarian movement.
  • Oppose No matter how you slice that one the (European) identitarian movement requires an article on its as the scope is big enough. Aside from I agree with the assessment that it may overlap with white supremacy but it isn't identical.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose If nationalism were a form of racism (racial supremacy) then every country in Latin America, Africa and Asia would be racist. Of course, some nationalists might be racist but that may apply to any nation. Not just White Western nations. So, no. 201.214.97.159 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The identitarian movement believes in securing the future of the white race. White supremacy believes in the white race dominating and/or eradicating all other races. They are very different. 81.155.131.102 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose white supremacy is a generic term for various movements. The identitarian movement has its own identity and organisation. Just like other right wing movements/parties, etc have articles, so should the identitarians. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Another good reason to keep this article where it is. — Myk Streja (who?) 21:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hrm, just did a quick count of opposition votes and it's Many to One. The nays carry it. Time to take down the for sale signs, eh? — Myk Streja [who?] 02:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

propose inserting white supremacist into header, should not allow members of group to whitewashPovertyiswrong (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 — Myk Streja (who?) 04:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Russia

The "Russia" section is not analogous to the US, South Africa, and what was the other? - Germany? It consists of just one line about how 10 years ago there were lots of skinheads in Russia. Either this has to be seriously beefed up or deleted since it is currently not analogous either in quantity or quality. The article could instead use a section on the British Empire and the white supremacist assumptions that underpinned its expansion. 2001:4643:B0B3:0:F8BC:4ABE:3E9E:5C47 (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

More information on the divergence of cultural supremacy over racial supremacy as a beneficial and necessary step to social development

 Not done

this post doesn't contain more information. It contains your musings on the subject of the article Edaham (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As most of these articles seem to do they focus too heavily on the notion that white supremacy is based more on racial bigotry than it is on either cultural elitism of just logical observations on the superior development of some cultures over others. For example: Is the culture of Switzerland superior or inferior to the culture of Saudi Arabia? One culture that accepts the coequal status of gender, sexual orientation and for the most part race, over one that does not. Based on most of this article it makes it seem that if the Swiss believe their ways are superior to the Saudis then that would make them white supremacists. Rather than just possibly that this particular white culture is superior to that particular non white culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

++++

I'm confused. Doesn't the argument that any race or culture is "superior" to another contain an implied bias that said "superiority" is either innate or inherent and also permanent? That certainly seems to the be way the early "race scientists" viewed it.

Which is also troubling because such a view would make the contemporary definition of "racism" self-contradictory:

1) If one race were inherently superior to another then that innate superiority would prevent losing hegemony to the inferior race. 2) There would be no need to create laws to suppress "lesser" races (i.e. voter suppression/Jim Crow) because the inherent superiority of the dominant race would be enough. 3) If racial superiority is viewed as a competition for dominance between races, then one race losing its dominance over another is a normal evolutionary process. 4) The repeal of legal obstacles to inter-racial competition (i.e. segregation, Jim Crow, anti-hate speech laws) required the support of the majority of the dominant race. Those "suffering" from the rising equality would by definition the least fit of the dominant race and should probably be ignored. 5) If racial superiority is a competition, then groups like the KKK should be moral exemplars and running self-improvement programs and job training rather than holding torch-lit marches and getting in fights with counter-protestors. Marching in formation shouting "Jews will not replace us!" seems to be the exact wrong thing to do.

I'd appreciate a subsection clarifying the faulty logic. I can't be alone in the concept not making sense in general. 2001:56A:7659:9600:2457:AD8E:C0EE:2DD9 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Required reading wp:forum wp:soap wp:or wp:talk wp:5p

Relevancy of Information

The majority information presented in the White supremacist article is relevant aside from the "Relationships with black separatist groups" section. I didn't understand how relevant that section was to the topic of white supremacy. JayKMPix (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So what edit to the article are you proposing exactly? Edaham (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on White supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_supremacy/Archive_4&oldid=1125231909"