Talk:White supremacy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reverted edits

How exactly was moving the images their corresponding part of the text "a very poor layout"? And why exactly was the other edit reverted? Kiwifist (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Who are our posters?

This is not a forum EvergreenFir (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am the opposition. I am your stereotypical white man from mainstream America. I have posted opposition paragraphs today, March 28, 2018, and I hope they are published so we can have a healthy debate on the subject. Please post your credentials below: Music man214 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC) @Music man214: The edits you made were not backed up with any reliable sources, so another editor (not I) removed them from the article. Remember that WP:Verifiability is the guiding principle here. The credentials of the editor don't matter; the credentials (i.e., the reliability) of the source do. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC) The last time we saw this editor, he had just read Shirer and had appointed himself an expert on Adolf Hitler. He became a timesink, debating against multiple editors who knew the subject backwards and forwards from reading many books about Hitler and the Third Reich. [1] Now he's "the opposition", but he should be informed that he's not going to be allowed to become another timesink, and that at the first sign of disruption, his name will most certainly come up on the Administrators' noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC) @Music man214: you seem a bit confused. This is an encyclopaedia and certainly not a place for the sort of debate you seem to be thinking about. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC) From what I know of Wikipedia rules, the talk area is the place to debate and discuss. Please abide by Wikipedia rules and try not to cut me off because I am an expert. Music man214 (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, why are you stalking me? I would like responsible authorities to screw this guy. Music man214 (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTAFORUM to understand what article talk pages are for, and WP:HARASSMENT to understand why accusing me of "stalking" you without evidence is, in fact, a personal attack. In point of fact, this article has been on my watchlist, along with similar pages, for quite a while. You guys getting the idea of why this "expert" is a timesink? I would suggest that no other responses be made to his comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018

same old same old Edaham (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest changing the language used in the first sentence of the article to match the verbiage used on the article on "Black supremacy". I feel the current article on "White supremacy" reads a bit more biased and negative then the article on "Black supremacy". Both are forms of racial supremacism and both should reflect this neutrally and equally in tone in their opening sentences. Here are the raw sentences in question: From "White supremacy": White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. From "Black supremacy": Black supremacy or black supremacism is a racial supremacist belief which maintains that black people are superior to people of other races. Here is what I think the opening sentence should read for the "White supremacy" article: White supremacy or white supremacism is a racial supremacist belief which maintains that white people are superior to people of other races. Thank you for your consideration. 73.254.77.17 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

The statement "In academic usage, particularly in usage which draws on critical race theory or Intersectionality, the term "white supremacy" can also refer to a political or socioeconomic system, in which white people enjoy a structural advantage (privilege) over other ethnic groups, on both a collective and individual level. " provides no immediate sources. 186.177.165.108 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. The sources are provided in the body of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, the lead section is a summary of the body of the article, and statements in the lede are not required to be specifically sourced, as long as they are properly sourced in the body of the article. See WP:CITELEAD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Racist"

Is it really appropriate to call White Power racist while leaving Black Power untouched? I say no. Some double standard stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian D 123 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

False parallelism and edit warring (reported... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't appropriate. White supremacy or white supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to people of other races (my bold) and is by definition racist, so we don't need to be told so. Also, calling white supremacy racist, but not black supremacy, is itself racist. Adam9007 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, but regardless, we go by what reliable sources say, not our own opinions. Also, equine abuse [2], [3] EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because reliable sources say something doesn't mean we have to. Describing something that is by definition racist as 'racist' is completely redundant and adds nothing to the article. Adam9007 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do have to. We explain this because it's the entire purpose of the article. Reliable sources don't merely say it's racist, they define it as racist, and we should summarize a topic according to reliable sources. Further, many people come to this talk page disputing that this is racist despite these sources and despite it's obviousness. Either you accept that it's racist, in which case you are wasting time trying to remove a single word for some poorly explained reason, or you are implying this only because you think some other article should be changed. In that case, you're also wasting time. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

DFTT, OP indeffed for this [4], to the surprise of nobody. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that it's racist. What is in dispute is the necessity of putting the word 'racist' in the lead. Try the converse: 'white supremacism is the non-racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races'. Does that make any sense? No. There's really no need to describe something everyone knows is racist as such. Adam9007 (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The existence of this thread is clear evidence that explicit mention is needed, not to mention that omission of the essential concept behind white supremacy is just plain bizarre. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal from White separatism

I have been trying to update the sparse article White separatism but it appears to be a WP:FRINGE article created based on the work of one researcher without support of the majority of her field. The vast majority of published news and research says that White separatism is part and parcel of white supremacy. The only objector seems to be Dobratz, but the article as written is giving her WP:UNDUE weight by representing her lone writings as being "Other scholars have argued that" which creates a false-balance fallacy.

I propose that the article White separatism be redirected here, and that a small subsection for the very minimal definition of white separatism as a WP:WEASEL term that white supremacists use be merged to this article. There's really no need to have a giant list of white separatists as if they weren't already all noted as white supremacists such as David Lane (white supremacist) either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.155.212 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also because the article is locked down (and I have no objection it seems to be obviously needed) could someone assist me by putting the appropriate Merge-From tag on the page for this discussion? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.155.212 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Related to this proposal I have further concerns about the validity of giving weight to Dobratz alone if even at all in the sourcing. Several reviews of her book indicate problems with her methodology, conclusions and willingness to repeat without analysis the claims of the groups. Examples below. 208.84.155.212 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/77/3/1221/2234134?redirectedFrom=fulltext "But even assuming that this third represents racists generally (which is doubtful, but in any case unanswerable, given that sampling procedures are never discussed), the word "attribute" gives the game away; just because people attribute their behavior to some factor does not mean it actually causes them to act that way.The authors could have profited from C. Wright Mills's distinction between motivations (causes) and motives (justifications and excuses)."
• https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/stable/2568417?sid=primo&origin=crossref&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents "However, although they caution against the agendas of "watchdog" organizations, their own conclusions raise questions. Other researchers will disagree with their downplaying Klan and skinhead violence and neo-Nazi and Christian Identity race hatred and anti-Semitism (which breaks through only in reproduced Movement cartoons)... Dobratz and Shanks-Meile have strong criticism for government attempts at policing the far Right, and they talk of "McCarthyism" and law enforcement acting in accord with "state interests to maintain the status quo." Violent separatist groups and individuals are explained as caught up in the American paramilitary culture, with violence mainly resulting from the interaction with overly aggressive law enforcement authorities."

White Supremacy origins in Scientific Racism

This is not true at all. White Supremacy has its roots in Christianity or Christian Supremacy. Scientific Racism has it's origins in White Supremacy. White Supremacy in America, for example, had it's origins from the English Crown, Charles I and II, circa 1600s. Othelllo (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

White supremacy and the Vikings

"White Supremacists Have Weaponized an Imaginary Viking Past. It's Time to Reclaim the Real History"

"Vikings were never the pure-bred master race white supremacists like to portray"

"White Supremacy’s Old Gods: The Far Right and Neopaganism" I'm not sure how relevant this book is here, it obviously has a use in other articles:"The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages" The articles above though seem relevant here and elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

GamerKiller2347's Apology

I would like to apologize to everyone for my behavior in the last 2 RfCs. I should've done a better job at listening to everyone's comments. I promise that I'll do a better job at listening to the comments and I will also do a better job at listening to reliable sources. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Remove this outlandish claim its not verifiable. 2600:1700:521:2350:2848:CD7:9DAD:2140 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ed6767 talk! 16:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

John McWhorter

It may be just me, but John McWhorter's ideas seem fairly fringe, and I wonder if we are putting too much emphasis on him as a source. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that he appears well credentialed and published in reliable and not fringy sources on these topics, I am not too concerned with the emphasis here. Not my area of expertise, so if we start to have contrary views from other reliable sources and especially sources suggesting he is fringe for the points in question, than I would support reconsideration and a change in emphasis.-Pengortm (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I found an extremely long article that could benefit this Wikipedia article.

Here's the link, I have neither the patience nor the attention span to read the entire analysis and modify the related Wikipedia article accordingly. It just goes on and on and on forever. This could be noteworthy on the Richard Spencer article too since he is mentioned in the analysis. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

New Child Article: White Supremacy in United States School Curriculum

I am planning on creating a new article on white supremacy specifically in US curriculum (obviously), and I am considering what I might be able to add to this article's section on education to link to this new article. My current idea is to relay several historical and modern examples of white supremacist narratives in school curricula and some analysis from critical race theory scholars. I have a more detailed outline of the information I can pull from on my user page. Does this sound good? --MBJAnderson (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

Add Donald Trump due to his clear signaling of support for those groups. ERMOS (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That is not a conclusion Wikipedia should be arriving at. However, if independent news sources make the connection, then we can integrate what those sources say. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding info on "White power" movement

There are a number of WP:RS academic books, encyclopedias and peer-reviewed articles published over 20+ years that describe the ideological movement associated with white supremacy as the "white power" movement. I see "white power" is redirected here, and there's a little coverage, however, I propose to expand this entry, or per WP:GNG craft a new article, on this social movement. I'd like to help with this, but haven't the capacity for the time being, so in the meantime I am posting an initial bibliography of relevant books in case other editors who have been involved in the development of this article recently may be interested in taking that on, or flagging the issue to other editors. Tagging: Beyond My Ken GamerKiller2347 EvergreenFir Grayfell Doug Weller Jmabel

Works:

• Belew, K. (2018) Bring the war home: The white power movement and paramilitary America. Harvard University Press. (already cited in text).

• Burley, S., & Ross, A. (2019). From Nativism to White Power: Mid-Twentieth-Century White Supremacist Movements in Oregon. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 120(4), 564-587. doi:10.5403/oregonhistq.120.4.0564 (JSTOR)

• Burke, K. (2020). “It’s a white fight and we’ve got to win it”: Culture, violence, and the transatlantic far right since the 1970s. In Geary D., Schofield C., & Sutton J. (Eds.), Global white nationalism: From apartheid to Trump (pp. 262-300). Manchester: Manchester University Press. doi:10.7765/9781526147080.00020

• Drabble, J. (2007). From White Supremacy to White Power: The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and the Nazif¡cation of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s. American Studies, 48(3), 49-74. doi:10.2307/40644149 (JSTOR)

• Dyck, K. (2017). The History of White-Power Music outside Europe. In Reichsrock: The International Web of White-Power and Neo-Nazi Hate Music (pp. 104-144). New Brunswick, New Jersey; London: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ffjrmp.8

• Kapan, J. (ed.) (2000). Encyclopedia of white power: A sourcebook on the radical racist right. Altamira Press.

• Landeu, E (1993). The white power movement: America's racist hate groups. Millbrook Press.

• Reid, S., & Valasik, M. (2020). THE DILEMMA OF DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORIZATIONS. In Alt-Right Gangs: A Hazy Shade of White (pp. 14-30). Oakland, California: University of California Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv153k67v.6 (JSTOR)

• Simi, P. & Futrell, R. (2015) American swastika: Inside the white power movement's hidden spaces of hate (second edition). Rowman & Littlefield.

• Shanks-Meile, S. L., Dobratz, B. A. (2000). The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!". United Kingdom: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Best, Shameran81 (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is useful, thanks! I've adjusted some of the formatting and added some links for easier access. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Shameran81 (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

United States school curriculum

I have added a section on school curriculum in the U.S. if anyone wants to/is willing to take a look--I am wondering if I should expand more? MBJAnderson (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

You cite from a good variety of reliable sources. My only suggestion is that, in the lead section, the note about Christianity does seem somewhat biased. I think it’s most important that you edit that part about white supremacist views in Christianity, or at least be more clear in how you mean that so it doesn’t seem like you’re coming to a particular conclusion in an effort to persuade the audience one way or another here. AHall08 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Your revisions are appropriate and structure is clear and sensible. I think it might help to make the revisions to the lead section about Christianity, and I would even suggest adding a section on Critical Race Theory in the history section because that would be really important to this. I think the biggest suggestion I have for you si the Critical Race Theory thing, especially as the topic is gaining in popularity. AHall08 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments on recent edits

MBJAnderson, thanks for your edits! The section on white supremacy in education is very relevant. I would urge you to consider adding images to the section and additional linking to other pages. I think it would benefit the article and make the connections to other fields and topics more clear. 19jshi (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Addition to See Also section to link with Christian Identity.

Nation of Islam should be included in "See Also" following Black Supremacy as it is the same & a direct opposite group to Christian Identity sharing the same belief system/ structure. 82.71.230.181 (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Cd

Then if anything you're saying the Nation of Islam should be included in the "See Also" of the Black Supremacy page not this one? The opposite of Christian Identity would arguably be Black Identity or Black Supremacy? The see also section is not necessarily meant to include all major organizations adhering to the opposite ideology of a specific page. Would you include all of major political parties that promote democracy on a page about Royalism? Additionally, it should be noted that while in the past the Nation of Islam embraced Black Supremacy and the first incarnation of the organization's teachings inspired much if not most organized modern day Black Supremacists, the group that now calls itself the Nation of Islam as well as its comparatively Liberal direct successor organization-the American Society of Muslims both reject Black Supremacy. When the Nation of Islam was re-instituted in 1977, the new group kept many of the original incarnation's extreme beliefs, including several a reasonable person would find hard not to consider racist; but officially rejected Black Supremacy and continues to teach racial equality and acceptance.

"Its purpose is the maintenance and defense of a system of wealth, power, and privilege"

@Binksternet: Per Special:Diff/996929463, could you point me to the text in the body that this summarizes? I'm afraid I don't quite see it. The claims about purpose and wealth do not seem supported by the cited text in the body. [P]rivilege and power do seem supported. A sentence like:

White supremacy denotes a view favoring the maintenance and defense of white power and privilege.

would seem better supported by the sourced text in the article at present. Again, I don't doubt that "wealth" and "purpose" could be sourced, but I don't see them sourced at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't let me stop you from improving the summary, making it better reflect the article body. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent cases/ supremacists?

The article almost entirely mentions groups, events and people who are approx. 100 years or more old. Also, the list of "White Separatists" are not necessarily "White Supremacists".

The idea of a person believing their race should not intersect with other races is not the same as believing that their race is superior to other races. Why is that category in a wiki for supremacists? Jared Taylor for example has said many times that he would prefer the races be seperate but has never said even one word about superiority. This is very misleading and is 2 entirely different subjects.

Also, listening to the main stream media - the current newsycle is constantly driving home the idea that "white supremacy" is responsible for almost everything negative in the world today. I'm sure there must be hundreds or thousands of examples and people that can be cited as "white supremacists" that are current, yet again I'm only seeing a few names here that haven't been deceased for decades, and of even those names - most are seperatists and not supremacists.

Ultimately, I'm proposing the white seperatist group be removed from this wiki (and either filed under it's own wiki or not), and also add more names of current people that are actual white SUPREMACISTS and haven't been dead since before the Civil Rights movement. Yashamaga (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, older stuff has more coverage, and is generally less controversial, so it's easier to write about it. And when dealing with living people WP:BLP requires that we be cautious - we can only mention them here if the sourcing is very high-quality. We'd also want to avoid having this become a dumping ground for everyone who has been widely-described as a white supremacist - listing the most important / influential white supremacists of the 21st century here makes sense, but it shouldn't be an indiscriminate list. Still, some possible sources regarding modern white supremacy:

References

None of the sources you have cited give any examples of 21st-century white supremacists, just the usual case of Marxist "academics" smearing Donald Trump and conservatives in general as racist and far-right without any evidence, which is part of the Left's agenda to dilute and render the terms "racism," "white supremacy," and "far-right" meaningless. This very Wikipedia article itself briefly mentions how modern-day far-left academics deliberately misuse the term "white supremacy" in order to sow confusion and conflict, and to demonize their political opponents. If you were being serious and not hyperbolic, actual 21st-century white supremacists would be people like David Duke (yeah, looks like he's nearing 100 years old), Robert Spencer (younger, Millennial version), groups like Atomwaffen Division, and Web sites like Stormfront and The Daily Stormer. Actual white supremacists are quite rare, fringe, and powerless in this century, despite what you may have heard from the left-wing media or blue check mark celebrities on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCoySWAT (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Human Genetic Branching" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Human Genetic Branching. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#Human Genetic Branching until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Captain America vs alt-right/Nazis comment

I noticed the revised comment in the sentence about Captain America and Nazis in the 'effect of the media' section has been reverted back with a request to bring the talk discussion between myself and @Binksternet: about it onto this page. Therefore, I am doing so below:

I'm glad we managed to work together to sort things out on the BLM article, so I was hoping we'd be able to do likewise on the line in the White Supremacy article. In short, our dispute revolves around this line, "The comic book super hero Captain America was used for dog whistle politics by the alt-right in college campus recruitment in 2017, an ironic co-optation because Captain America had always battled against Nazis in the comics, and was created by Jewish cartoonists", and I just don't think using the term 'Nazis' when the first half of the sentence talks about "alt-right" promoting is accurate, since the alt right does not necessarily mean Nazi. In fact, neo-Nazis are said to be a minority in the alt-right groups https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2016/11/23/the-difference-between-alt-right-and-neo-nazi-explained/37424923/. Plus, Captain America fights actual Nazis, whereas any Nazi ideology in the alt right spectrum would in fact be neo-Nazi, and that's not QUITE the same thing. And your added wording of "had ALWAYS battled Nazis" isnt quite accurate as he only fights against Nazis for a part of his comic run, not even a majority of it.

I thus propose the wording "The comic book super hero Captain America was used for dog whistle politics by the alt-right in college campus recruitment in 2017, an ironic co-optation because Captain America had been known to battle against far-right ideologies including white supremacists and Nazis in the comics, and was created by Jewish cartoonists." This most accurately addresses the comparison itself as well as the character's comics run.

What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that'll work. Thanks for keeping the word Nazis with regard to Captain America's opponents. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As you can see @Pengortm:, we found a suitable version between us on what to use, so your revertion back to one of our previously discussed wordings based on your personal preferences is flawed. As is your argument about the content being a misportrayal of the source, which says, "Captain America was created by writer Joe Simon and artist Jack Kirby—both of whom were Jewish—in 1941. In the superhero's first appearance, he can be seen punching Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in the face. Despite his overt anti-Nazi overtones, his origin story, which involves a physically weak man gaining superpowers after being injected with a super-soldier serum, has become a dog whistle for white supremacist ideology." Nowhere does it say that he "ALWAYS" fights Nazis at all, and considering the topic of this article and that white supremacists are not synonymous with Nazis, it doesn't make sense to have the phrasing as you've put it.

If @Binksternet: can confirm that he's still happy with the phrasing we agreed on, and if @Pengortm: has no further questions, I suggest that Pengortm please revert the version back to the agreed one unless you have any further questions. Otherwise I would be happy to do so. Davefelmer (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Davefelmer appears to be worried about the equation of white supremacists and Nazis, because the two are not exactly the same thing. But Professor Leslie Madsen-Brooks makes the connection explicit in the cited article from Idaho Statesman. Madsen-Brooks points out the irony of white supremacists adopting a superhero who fought Nazis, because white supremacists are considered the modern Nazis.

This trimming job by Pengortm correctly removes the unreferenced stuff about far-right ideologies and white supremacists, even though it inserts the word "always" which is not supported. I would fix the problem by removing "had always". Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine. Considering the above, I too would accept removing "had always". Davefelmer (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the collegial discussion and bringing this to the talk page. I also agree with removing "had always". I'll go do this momentarily. -Pengortm (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Captain America was born of Irish parents and was therefore an Irish-American. Erin go bragh!78.17.21.207 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Black people think of white supremacy as including USA laws

Can it be included that black people view USA laws as central to white supremacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.133.211 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

All we need is a reliable source. deisenbe (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Should be "White supremacism" instead of "White supremacy"

Saying "[X] is White Supremacy" implies that [X] is an area where whites are superior. "White supremacism" only implies that there are people who believe in white supremacy in [x]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.131 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Why no mention of Donald Trump

I guess Donald Trump paid Wikipedia alot of moneey to remove his name from this article since he is a well known supporter of white supremacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.12.170 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You will need to use a reliable source in order to add your requested content. 2600:1012:B12D:1903:0:7:2DDE:201 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

this is what trolling looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.245.204 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"From memes to race war: How extremists use popular culture to lure recruits"

See [5] Doug Weller talk 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Scare quotes?

Why are there scare quotes around " 'races' " in the intro when MOS:SCAREQUOTES (if I understand it correctly) forbids them? - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears to have been added with this edit [6], with no clear explanation. I'll remove them. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

It is unreasonable to make the words "white supremacY" (Historical Events) equal to "White supremacISM" (belief). The article seems to be focused on "white supremacISM" (belief). A separate WIKI for historical examples of White SupremacY around the World should be created, to include for example the arrival of the White Supremacists at Plymouth, MA in 1620, the establishment of Jamestown in 1607, the Conquest of Mexico, etcetera. 74.76.77.139 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

Recently added a WW2-era poster as lead image, it was reverted citing MOS:IMAGE. My (paraphrased) response on the reverting editor's talk page was:

Hi @Generalrelative:

Here to discuss your recent edit: "Image did not belong in the lead. I am not sure it belongs anywhere in the article either, per MOS:IMAGE. What does it illustrate?"

It illustrates a clear distinction in the way white/"Aryan" people were perceived in Nazi Germany (a society widely acknowledged as white supremacist) versus Black people. The poster serves as an Exhibit-A of sorts when it comes to what white supremacy is.

The image may be considered offensive, but I imagine that any historical image attempting to convey the concept of "white supremacy" would be as well. There is no gore, no acute suffering, no atrocity. It seems that it adheres to MOS:SHOCK and MOS:OMIMG.

MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES doesn't apply as the article is about a belief regarding an ethnic group/race, not the group itself.

As for MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, the core strength of the image is its age, which speaks to how long white supremacy has been around; it's not a new phenomenon but one that the world has been dealing with for quite some time. In my mind this overrides concerns about the visual darkness of the image.

I still think it's fit for the lead. If that view isn't shared, I propose that we include it in the History:Germany section as it's a specific illustration of white supremacy in that country in the described time period.

Thoughts? Sweetstache (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Sweetstache, for launching this discussion. For reference, this is the Nazi propaganda poster under discussion: [7] There are two issues here: 1) Does this image belong in the lead, and 2) does it belong in the article at all.

1) In my view the argument against inclusion in the lead is more clearly self-evident. MOS:LEADIMAGE states: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. The image in question does not illustrate the topic of white supremacy specifically, nor is it the type of image one would expect to find in a high-quality reference work on the topic. Indeed, it seems likely that white supremacy is one of those topics mentioned in the MOS for which no easy representation exists, and that is fine. Further, LEADIMAGE also states: Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Since the image in question is clearly shocking in the way it seeks to depict people of African descent as subhuman, it violates this second stipulation as well.

2) The argument against inclusion at all is more subjective, but I would argue that it does in fact run afoul of MOS:OMIMG, particularly the part which enjoins us to Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. This image is so deeply offensive and dehumanizing that its only encyclopedic value would be to illustrate precisely these aspects of Nazi propaganda. In my view the primary thing this image would serve to do were it to be included here would be to give pornographic pleasure to neo-Nazis who happen to be perusing the article and cause People of Color who may be looking to this page for information to feel gratuitously harassed. (Please note that it is clearly not Sweetstache's intention to cause these reactions –– I think their good faith is clear from the context –– but nonetheless I believe that this will be the likely outcome of inclusion.) Per OMIMG we should include such offensive images only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. In this case, I would argue, none of these conditions is met. Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Is there a way in which one can pictorially represent the idea of "white supremacy" without shocking large numbers of people? Its logical conclusion runs so contrary to modern liberal democratic ideals and morality that the belief itself is shocking. Maybe that's an argument against including it as a lead image, and I think I see your point on that. But to shy away from including the image at all because it will (most definitely) shock many people seems to doing marginalized groups a great injustice. White supremacy has led to their mass murder in the past, and making that connection clear is, IMHO, for the best. We ought not repeat the dark part of history that this poster came from. The more people that understand the fact--especially with a dose of shock--that mask-off white supremacy has only recently been marginalized in the Western world, the better. I think there is significant value in associating the belief with the feeling of shock itself. This image is used over at Holocaust victims#Additional Non-Europeans to contextualize the thought process of a regime that slaughtered 17 million people in cold blood. The belief that this poster exemplifies--this article--was the beating heart of that regime. Don't we want that fact to be crystal clear? Sweetstache (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, Sweetstache, but I'm still not convinced that the image has an overriding encyclopedic value here –– or at Holocaust victims#Additional Non-Europeans for that matter. Regarding the latter, be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is typically a form of argument we avoid in talk page discussions. I do want to emphasize that it's clear to me you're coming at this from a genuine concern to improve the encyclopedia. We just have different intuitions about what is going to be helpful to readers, and the guidelines leave a lot of room for interpretation in matters like this. I would suggest that we now take a step back and wait for others to chime in and hopefully resolve the issue one way or the other. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No Nazi poster, please. The topic is larger than that. Let's not lead the reader to think the topic is primarily about Germany during two decades of the last century. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thoughts on adding it to the History:Germany section, and limiting its context/influence to that part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetstache (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

German Nazi ideology was built on centuries of prejudice against Jews, while white suprematism was built on centuries of economic exploitation of Black people. The two topics should be treated differently. While Hitler had some Black people murdered or sterilized, whiteness was not important for his rhetorics, thinking, or ideology. When Nazis used the term "negro", it was to attack their opponents as being too friendly towards or being corrupted by Black people - in the case of the poster the opponent under attack is the Catholic Church, in many other cases it was American culture, e.g. in the form of Jazz music. That's why I think the poster doesn't belong here at all. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

White supremacy outside Europe and the anglosphere

Why is there no mention of white supremacy in the Middle East? Several middle eastern/North African countries such as Mauratania and Libya have major racial issues and a caste system that places black at the bottom and white on top. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The answer is, because no one made the effort to summarize the existing literature on that point! You can be the first if you want. -- Mvbaron (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khajehmal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)