This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
'White supremacy' is often used as a pejorative label by non-white, anti-white, communist and advocacy organizations to misconstrue white ethnocentric organizations and activists to the public. This entry needs a NPOV tag and a cleanup.-- Wittsun ( talk) 14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
User:The Undertow, you reverted my edit which included sourcing all of your claims of OR. Yahel Guhan 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahel Guhan insists on placing 'racist' in the lead of this article. Incidentally removes racist from the Black supremacy article. User also insists on "You can call it white nationalism, white suprematism, white pride, or anything else. It is all the same, in that it is all the same racist dogma designed to say white people are dominant to black people." So pretty much, I'm questioning the motives here, the clear POV pushing agenda and I want a source review with that last addition. Either all supremacy articles have 'racist' in the lead or none, but no more of this anti-white sentiment shown by a user who adds "Secondly, Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise." I've warned you before that your edits are POV-pushing. Just because you have a source, doesn't necessarily mean it merits inclusion either. Please think long and hard about your behavior and how it does not represent each race with equality. the_undertow talk 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The sourced definition in the article; according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of the racism article reads:
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
' [1]
Nothing about supremacy here. That is your original research. Yahel Guhan 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
References
I've removed the word from the lede for several reasons.
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE Remove "Rasist" from the lead. Allow me to quote the current (7 NOV 2008, 11:46 PM) Black Supremacy Lead "Black supremacy is an ideology based on the assertion that black people are superior to other racial groups." Contrast that with "White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other racial groups. The term is sometimes used specifically to describe a racist[1] political ideology that advocates the social and political dominance of whites.[2]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.89.3 ( talk) 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone on here needs to get a life and just put up the correct information the first time and we wont have these problems. you people get ignorent people all confused with your false "facts" you put up here for fun, it's not funny but annoying. and its not right. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
163.150.23.55 (
talk)
19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a great deal of Original Research in this article. The entire "history" section, for example is without citations or verifiable sources. The article should read as encyclopedic, though many statements throughout are subjective. Perhaps it should be sourced or reworked. Or perhaps remove the entire section? EyePhoenix ( talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Zionism must be included as a white supremacist group. Its founders were white Europeans, its backers were and are white Euopreans, and it claims to represent "God's chosen people" - which can only be viewed as a claim to be the "master race" since no rational person takes any bloodthirsty tracts written thousands of years ago to be anything more than "childish superstition" [Einstein]. This perfidious movement first terrorized then bought somebody else's land without their consent and continues to bribe and blackmail its way to stealing more of that land and massacring and dehumanising its people. It should be noted that the head of the privately-owned Federal Reserve and all its dozen directors are Zionists and that they continue to fund this bastard state, bribe and blackmail the venal politicians of the US with lavish gifts of money through their vicarious agents, charge usurious interest to print what will soon be worthless scraps of paper and fund wars wherever they be staged. Their members head all of the major media in the English-speaking world. To forestall any name-calling, these barbaric supremacists have nothing "Semitic" about them in any form; they are white supremacists par excellence and the gravest threat to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.109.156 ( talk) 23:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because Jewish isn't a race doesn't mean that white supremacy doesn't lead to antisemitism. Anyway, according to the Jew article it is an ethnicity, nationality, and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totallygayusa ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
But Jews aren't European~ They might be described as white, but if Jews are white, then so are Arabs - who are also Semites. Of course traditionally Arabs regarded themselves as whites, especially in north africa. JohnC ( talk) 09:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Jews in Israel are roughly split 50/50 amongst European Jews and Middle East [arab looking] Jews, the two groups have and are mixing pretty steadily in Israel...Its a distortion of reality to call Zionists "White" OR racist. Give it another 30 years and Israeli Jews will be thoroughly mixed and still 100% Jewish. A racist ideology would not allow white skinned folks to breed with different folk, I will agree that Zionism is pro-Jew however it is pro-Jew regardless if the Jew is white, arab or black..
107.222.205.242 (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is the word "Anachronistic" actually important in the definition of White Supremacy, as in "White supremacy is the anachronistic belief that white people are superior..." vs "White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior..."?
This word has been in there since April 21 2009. It was subsequently removed; however, Dawn Bard reinstated it on the basis that it was the "consensus view" that anachronistic should be in there.
Please can you provide a reference for such a consensus view? Alternatively, should the word "anachronistic" be added to pages such as Racial supremacy and Black Supremacy? Should it also be added to the pages on Sexism, Ageism, in fact, any page concerning discrimination?
I do not in any way condone or support White (c.f. racial) Supremacist views; I find them abhorrent. However, in the name of article neutrality and consistency, I suggest that this word be removed. -- 155.198.108.162 ( talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I only looked at the history of this page becuase of the word "anachronistic." I am not sure how this could be used. It is referring to a belief. Beliefs are neither right nor wrong, they are facts. Bob believes X, Fred believes Y. It doesn't matter when they believe these things. They exist as a belife in Bobs time period and in Fred's time period regardless of of their adherence to reality. There are people, today, who believe the earth is flat it is not anachronistic to say John believes the earth is flat. You can say not many people believe that now, that is something people used to think but not today, etc, but you would be wrong sine John believes it now.
If you are saying that only backwards trogladytes believe such today, you are not only begging the question in a "no true Scotsman" fashion, but are engaging in the same sort of condecending, you not better, behavior that this word accuses others of.
Or perhaps the person who inserted this word meant it to mean that there was a time when this believe reflected reality, but that time has passed. "Sure, black's ( or whomever) used to suck but not anymore".
Which is it. 75.177.47.137 ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Good thing I checked the talk page before just removing that word; it obviously has nothing do to here, it's completely POV. Furthermore, this is the kind of bias that will drive some users away from Wikipedia and turn towards Conservapedia or something. My opinion is that white supremacy is a silly concept, but I believe the WP article doesn't even need to be biased in order for readers to reach that conclusion. It's like saying "breatharians are stupid people who think they can get nutrients from the air", whereas a NPOV version would be "breatharians believe they can get nutrients from the air". In both cases, the breatharians are called out on their bullshit. But in the first case, the breatharians can claim WP is biased and therefore unreliable. 151.65.77.149 ( talk) 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Anachronism suggests either that white supremacy was once right but is now wrong, or that it is no longer a term in use. The only anachronism is the use of that term at all. JohnC ( talk) 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
To group White Nationalist Separatism together under "White Supremacy" is highly misleading. Both terms can even be consider mutually exclusive, if one considers that "White Supremacy" requires the presence of non-Whites that the White group can dominate or be "supreme" to. White Separatism is just requiring a society and social order that would be exclusively for Whites, something like a White state were non-Whites would only have access as guests meeting the requirements of the host. -- 41.17.186.128 ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This article now begins thus:
But I understand the word "supremacy" to mean not just superiority, but rather that one group actually dominates another—makes the rules, gives orders, etc. It implies something enforceable. Superiority, on the other hand, merely means being better. "White superiority" would mean white people are better than other people; "white supremacy" should mean white people give orders to others. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't doubt it if someone (probably without an edit summary) tried to sneak the word "racialism" into this article. This is not synonymous with the word "racism". Can the lead editors of this article beware of this please?-- Malleus Felonius ( talk) 17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds purposefully misleading. It's lead to violence for all non-white's and Jewish people. There isn't even a reference that proves that it leads to violence for those two races alone. I changed it before and I'll change it again because it takes away from the truth of the article. 174.3.167.186 ( talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I dispute that "White supremacy" is rooted in ethnocentrism. Kevin B. MacDonald has said that they rank low in ethnocentrism. I think it is not the result of chauvinism, but rather based on objective analysis. Rrrrr5 ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
[1] How is this a peacock term? Rrrrr5 ( talk) 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
isn't saying white supremacists think themselves superior to other races enough without adding they think they are "culturally, intellectually, and morally" superior? This isn't supposed to be written like a racist tract.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 18:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see how these are peacock terms. If your problem is with the lack of citations, we don't need citations because it is so well-known that these are the essential foundations of White supremacist belief. If you really want some citations I could cite some White supremacist literature. I could even cite Hitler. Rrrrr5 ( talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the text where it states that the World Church of the Creator (now known as "The Creativity Movement") believes in a certain day that a "Racial Holy War" is to kick off. It is clear from their writings that they believe that all races are natural enemies and in a "war" for their own survival and expansion on planet earth, and Rahowa is the White Race's war for survival, expansion and advancement under the Creativity religion which started with the formation of their religion by the publishing of the book Nature's Eternal Religion in 1973 by Ben Klassen. Incidentally, that very day is referred to them as "Rahowa Day" and it is observed as a holiday by them on March 20th. It is also the day in which their first world center was built. Also, one can look at their book Rahowa! This Planet is All Ours! and see that they believe it to be more or less a "revolution of values through religion" or "straightening out the White man's thinking" as they put it. So, to sum it up: Rahowa is not going to "occur," it is happening right now in their eyes, and it is not in the sense that some may thing it is, at least not to them, as they have no genocidal plans set, or anything like that. 98.250.41.169 ( talk) 02:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article elaborate upon white-supremacist beliefs and reasoning, like the articles about other belief systems do? It should at least reference, for example, average IQ differences between groups and disparities in historical achievements between races. I believe these and similar facts form the foundation for this line of thinking, and excluding them constitutes a severe anti-white-supremacist bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.220.147 ( talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
White supremacists are still in effect today. Facts, but especially recent pictures portraying white supremacists, their views, and their actions could be very enlightening for this article. -- afa86 ( talk) 15:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I would question the comment (opinion) that "White supremacy was also dominant in South Africa under apartheid".
There is an argument that the ideological basis of Apartheid was quite the reverse of White supremacism.
Pre-1948 South Africa had, for historical reasons, a franchise largely limited to white citizens. Rather like the American Deep South, New Zealand or Australia at the time. The Nationalist Party knew that this was indefensible, so thought up the idea of separate states or territitories for different "nations" to live their own lives. So rather than being a political ideology based on a sense of permanent and inherent white superiority, apartheid was more a theory designed to treat, in principal if not in practise, all races as "separate but equal". That may be racist, but is it Whtie supremacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding Russia, Afghanistan and Iran to article lead as they have more whites than South Africa. 182.185.62.104 ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the entry was incorrect. Holding that one's group is "superior" is neither necessary nor sufficient to supremacism. Indispensable is that the supremacist members of the group in question hold that their group should rule over the other groups. This example should make it clear: whether Supreme Court justices think they are "superior" to judges sitting on other courts is irrelevant to the meaning of "Supreme" in the phrase. The word denotes that the Supreme Court rules over the other courts.
I changed "is superior to" "should rule over". As it was defined it was dysphemistic as well as factually incorrect. An instructive example of the distinction that was conflated in the previous definition: "We had air superiority over the enemy" (more/better planes, pilots); "We had air supremacy over the enemy" (we dominated their airspace.) I ask that anyone reverting do the following:
1. justify your re-definition with examples from any political context of using "supremacy" to where the word doesn't mean something like "ruling over" "dominating" or "having ultimate authority over".
2. explain in your revert definition how someone who holds that his group is inferior in every way to other groups but thinks that his group nonetheless should rule over others (an opinion with an incoherent rationale, perhaps but not impossible to have) is NOT supremacist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk • contribs)
I'm not talking about the "roots" of the words" but the meaning the head of the phrase. You didn't bother looking at the first definition of supreme, "highest in rank or authority". A white person who doesn't believe that white people are superior but holds nonetheless that they should rule over other races is a supremacist, is he not? Your new (and unique in political context) meaning in this context (and this context only) blurs an important distinction and dysphemises a descriptive opinion by conflating it with a prescriptive one. Also, you will have to look far and wide to find an HBD person or anyone else who discusses racial differences in cognitive and temperamental characteristics who holds that White people have higher IQs than Ashkenazis or lower violent crime rates than Japanese.
One definition of a word should not be preferred over another. But defining the word "supremacy" in an unique way when every other use in political/ideological context has a different meaning is unjustified (by anything other than ideological extremism) semantic abuse. That a person can possibly be of the opinion White people should rule over other races and at the same time be the opposite of a "White Supremacist" should give one pause to wonder if we're not dealing with a misnomer here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 17:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Try this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
Or Oxford dictionary Definition of supremacy noun
the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status:the supremacy of the king
or this oxford definition of "white supremacy" white supremacy Syllabification: (white su·prem·a·cy) Definition of white supremacy noun
the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.
If what you call supremacy/supremacism is not misnamed, then kindly point me to the Wikipedia entry or other reference for the word that refers to the ideology where one holds that one's group should rule over others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
With your "People's republic" example, you conflate the intended meaning of those who coined the phrase with a mismatch between the meaning of the phrase and its referents. "People's republic often is a mismomer. Those who use the word "incorrectly" (in a general semantics sense) are often ideologically tone-deaf to its intended meaning -- the same as most who use "white supremacy".
I have shown that ruling over other races is essential to "white supremacy" according to Oxford, otherwise they would have limited or left out the second clause as you do.
If you leave the entry as it is, you imply that the information contained in the Oxford definition's second clause is not essential to supremacism when it clearly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 07:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A cat fight, whilst it may not involve cats, is still a fight as traditionally defined. Same with mirror image. You'll have a harder time finding a phrase where the noun head has an inverted meaning.
Jared Taylor's position is often dysphemised and straw-manned (even if one accepts the re-definition) as such by some of the same "relibale" (according to whom?) sources, even though he has stated repeatedly that Oriental peoples have higher IQs and lower crime rates than whites. If Oxford dictionary is an authoritative source, then its sole definition of the word (they don't list an alternative definition) should be "supreme" over the dysphemistic, propagandising, semantically (and often factually) incorrect common usage and the first and second sentences in the entry inverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 09:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That both "fight" and "image" have either literal and metaphorical meanings in the respective phrases that you cite is irrelevant. The meanings of the words do not differ from standard meanings in isolation when they are taken as the heads of the phases. Orwell could have as well said, with the same meaning of 'image', "Fascism..is a sort of reversed image..of a plausible travesty of Socialism". Or a yet better example, "you are the image of your father".
"Supremacy" (and white supremacy as well), according to Oxford dictionary, has only one meaning. Miriam is ambigious about a possible second meaning. In any event, it is an absolute concept. Would you agree on that? Or can something (or a race of people) be "relatively suprmeme"?
I let the lead paragraph stand as it was except to insert the dictionary definition in the prominent place it deserves to be. The dictionary definition of the phrase should appear most prominently and non-standard definitions follow, even if the non-standard definition is in common currency. That's the way Wikipedia usually deals with defining any non-propaganda term.
You're not telling me that sources in the rest of the article do not deal at all with people who believe that whites should rule over others, are you? My edit is not inconsistent with the sources that use as example of people who deny a desire to rule over others, as it retains the original statement covering such beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
So why don't you propose a sentence that's consistent with the style of other leads and we'll talk about it. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on this. It is better for my propaganda purposes to be able to point to this entry as yet another example of most controversial topics on Wikipedia being hopelessly partisan propagandistic to the point of Wikipedia becoming a grotesque parody of itself. Feel free to continue to use the propaganda re-definition that doesn't distinguish someone who holds that Germans have a more acute sense of what they call "Ort und Ordnung" than Africans from a guy that wants to blow up the Reichstag so that Germans can take their rightful place as a superior people and the supreme rulers of all of Africa. Carry on shunting aside the the original meaning of the term when it was coined (which is its sole dictionary definition to this day) so well as the absolute meaning of "supremacy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 11:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The lead as is now written mostly describes "white supremacism", the belief in white superiority, with overtones of political domination as discussed above. I greatly appreciate the action that Carwil has taken in creating a section on academic coverage and bringing in the much-beloved bell hooks. However I disagree with the implication that "white supremacy" primarily refers to a belief and only secondarily or academically refers to a system, condition or state of affairs. This distinction lurks within the above discussion and would be confirmed by a use of the OED definition.
"White supremacy" is the state of affairs in societies where white people disproportionately control resources and make laws. It is not disputed that Slavery in the United States reflected a period of white supremacy. Whether the United States remains a white supremacist nation—or whether "white supremacy" is merely the aspiration of rogue "white supremacists"—is disputed. That this dispute exists in the United States, at this moment in history, is not a good reason to mis-define the term on Wikipedia.
Although the Google News archive does not go way way back, it does provide a clear indication of how the term has been used after approximately WW2. Look at this search. The first result, from 1965, concerns the legal regime of white-dominated Rhodesia. And many more results from that era use the term in this way. Also check out this search focused on South Africa, where white supremacy was more recently an explicit legal arrangement. Even this very recent article about a "white supremacist" makes clear that "he devoted his often violent life in vain to defending white supremacy". They don't mean he made typed angry posts on message boards "promoting the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds"—they mean he took paramilitary actions in an attempt to maintain the Apartheid regime and the culture of racial oppression that accompanied it.
It is true that as we approach the present day, the term becomes more and more blurred with "white supremacism". ( But I would suggest that just because the mass media change their usage (as they do every decade or so with "terrorist") does not mean Wikipedia should uncritically reflect these changes. We should prefer instead the widespread academic usage of "white supremacy" to refer to a system of control—a usage which probably does "express" the historical continuity of but also represents continuity with historical usage. Academics investing a definition for shock value would be one thing. " Neo-Confederate", for example seems to be a neo-logism used by detractors to emphasize certain elements of Southern culture. Or, in an unrelated example, " Paraliterature" seems to be an academic term used to marginalize non-canon literature. Also see: Other, Modernity, Object and other words which academics have borrowed from ordinary usage in order to impart a specialized meaning. Contemporary academic use of the term "white supremacy" is distinct because it reflects the term's historical and global usage. groupuscule ( talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem I have with that is that the phrase "White supremacy" in its common usage is a pejorative. "Whites" make laws and control resourses in 96% White Iceland. Does it follow that "White supremacy" reigns in Iceland? Or Korean supremacy in Korea? A better case might be made that "Jewish supremacist" is not a tautological description of 20% Arab Israel. And if "White supremacy" were purely denotative, one could argue that what reigns in the US is that very subtype of White supremacy, Jewish supremacy, judging from Jews' enormously disproportionate represenatation to their population representation among the richest people in America lists, big finance, ivy league admissions, political representatives and Supreme Court justices and the enormous power of AIPAC.
Do you really not recognise the difference between "reaching for a[n unsupported] conclusion" and arguing against Groupuscle's definition by way of example?
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Black supremacy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Couple of problems. Definition in first sentence is unsourced and seems too much of a generalization given the various strands in existence. Secondly, I don't believe it is appropriate to redirect White power to this article (as it currently does) given that many of these groups that promote so-called "white power" are not necessarily promoting white supremacy, but rather white separatism. I don't believe it is NPOV to conflate supremacy with separatism. Laval ( talk) 15:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Copied here from my talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This is about this material.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk)
Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - Not trying to be contentious, but just out of curiosity how is my statement factually incorrect? I'm interested to know where, other than European or other extant 'Western Countries' (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, etc. usually with a white majority (except S.A)), white Supremacy exists?
When typing the term into the wikipedia search box, it gets redirected to the article on David Duke. It seems rather odd, since jews regard themselves as "God's Chosen People". So shouldn't there be a relevant article of this nature on that subject? Just asking. 64.134.242.219 ( talk) 20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that, in it's annual report, German Verfassungsschutz defines a Neo-Nazi as a person who was sentenced to imprisonment or monetary fine for right wing crimes and misdemeanors (such as negating shoa or inciting ethnical hate). Thus, there are more than 6,000 Neo-Nazis in Germany. The number 26,000 vaguely corresponds to the members of far-right political parties, like NPD and DVU. The ideas of white supremacy are much more widespread in German society, e.g. in some of the Burschenschaften, especially the Deutsche Burschenschaft with 15,000 Members. There may be white supremacists being members of both a Burschenschaft and a far-right party, but political activism in elections etc. might not appeal to every member of a Burschenschaft, et vice versa. In the aftermath of 9/11 and financial crisis, politicians and writers like Thilo Sarrazin [ [2]] (SPD, Social Democratic Party) and Udo Ulfkotte spoke out for euroscepticism and an end of multiculturalism, which, in their eyes, failed in Germany and Europe, and against "islamification" of Germany. In his Book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany is abolishing itself, published in 2010 and sold over 1,5 million times) Sarrazin uses biological "arguments" in his images of misfit, violent and religionally mislead foreigners or citizens of foreign descent and speaks out for eugenics. Following Sarrazin's books and his foreign predecessors like Geert Wilders and Pim Fortuijn, new NGO's (like Pro Deutschland and Pro Köln) protested against the construction of mosques and multicultural social centers, and chapters of Ku Klux Klan were founded. Their members were police officers (see: Ku_klux_klan#Other_countries ) as well as Beate Zschäpe, member of far-right terrorist organization National Socialist Underground [ [3]]. Due to statistics from German Government, between the reunification in 1990 and 2009 84 people were murdered by fascists, neo-nazis and other people who believe in white supremacy. German newspapers name higher numbers between 100 and 187 victims. In 2013, German minister of the Interior announced that 746 cases of killings or attempted killings were to be re-examined because they could be overlooked hate crimes by white supremacists. Results are expected im summer 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/german-police-killings-far-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.145.108 ( talk) 02:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Subsequent note Consequent to this, I have begun a request for comments below.
86.170.130.156 (
talk)
02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Even after the page has been protected, there continues vandalism of the lead removing the word "racist". The word is there per
WP:LEAD. Nowhere in the entire article is it remotely suggested that White supremacy isn't racist. It is well sourced over and over that it is a racist ideology.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not "vandalism" to remove an unnecessary emotive adjective from the beginning of an article. There is no reason this adjective belongs in the first sentence, if as you said, there is plenty of evidence stating said fact in the article. Think of it this way: of the two following sentences, which sounds better in terms of how efficiently information is conveyed?
Or,
Both these examples have an explanation after the lead sentence explaining that EvergreenFir edits articles, thus it is redundant to add the "article-editing" adjective in the beginning. Forgive me if this idea seems absurd, but I believe it is one of common grammatical sense; the adjective "racist" is redundant, emotive, and unnecessary, and should thus be omitted from the article. Deciduous Maple ( talk) 05:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
nonspecialist reader, this information cannot be taken for granted. See WP:BEGIN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If you read WP:Redundancy it says "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." I could make the intro "White supremacism is the racist, hateful, ice-chilling and totally worthless belief, or promotion of the belief, .. etc" but it would not make the intro more descriptive, it would just make it bloated and seem very nonobjective. It would be WP:UNDUE if we didn't mention racism AT ALL in the article, but what we are arguing for is that racist in the intro is both unnecessary and bloating. Amlaera ( talk) 05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
nonobjectiveI think you are trying to refer to neutral point of view. The inclusion of this word is actually encouraged by that Wikipedia policy, by WP:LEAD, and by WP:BEGIN as it describes the topic of the article succinctly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
What User:EvergreenFir said. Not much to add. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) What User:EvergreenFir said. Not much to add. Haminoon ( talk) 07:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The recent edits are coming from 8chan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that 'racist' in the lead paragraph is important for summarising the article, and as such I have reverted a recent attempt to remove this adjective from the lead. If I'm mistaken (white supremacy is not described as racist by the article) do feel free to revert me and let me know why at my talk page or here. Cheers! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. So yes it belongs in the lead as white supremacy is the definition of racism. Drop it now. You are not helping yourself here. Avono ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Note I have begun a request for comments below to address this. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New editor to page here. There is clearly a disagreement between editors above (both recently and years ago). The natural resolution is to keep the current lead (choice 2) and request input from other editors through a request for comments.
Which should be used as the first sentence in the lead?
The first choice omits the description of racist; the second includes it. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Relevant policies collected and linked here for reference
|
---|
Collate relevant policies below for ease of reference. To avoid creating any kind of bias, please place these in alphabetical order. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 02:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
|
My own problem with the option #2 formulation is that "racist" there is just bad writing. It's adjectival form looks unnecessary and indeed reads like a
WP:LABEL. ...But that it is a "form of racism" rather than "the racist belief" fits perfectly with the consensus among reliable sources (it is "universally-held"
, as you say). That it is a form of racism is not therefore an "opinion". It is, after all, implicit in [race] (white in this case) + [supremacism] (which necessarily means superior to non-white). Furthermore across reliable sources (we use secondary rather than tertiary), the by far most frequent context it is written about, if not explicitly defined as such, is that of racism. In popular culture, press, literature, etc. that it is racist is absolutely essential to its meaning. The view that racism is not central (or "essential") to the definition of white supremacism seems to be explained only by statements such as your own that "In theory there can be non-racist White supremacism"
(i.e.
WP:FRINGE). --—
Rhododendrites
talk \\
20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Emphasis mine. Dave Dial ( talk) 01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.
The arguments that struck me the most are as follows:
"White supremacy is a form of racial prejudice which holds that..." is an entirely accurate lede. "White supremacy is a form of racism" may also be entirely accurate, depending on how we interpret both this article and the Racism article. I close this RfC by leaning for the general wording suggested by Choice 3, and suggest a bit of follow-up discussion over specific terminology. Shii (tock) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Opening this section to discuss any issues with the wording in Option 3. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link "anti-miscegenation laws" in the section "United States" to Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC).
The title of this article is "White supremacy," but the definition immediately changes the word being defined to "white supremacism." This change subverts the meaning of the word. The change to "ism" is defined as a form of racism, which is essentially an *attitude* or *approach* or *bias.* By contrast, others who have methodically defined the term "White supremacy" use it (with out the 'ism') to describe something else: a state of affairs in which white peoples and nations collectively dominate, exploit and benefit from dominating non-white people, and an ongoing project to maintain such. This definition of white supremacy names and characterizes a *system*. The below definition is expanded in the cited source to address precisely the difference between racism (or one might say "white supremacism") and white supremacy.
"White Supremacy is an historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations, and peoples of color by white peoples and nations of the European continent, for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power, and privilege." [1]
As this definition has existed for decades and as it defines the expression systematically without changing it to another word, I recommend the "white supremacism" definition either be (a) moved to another article (as it defines another word), (b) removed entirely, or (c) appear below the definition supplied in this comment. 104.57.64.153 ( talk) 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The following was deleted today as "unsourced":
White supremacy is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: importation of slaves was legal for 20 years; slaves counted as 3/5 in determining seats in the House of Representatives (though the slaves could not vote), and even the fact that each state has two senators regardless of population had the effect of increasing the power of white supremacists, who were mostly from sparsely-populated states. According to the Dred Scott decision, African Americans were not citizens even if born in the U.S.; this was remedied after the Civil War in the 14th Amendment.
The Civil War was fought over the question of white supremacy, and black slavery, in the South. The outbreak of the Civil War saw the desire to uphold white supremacy cited as a cause for state secession [1] and the formation of the Confederate States of America. [2] However, though slavery was prohibited everywhere by 1865, whites continued dominant in the United States, though with an interruption, the Reconstruction period. [3]
deisenbe ( talk) 17:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Acording to this article, nazism and white supremacy combined in the early 19th century, and claimed that white people were a part of a superior Aryan race.
Acording to history books there are large differences between white supremacy and nazism. While white supremacy is the belife that white people are superior to others and should rule over them, nazism is very different. They belived germanians were superior, in to an extent western Europeans, but not slavic peoples. They were one of the lowest, even thought they are European and look like whites.
The Nazis were also allied with the Japanese, and I dubt they thought of them as inferior. They were actually impressed.
So the part about nazism should not be here. 77.18.161.207 ( talk) 20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
'White supremacy' is often used as a pejorative label by non-white, anti-white, communist and advocacy organizations to misconstrue white ethnocentric organizations and activists to the public. This entry needs a NPOV tag and a cleanup.-- Wittsun ( talk) 14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
User:The Undertow, you reverted my edit which included sourcing all of your claims of OR. Yahel Guhan 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahel Guhan insists on placing 'racist' in the lead of this article. Incidentally removes racist from the Black supremacy article. User also insists on "You can call it white nationalism, white suprematism, white pride, or anything else. It is all the same, in that it is all the same racist dogma designed to say white people are dominant to black people." So pretty much, I'm questioning the motives here, the clear POV pushing agenda and I want a source review with that last addition. Either all supremacy articles have 'racist' in the lead or none, but no more of this anti-white sentiment shown by a user who adds "Secondly, Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise." I've warned you before that your edits are POV-pushing. Just because you have a source, doesn't necessarily mean it merits inclusion either. Please think long and hard about your behavior and how it does not represent each race with equality. the_undertow talk 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The sourced definition in the article; according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of the racism article reads:
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
' [1]
Nothing about supremacy here. That is your original research. Yahel Guhan 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
References
I've removed the word from the lede for several reasons.
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE Remove "Rasist" from the lead. Allow me to quote the current (7 NOV 2008, 11:46 PM) Black Supremacy Lead "Black supremacy is an ideology based on the assertion that black people are superior to other racial groups." Contrast that with "White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other racial groups. The term is sometimes used specifically to describe a racist[1] political ideology that advocates the social and political dominance of whites.[2]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.89.3 ( talk) 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone on here needs to get a life and just put up the correct information the first time and we wont have these problems. you people get ignorent people all confused with your false "facts" you put up here for fun, it's not funny but annoying. and its not right. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
163.150.23.55 (
talk)
19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a great deal of Original Research in this article. The entire "history" section, for example is without citations or verifiable sources. The article should read as encyclopedic, though many statements throughout are subjective. Perhaps it should be sourced or reworked. Or perhaps remove the entire section? EyePhoenix ( talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Zionism must be included as a white supremacist group. Its founders were white Europeans, its backers were and are white Euopreans, and it claims to represent "God's chosen people" - which can only be viewed as a claim to be the "master race" since no rational person takes any bloodthirsty tracts written thousands of years ago to be anything more than "childish superstition" [Einstein]. This perfidious movement first terrorized then bought somebody else's land without their consent and continues to bribe and blackmail its way to stealing more of that land and massacring and dehumanising its people. It should be noted that the head of the privately-owned Federal Reserve and all its dozen directors are Zionists and that they continue to fund this bastard state, bribe and blackmail the venal politicians of the US with lavish gifts of money through their vicarious agents, charge usurious interest to print what will soon be worthless scraps of paper and fund wars wherever they be staged. Their members head all of the major media in the English-speaking world. To forestall any name-calling, these barbaric supremacists have nothing "Semitic" about them in any form; they are white supremacists par excellence and the gravest threat to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.109.156 ( talk) 23:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because Jewish isn't a race doesn't mean that white supremacy doesn't lead to antisemitism. Anyway, according to the Jew article it is an ethnicity, nationality, and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totallygayusa ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
But Jews aren't European~ They might be described as white, but if Jews are white, then so are Arabs - who are also Semites. Of course traditionally Arabs regarded themselves as whites, especially in north africa. JohnC ( talk) 09:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Jews in Israel are roughly split 50/50 amongst European Jews and Middle East [arab looking] Jews, the two groups have and are mixing pretty steadily in Israel...Its a distortion of reality to call Zionists "White" OR racist. Give it another 30 years and Israeli Jews will be thoroughly mixed and still 100% Jewish. A racist ideology would not allow white skinned folks to breed with different folk, I will agree that Zionism is pro-Jew however it is pro-Jew regardless if the Jew is white, arab or black..
107.222.205.242 (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is the word "Anachronistic" actually important in the definition of White Supremacy, as in "White supremacy is the anachronistic belief that white people are superior..." vs "White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior..."?
This word has been in there since April 21 2009. It was subsequently removed; however, Dawn Bard reinstated it on the basis that it was the "consensus view" that anachronistic should be in there.
Please can you provide a reference for such a consensus view? Alternatively, should the word "anachronistic" be added to pages such as Racial supremacy and Black Supremacy? Should it also be added to the pages on Sexism, Ageism, in fact, any page concerning discrimination?
I do not in any way condone or support White (c.f. racial) Supremacist views; I find them abhorrent. However, in the name of article neutrality and consistency, I suggest that this word be removed. -- 155.198.108.162 ( talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I only looked at the history of this page becuase of the word "anachronistic." I am not sure how this could be used. It is referring to a belief. Beliefs are neither right nor wrong, they are facts. Bob believes X, Fred believes Y. It doesn't matter when they believe these things. They exist as a belife in Bobs time period and in Fred's time period regardless of of their adherence to reality. There are people, today, who believe the earth is flat it is not anachronistic to say John believes the earth is flat. You can say not many people believe that now, that is something people used to think but not today, etc, but you would be wrong sine John believes it now.
If you are saying that only backwards trogladytes believe such today, you are not only begging the question in a "no true Scotsman" fashion, but are engaging in the same sort of condecending, you not better, behavior that this word accuses others of.
Or perhaps the person who inserted this word meant it to mean that there was a time when this believe reflected reality, but that time has passed. "Sure, black's ( or whomever) used to suck but not anymore".
Which is it. 75.177.47.137 ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Good thing I checked the talk page before just removing that word; it obviously has nothing do to here, it's completely POV. Furthermore, this is the kind of bias that will drive some users away from Wikipedia and turn towards Conservapedia or something. My opinion is that white supremacy is a silly concept, but I believe the WP article doesn't even need to be biased in order for readers to reach that conclusion. It's like saying "breatharians are stupid people who think they can get nutrients from the air", whereas a NPOV version would be "breatharians believe they can get nutrients from the air". In both cases, the breatharians are called out on their bullshit. But in the first case, the breatharians can claim WP is biased and therefore unreliable. 151.65.77.149 ( talk) 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Anachronism suggests either that white supremacy was once right but is now wrong, or that it is no longer a term in use. The only anachronism is the use of that term at all. JohnC ( talk) 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
To group White Nationalist Separatism together under "White Supremacy" is highly misleading. Both terms can even be consider mutually exclusive, if one considers that "White Supremacy" requires the presence of non-Whites that the White group can dominate or be "supreme" to. White Separatism is just requiring a society and social order that would be exclusively for Whites, something like a White state were non-Whites would only have access as guests meeting the requirements of the host. -- 41.17.186.128 ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This article now begins thus:
But I understand the word "supremacy" to mean not just superiority, but rather that one group actually dominates another—makes the rules, gives orders, etc. It implies something enforceable. Superiority, on the other hand, merely means being better. "White superiority" would mean white people are better than other people; "white supremacy" should mean white people give orders to others. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't doubt it if someone (probably without an edit summary) tried to sneak the word "racialism" into this article. This is not synonymous with the word "racism". Can the lead editors of this article beware of this please?-- Malleus Felonius ( talk) 17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds purposefully misleading. It's lead to violence for all non-white's and Jewish people. There isn't even a reference that proves that it leads to violence for those two races alone. I changed it before and I'll change it again because it takes away from the truth of the article. 174.3.167.186 ( talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I dispute that "White supremacy" is rooted in ethnocentrism. Kevin B. MacDonald has said that they rank low in ethnocentrism. I think it is not the result of chauvinism, but rather based on objective analysis. Rrrrr5 ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
[1] How is this a peacock term? Rrrrr5 ( talk) 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
isn't saying white supremacists think themselves superior to other races enough without adding they think they are "culturally, intellectually, and morally" superior? This isn't supposed to be written like a racist tract.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 18:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see how these are peacock terms. If your problem is with the lack of citations, we don't need citations because it is so well-known that these are the essential foundations of White supremacist belief. If you really want some citations I could cite some White supremacist literature. I could even cite Hitler. Rrrrr5 ( talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the text where it states that the World Church of the Creator (now known as "The Creativity Movement") believes in a certain day that a "Racial Holy War" is to kick off. It is clear from their writings that they believe that all races are natural enemies and in a "war" for their own survival and expansion on planet earth, and Rahowa is the White Race's war for survival, expansion and advancement under the Creativity religion which started with the formation of their religion by the publishing of the book Nature's Eternal Religion in 1973 by Ben Klassen. Incidentally, that very day is referred to them as "Rahowa Day" and it is observed as a holiday by them on March 20th. It is also the day in which their first world center was built. Also, one can look at their book Rahowa! This Planet is All Ours! and see that they believe it to be more or less a "revolution of values through religion" or "straightening out the White man's thinking" as they put it. So, to sum it up: Rahowa is not going to "occur," it is happening right now in their eyes, and it is not in the sense that some may thing it is, at least not to them, as they have no genocidal plans set, or anything like that. 98.250.41.169 ( talk) 02:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article elaborate upon white-supremacist beliefs and reasoning, like the articles about other belief systems do? It should at least reference, for example, average IQ differences between groups and disparities in historical achievements between races. I believe these and similar facts form the foundation for this line of thinking, and excluding them constitutes a severe anti-white-supremacist bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.220.147 ( talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
White supremacists are still in effect today. Facts, but especially recent pictures portraying white supremacists, their views, and their actions could be very enlightening for this article. -- afa86 ( talk) 15:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I would question the comment (opinion) that "White supremacy was also dominant in South Africa under apartheid".
There is an argument that the ideological basis of Apartheid was quite the reverse of White supremacism.
Pre-1948 South Africa had, for historical reasons, a franchise largely limited to white citizens. Rather like the American Deep South, New Zealand or Australia at the time. The Nationalist Party knew that this was indefensible, so thought up the idea of separate states or territitories for different "nations" to live their own lives. So rather than being a political ideology based on a sense of permanent and inherent white superiority, apartheid was more a theory designed to treat, in principal if not in practise, all races as "separate but equal". That may be racist, but is it Whtie supremacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding Russia, Afghanistan and Iran to article lead as they have more whites than South Africa. 182.185.62.104 ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the entry was incorrect. Holding that one's group is "superior" is neither necessary nor sufficient to supremacism. Indispensable is that the supremacist members of the group in question hold that their group should rule over the other groups. This example should make it clear: whether Supreme Court justices think they are "superior" to judges sitting on other courts is irrelevant to the meaning of "Supreme" in the phrase. The word denotes that the Supreme Court rules over the other courts.
I changed "is superior to" "should rule over". As it was defined it was dysphemistic as well as factually incorrect. An instructive example of the distinction that was conflated in the previous definition: "We had air superiority over the enemy" (more/better planes, pilots); "We had air supremacy over the enemy" (we dominated their airspace.) I ask that anyone reverting do the following:
1. justify your re-definition with examples from any political context of using "supremacy" to where the word doesn't mean something like "ruling over" "dominating" or "having ultimate authority over".
2. explain in your revert definition how someone who holds that his group is inferior in every way to other groups but thinks that his group nonetheless should rule over others (an opinion with an incoherent rationale, perhaps but not impossible to have) is NOT supremacist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk • contribs)
I'm not talking about the "roots" of the words" but the meaning the head of the phrase. You didn't bother looking at the first definition of supreme, "highest in rank or authority". A white person who doesn't believe that white people are superior but holds nonetheless that they should rule over other races is a supremacist, is he not? Your new (and unique in political context) meaning in this context (and this context only) blurs an important distinction and dysphemises a descriptive opinion by conflating it with a prescriptive one. Also, you will have to look far and wide to find an HBD person or anyone else who discusses racial differences in cognitive and temperamental characteristics who holds that White people have higher IQs than Ashkenazis or lower violent crime rates than Japanese.
One definition of a word should not be preferred over another. But defining the word "supremacy" in an unique way when every other use in political/ideological context has a different meaning is unjustified (by anything other than ideological extremism) semantic abuse. That a person can possibly be of the opinion White people should rule over other races and at the same time be the opposite of a "White Supremacist" should give one pause to wonder if we're not dealing with a misnomer here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 17:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Try this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
Or Oxford dictionary Definition of supremacy noun
the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status:the supremacy of the king
or this oxford definition of "white supremacy" white supremacy Syllabification: (white su·prem·a·cy) Definition of white supremacy noun
the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.
If what you call supremacy/supremacism is not misnamed, then kindly point me to the Wikipedia entry or other reference for the word that refers to the ideology where one holds that one's group should rule over others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
With your "People's republic" example, you conflate the intended meaning of those who coined the phrase with a mismatch between the meaning of the phrase and its referents. "People's republic often is a mismomer. Those who use the word "incorrectly" (in a general semantics sense) are often ideologically tone-deaf to its intended meaning -- the same as most who use "white supremacy".
I have shown that ruling over other races is essential to "white supremacy" according to Oxford, otherwise they would have limited or left out the second clause as you do.
If you leave the entry as it is, you imply that the information contained in the Oxford definition's second clause is not essential to supremacism when it clearly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 07:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A cat fight, whilst it may not involve cats, is still a fight as traditionally defined. Same with mirror image. You'll have a harder time finding a phrase where the noun head has an inverted meaning.
Jared Taylor's position is often dysphemised and straw-manned (even if one accepts the re-definition) as such by some of the same "relibale" (according to whom?) sources, even though he has stated repeatedly that Oriental peoples have higher IQs and lower crime rates than whites. If Oxford dictionary is an authoritative source, then its sole definition of the word (they don't list an alternative definition) should be "supreme" over the dysphemistic, propagandising, semantically (and often factually) incorrect common usage and the first and second sentences in the entry inverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 09:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That both "fight" and "image" have either literal and metaphorical meanings in the respective phrases that you cite is irrelevant. The meanings of the words do not differ from standard meanings in isolation when they are taken as the heads of the phases. Orwell could have as well said, with the same meaning of 'image', "Fascism..is a sort of reversed image..of a plausible travesty of Socialism". Or a yet better example, "you are the image of your father".
"Supremacy" (and white supremacy as well), according to Oxford dictionary, has only one meaning. Miriam is ambigious about a possible second meaning. In any event, it is an absolute concept. Would you agree on that? Or can something (or a race of people) be "relatively suprmeme"?
I let the lead paragraph stand as it was except to insert the dictionary definition in the prominent place it deserves to be. The dictionary definition of the phrase should appear most prominently and non-standard definitions follow, even if the non-standard definition is in common currency. That's the way Wikipedia usually deals with defining any non-propaganda term.
You're not telling me that sources in the rest of the article do not deal at all with people who believe that whites should rule over others, are you? My edit is not inconsistent with the sources that use as example of people who deny a desire to rule over others, as it retains the original statement covering such beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
So why don't you propose a sentence that's consistent with the style of other leads and we'll talk about it. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on this. It is better for my propaganda purposes to be able to point to this entry as yet another example of most controversial topics on Wikipedia being hopelessly partisan propagandistic to the point of Wikipedia becoming a grotesque parody of itself. Feel free to continue to use the propaganda re-definition that doesn't distinguish someone who holds that Germans have a more acute sense of what they call "Ort und Ordnung" than Africans from a guy that wants to blow up the Reichstag so that Germans can take their rightful place as a superior people and the supreme rulers of all of Africa. Carry on shunting aside the the original meaning of the term when it was coined (which is its sole dictionary definition to this day) so well as the absolute meaning of "supremacy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 ( talk) 11:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The lead as is now written mostly describes "white supremacism", the belief in white superiority, with overtones of political domination as discussed above. I greatly appreciate the action that Carwil has taken in creating a section on academic coverage and bringing in the much-beloved bell hooks. However I disagree with the implication that "white supremacy" primarily refers to a belief and only secondarily or academically refers to a system, condition or state of affairs. This distinction lurks within the above discussion and would be confirmed by a use of the OED definition.
"White supremacy" is the state of affairs in societies where white people disproportionately control resources and make laws. It is not disputed that Slavery in the United States reflected a period of white supremacy. Whether the United States remains a white supremacist nation—or whether "white supremacy" is merely the aspiration of rogue "white supremacists"—is disputed. That this dispute exists in the United States, at this moment in history, is not a good reason to mis-define the term on Wikipedia.
Although the Google News archive does not go way way back, it does provide a clear indication of how the term has been used after approximately WW2. Look at this search. The first result, from 1965, concerns the legal regime of white-dominated Rhodesia. And many more results from that era use the term in this way. Also check out this search focused on South Africa, where white supremacy was more recently an explicit legal arrangement. Even this very recent article about a "white supremacist" makes clear that "he devoted his often violent life in vain to defending white supremacy". They don't mean he made typed angry posts on message boards "promoting the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds"—they mean he took paramilitary actions in an attempt to maintain the Apartheid regime and the culture of racial oppression that accompanied it.
It is true that as we approach the present day, the term becomes more and more blurred with "white supremacism". ( But I would suggest that just because the mass media change their usage (as they do every decade or so with "terrorist") does not mean Wikipedia should uncritically reflect these changes. We should prefer instead the widespread academic usage of "white supremacy" to refer to a system of control—a usage which probably does "express" the historical continuity of but also represents continuity with historical usage. Academics investing a definition for shock value would be one thing. " Neo-Confederate", for example seems to be a neo-logism used by detractors to emphasize certain elements of Southern culture. Or, in an unrelated example, " Paraliterature" seems to be an academic term used to marginalize non-canon literature. Also see: Other, Modernity, Object and other words which academics have borrowed from ordinary usage in order to impart a specialized meaning. Contemporary academic use of the term "white supremacy" is distinct because it reflects the term's historical and global usage. groupuscule ( talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem I have with that is that the phrase "White supremacy" in its common usage is a pejorative. "Whites" make laws and control resourses in 96% White Iceland. Does it follow that "White supremacy" reigns in Iceland? Or Korean supremacy in Korea? A better case might be made that "Jewish supremacist" is not a tautological description of 20% Arab Israel. And if "White supremacy" were purely denotative, one could argue that what reigns in the US is that very subtype of White supremacy, Jewish supremacy, judging from Jews' enormously disproportionate represenatation to their population representation among the richest people in America lists, big finance, ivy league admissions, political representatives and Supreme Court justices and the enormous power of AIPAC.
Do you really not recognise the difference between "reaching for a[n unsupported] conclusion" and arguing against Groupuscle's definition by way of example?
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Black supremacy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Couple of problems. Definition in first sentence is unsourced and seems too much of a generalization given the various strands in existence. Secondly, I don't believe it is appropriate to redirect White power to this article (as it currently does) given that many of these groups that promote so-called "white power" are not necessarily promoting white supremacy, but rather white separatism. I don't believe it is NPOV to conflate supremacy with separatism. Laval ( talk) 15:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Copied here from my talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This is about this material.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk)
Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - Not trying to be contentious, but just out of curiosity how is my statement factually incorrect? I'm interested to know where, other than European or other extant 'Western Countries' (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, etc. usually with a white majority (except S.A)), white Supremacy exists?
When typing the term into the wikipedia search box, it gets redirected to the article on David Duke. It seems rather odd, since jews regard themselves as "God's Chosen People". So shouldn't there be a relevant article of this nature on that subject? Just asking. 64.134.242.219 ( talk) 20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that, in it's annual report, German Verfassungsschutz defines a Neo-Nazi as a person who was sentenced to imprisonment or monetary fine for right wing crimes and misdemeanors (such as negating shoa or inciting ethnical hate). Thus, there are more than 6,000 Neo-Nazis in Germany. The number 26,000 vaguely corresponds to the members of far-right political parties, like NPD and DVU. The ideas of white supremacy are much more widespread in German society, e.g. in some of the Burschenschaften, especially the Deutsche Burschenschaft with 15,000 Members. There may be white supremacists being members of both a Burschenschaft and a far-right party, but political activism in elections etc. might not appeal to every member of a Burschenschaft, et vice versa. In the aftermath of 9/11 and financial crisis, politicians and writers like Thilo Sarrazin [ [2]] (SPD, Social Democratic Party) and Udo Ulfkotte spoke out for euroscepticism and an end of multiculturalism, which, in their eyes, failed in Germany and Europe, and against "islamification" of Germany. In his Book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany is abolishing itself, published in 2010 and sold over 1,5 million times) Sarrazin uses biological "arguments" in his images of misfit, violent and religionally mislead foreigners or citizens of foreign descent and speaks out for eugenics. Following Sarrazin's books and his foreign predecessors like Geert Wilders and Pim Fortuijn, new NGO's (like Pro Deutschland and Pro Köln) protested against the construction of mosques and multicultural social centers, and chapters of Ku Klux Klan were founded. Their members were police officers (see: Ku_klux_klan#Other_countries ) as well as Beate Zschäpe, member of far-right terrorist organization National Socialist Underground [ [3]]. Due to statistics from German Government, between the reunification in 1990 and 2009 84 people were murdered by fascists, neo-nazis and other people who believe in white supremacy. German newspapers name higher numbers between 100 and 187 victims. In 2013, German minister of the Interior announced that 746 cases of killings or attempted killings were to be re-examined because they could be overlooked hate crimes by white supremacists. Results are expected im summer 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/german-police-killings-far-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.145.108 ( talk) 02:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Subsequent note Consequent to this, I have begun a request for comments below.
86.170.130.156 (
talk)
02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Even after the page has been protected, there continues vandalism of the lead removing the word "racist". The word is there per
WP:LEAD. Nowhere in the entire article is it remotely suggested that White supremacy isn't racist. It is well sourced over and over that it is a racist ideology.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not "vandalism" to remove an unnecessary emotive adjective from the beginning of an article. There is no reason this adjective belongs in the first sentence, if as you said, there is plenty of evidence stating said fact in the article. Think of it this way: of the two following sentences, which sounds better in terms of how efficiently information is conveyed?
Or,
Both these examples have an explanation after the lead sentence explaining that EvergreenFir edits articles, thus it is redundant to add the "article-editing" adjective in the beginning. Forgive me if this idea seems absurd, but I believe it is one of common grammatical sense; the adjective "racist" is redundant, emotive, and unnecessary, and should thus be omitted from the article. Deciduous Maple ( talk) 05:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
nonspecialist reader, this information cannot be taken for granted. See WP:BEGIN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If you read WP:Redundancy it says "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." I could make the intro "White supremacism is the racist, hateful, ice-chilling and totally worthless belief, or promotion of the belief, .. etc" but it would not make the intro more descriptive, it would just make it bloated and seem very nonobjective. It would be WP:UNDUE if we didn't mention racism AT ALL in the article, but what we are arguing for is that racist in the intro is both unnecessary and bloating. Amlaera ( talk) 05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
nonobjectiveI think you are trying to refer to neutral point of view. The inclusion of this word is actually encouraged by that Wikipedia policy, by WP:LEAD, and by WP:BEGIN as it describes the topic of the article succinctly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
What User:EvergreenFir said. Not much to add. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) What User:EvergreenFir said. Not much to add. Haminoon ( talk) 07:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The recent edits are coming from 8chan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that 'racist' in the lead paragraph is important for summarising the article, and as such I have reverted a recent attempt to remove this adjective from the lead. If I'm mistaken (white supremacy is not described as racist by the article) do feel free to revert me and let me know why at my talk page or here. Cheers! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. So yes it belongs in the lead as white supremacy is the definition of racism. Drop it now. You are not helping yourself here. Avono ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Note I have begun a request for comments below to address this. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New editor to page here. There is clearly a disagreement between editors above (both recently and years ago). The natural resolution is to keep the current lead (choice 2) and request input from other editors through a request for comments.
Which should be used as the first sentence in the lead?
The first choice omits the description of racist; the second includes it. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Relevant policies collected and linked here for reference
|
---|
Collate relevant policies below for ease of reference. To avoid creating any kind of bias, please place these in alphabetical order. 86.170.130.156 ( talk) 02:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
|
My own problem with the option #2 formulation is that "racist" there is just bad writing. It's adjectival form looks unnecessary and indeed reads like a
WP:LABEL. ...But that it is a "form of racism" rather than "the racist belief" fits perfectly with the consensus among reliable sources (it is "universally-held"
, as you say). That it is a form of racism is not therefore an "opinion". It is, after all, implicit in [race] (white in this case) + [supremacism] (which necessarily means superior to non-white). Furthermore across reliable sources (we use secondary rather than tertiary), the by far most frequent context it is written about, if not explicitly defined as such, is that of racism. In popular culture, press, literature, etc. that it is racist is absolutely essential to its meaning. The view that racism is not central (or "essential") to the definition of white supremacism seems to be explained only by statements such as your own that "In theory there can be non-racist White supremacism"
(i.e.
WP:FRINGE). --—
Rhododendrites
talk \\
20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Emphasis mine. Dave Dial ( talk) 01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.
The arguments that struck me the most are as follows:
"White supremacy is a form of racial prejudice which holds that..." is an entirely accurate lede. "White supremacy is a form of racism" may also be entirely accurate, depending on how we interpret both this article and the Racism article. I close this RfC by leaning for the general wording suggested by Choice 3, and suggest a bit of follow-up discussion over specific terminology. Shii (tock) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Opening this section to discuss any issues with the wording in Option 3. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link "anti-miscegenation laws" in the section "United States" to Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC).
The title of this article is "White supremacy," but the definition immediately changes the word being defined to "white supremacism." This change subverts the meaning of the word. The change to "ism" is defined as a form of racism, which is essentially an *attitude* or *approach* or *bias.* By contrast, others who have methodically defined the term "White supremacy" use it (with out the 'ism') to describe something else: a state of affairs in which white peoples and nations collectively dominate, exploit and benefit from dominating non-white people, and an ongoing project to maintain such. This definition of white supremacy names and characterizes a *system*. The below definition is expanded in the cited source to address precisely the difference between racism (or one might say "white supremacism") and white supremacy.
"White Supremacy is an historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations, and peoples of color by white peoples and nations of the European continent, for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power, and privilege." [1]
As this definition has existed for decades and as it defines the expression systematically without changing it to another word, I recommend the "white supremacism" definition either be (a) moved to another article (as it defines another word), (b) removed entirely, or (c) appear below the definition supplied in this comment. 104.57.64.153 ( talk) 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The following was deleted today as "unsourced":
White supremacy is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: importation of slaves was legal for 20 years; slaves counted as 3/5 in determining seats in the House of Representatives (though the slaves could not vote), and even the fact that each state has two senators regardless of population had the effect of increasing the power of white supremacists, who were mostly from sparsely-populated states. According to the Dred Scott decision, African Americans were not citizens even if born in the U.S.; this was remedied after the Civil War in the 14th Amendment.
The Civil War was fought over the question of white supremacy, and black slavery, in the South. The outbreak of the Civil War saw the desire to uphold white supremacy cited as a cause for state secession [1] and the formation of the Confederate States of America. [2] However, though slavery was prohibited everywhere by 1865, whites continued dominant in the United States, though with an interruption, the Reconstruction period. [3]
deisenbe ( talk) 17:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Acording to this article, nazism and white supremacy combined in the early 19th century, and claimed that white people were a part of a superior Aryan race.
Acording to history books there are large differences between white supremacy and nazism. While white supremacy is the belife that white people are superior to others and should rule over them, nazism is very different. They belived germanians were superior, in to an extent western Europeans, but not slavic peoples. They were one of the lowest, even thought they are European and look like whites.
The Nazis were also allied with the Japanese, and I dubt they thought of them as inferior. They were actually impressed.
So the part about nazism should not be here. 77.18.161.207 ( talk) 20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)