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 |
Two big issues:
Why not just link "critical race theory" somewhere in the text of this section?-- Carwil ( talk) 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm adding a section called "Use in academia" describing the use of "white supremacy" to denote a system of racism that privileges white people regardless of the presence or absence of hateful intent. This definition is related in important ways to the topic discussed here, obviously, but has a substantially different meaning. I would appreciate some input a bit later on as to whether it should be branched off into a separate article, but for now it can simplify some confusion elsewhere.-- Carwil ( talk) 01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a rather general problem lurking in the background here, though I'm not sure how to deal with it. This use of 'white supremacy' is not, in fact, an *academic* use of the term. Rather, it's a use of the term largely isolated to certain narrow academic disciplines that tend to be (a) largely motivated by leftist (i.e. leftish liberal and lefter-than-liberal) political ends and (b) tied up with a cluster of Continental philosophical views like critical theory (as noted above). Most discussions of race in academic *philosophy* departments don't seem to use the term in this way. The real problem in the background is difficult to deal with, and I'm not sure how Wikipedia would do it... There's a kind of rhetorical inflation in play that's adopted for largely political reasons, and it's trendy in areas of academia that tend to be leftist and closely tied to the view (e.g. in critical theory) that the proper goal of such disciplines is "emancipatory" rather than scholarly/scientific. Thus the rhetorical inflation is promoted for the political end of making ordinary racism seem even worse (by inaccurately *calling* it white supremacism)...but then people gesture at this usage as an "academic" usage, suggesting that the usage is prompted by disinterested scholarly/scientific inquiry... This is an important point, but, again, not one that's easily handled in an objective way. Of course Wikipedia itself also commonly ends up with a similar kind of slant with respect to issues of this kind...so that's another layer of the problem... The real problem I suppose is that scholarship and activism are so mixed together in areas of this kind as a matter of principle...so it's very difficult to find disinterested/non-political scholarly sources to gesture at... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.47.138 ( talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Acording to the article about nazism and the respective sources, these people were not white supremacist. They thought the Germans were the superior race and that they should rule over all Germans (including lost land in WW1). Their hatred were mostly aimed at eastern Europeans and Jews.
This article is based on the idea that white supremacy are an ideology. It is not, just a word to describe colonialist thought. That it would be good for everyone if European powers ruled the world.
Nordicism don't have anything to do here either. They were the first ones to argye that the nordic people were superior to all other people. You do also have many other people arguing that their people were superior.
My suggestion is that we remove everything that has nothing to do with this term. I do also think we should remove the part about Ukraine, because the political strife has caused a lot of name calling and defamatory statements.
If you want to, you can go to the wikipages I have writen about and take a look at the sources they have used. 129.177.144.192 ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The part about Ukraine should definitely be in the neo-nazism article, where I have moved it to. There is definitely overlap between the white supremacist ideology today and neo-nazism. But in order to be factual all countries with neo-nazi organisations should be cited especially Russia, which contains the largest neo-nazi organisation of the world, (see citation in the article that I copied from the article on Neo-Nazism) five times more members than in the United States. Clearly the objective of the article on white supremacy with parts on Ukraine and the United States but excluding Russia is politically motivated and against Wikipedia guidelines. Veritas de terra orta est ( talk) 23:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would white supremacists use the swastika as their symbol? Sounds like someone is trying to ruin the article... 112.198.83.66 ( talk) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not a politically correct person but I do wonder if the terms' whites' or 'blacks' are the right ones to use in an article like this. I appreciate that using only 'white people' or 'black people' might become a little monotonous but I still think we should generally avoid the terms 'whites' and 'blacks'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
White power is a whole different concept with a different history of definition, should have a separate entry and not redirected here. -- State of clarity ( talk) 12:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Well said James. White power is no different than other race power pride, the same goes for race supremacy, it is no different. I didn't know that white power has a specific definition. Please get this changed as it is wrong. ActorBoss ( talk) 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As someone else said white power and white supremacy are two different subjects. Notice on the page of black power there is literally nothing morally bad said but on this there is. Why was white power redirected to white supremacy? Shouldn't the same happen to black power and be directed to black supremacy? I believe in white power but that does not mean I believe in exterminating and creating black genocide. As I said this page is incredibly biased as this is the new white power page and frankly I'm hugely insulted. The black power page says that the words "black power" is a positive political slogan yet the Black Panthers used and still use it despite the FBI in their own words saying "The Black Panther Party (BPP) is a black extremist organization founded in Oakland, California in 1966. It advocated the use of violence and guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government." Please change this and make different pages. If not I strongly encourage other people to battle against Wikipedia until this is done as this not acceptable and extremely unfair to the people that are proud of being white.
ActorBoss ( talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
White supremacists give lectures about the East Asian Intelligence control over the design of the IQ test in general. They simply claim that the Intelligence Agencies of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan (even Singapore that isn't East Asian but has a significant Chinese population) etc. use agents inside the companies or commissions which design the various tests, to produce a test that corresponds to the average mentality, abilities and faculties of the East Asian population. Also they claim that the East Asian probabilistic distribution (bell curve) of IQ per person, is "bumpy" and lacking statistical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410C:A00:2575:EF28:A5B5:25FD ( talk) 18:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see the authors of this article have tried to mix in different ideas here, probably to make a longer article.
The nazis belived the Germans and to a lesser extent the Germanic peoples to be a superior race/people. You write about nordicism, which are more or less what Adolf Hitler belived in.
The reasoning you use to justify this is the idea, is that there are different defenitions of white. Can you find sources for this? Have there been different defenition than European or a decentant of Europeans?
It is also kind of sad that you use Nazism as a kind of white supremacism, even though thousands of people from Poland died from German atrocities. Just like the Jews, who also look like Europeans.
Is there anyone who would like to at least check up on this. To me this article look like a mess. 37.253.211.21 ( talk) 20:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
White people is a racial classification specifier, used for people of Europid ancestry, with the exact implications dependent on context." Context is the important word, here. White is loosely defined and sometimes includes (some) Jews and sometimes doesn't. This blurred line is well documented and frequently discussed by academics and within Jewish communities. [1] [2] [3] It's a social construct based only in part on physical traits and ancestry, but there is no pass/fail "whiteness test" or anything similar. It mainly depends on cultural context and what is convenient for the person doing the defining. White supremacists are as susceptible to these shifting boundaries as everyone else, although they tend to pretend otherwise. If you want to change the article, you should be more specific, and be willing to cite reliable sources. Grayfell ( talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I suppose this should ideally go in the Talk page for "white supremacists" category, but given that that the search term redirects here I believe a general discussion of what defines a white supremacist would be more useful here. The list of people included in the "white supremacist" category seems arbitrary and lacking in any cohesive theme. There are Klu Klux Klan members and the actor John Wayne. Given that a large majority of political figures from the 19th century and earlier subscribed to this philosophy, we could include them all, especially if their attitudes informed policy. Andrew Jackson is not included, but arguably should be considering that his "Indian" removal policies were fueled in part by his overarching belief in the superiority of the "white race." I tried to add Andrew Johnson to the category but was immediately reverted--and here is someone whose racist ideology was considered extreme even by many of his contemporaries.
So I suppose I am saying that the Wikipedia community seems to be having trouble come to grips with this concept. Some of the more notorious racists like John Calhoun are uncontroversial, but Woodrow Wilson's inclusion in this category would be met with outcry, even though there is ample evidence that he did believe in white superiority and that he and his cabinet directed segregationist policy based in part on those attitudes.
Many excuse the white supremacists of previous eras as "men of their times." However we cannot excuse or ignore their beliefs because they were commonplace or because they inconveniently tarnish their historical legacies. We should only see them in a different context than those white supremacists living today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1db2 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Why would Catholic white supremacists be anti-Catholic? Alfie Gandon ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Different forms of white supremacism put forth different conceptions of who is considered white, and different white supremacists identify various racial and cultural groups as their primary enemy. White supremacist groups have typically opposed people of color, immigrants, Jews, and Catholics." Discarding the entire sentence because one word isn't satisfactorily supported by a source doesn't seem like the right way to fix this problem. The book is a 244 page college textbook which provides an overview the topic. It can be browsed online (at least it can where I am). I haven't found anything unambiguous for this, but it does support that they overlap.
White immigrants are often white supremacist; why would they oppose themselves? Alfie Gandon ( talk) 12:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
various racial and cultural groups" they identify as their enemies. Wikipedia is simply saying that they have been identified as enemies by white supremacists. The article isn't saying that it's a logical target. The statement on anti-immigration is not presented as being all-inclusive of every white supremacist, nor of applying to every single immigrant regardless of context. We could rephrase it to specifically say "non-white immigrants" but that seems pedantic to me and not entirely accurate. As a general overview in the lead, this seems sufficient. The point of white supremacy is the assumption that whiteness is acceptable and that non-whiteness is to be opposed, but how that manifests in practice is much more complicated, and that's what the article should attempt to explain. This is not confined to the US, either. European white supremacists tend to blur lines a bit more, [4] but the underlying tenet is the same. Grayfell ( talk) 22:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This is regarding this edit. For the lead, no sources that I saw uses "lazy" or "mean". The source was one op-ed, which seems entirely insufficient for making such a stark claim with such prominence. Saying "has been argued" is a WP:WEASEL, and while the quotes were sourced, there were not attributed in text, which is very important for providing context. All sources added reference two people, Kevin Drum or John McWhorter. Conor Friedersdorf also agrees, but his article is specifically about social media arguments about Drum's statements, making this sort of... diffused. Their opinions are of interest, but I do not think they should be emphasized in the lead without more substantial secondary coverage, ideally non-opinion coverage, which is lacking. Maybe not, but saying it's "lazy and mean" isn't going to work.
The This CNN source from McWhorter is another example of him making his point, but it doesn't really discuss the usage of the term "white supremacy" in any depth, so I've removed it. Grayfell ( talk) 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I coincidentally came across this article from The Atlantic which discusses Drum and Friedersdorf's articles. The gist is that persuasion isn't necessarily the goal of the label, and Drum's argument only makes sense because of decades of hard work fighting white supremacy, work which was constantly decried as uncivil just as Drum himself is doing. Anyway, I'm going to resist the temptation to add this, but I'm sure it's just one of many on this topic, and figuring out due weight is only going to get more tricky. Again, non-opinion coverage would be ideal. Grayfell ( talk) 09:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged two unsourced passages as needing citations. I have been involved in editing this page for awhile on and off and am not WP:TAGBOMBing. These are simply things that should be referenced (I noted that I guessed one of these was true in my edit summaries). The two passages are:
Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.and
The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.We "get" to use consensus for this, lucky us.
Having "racist ideology" in the lede makes the article sound childish, and as such I will remove it. Post here if you disagree. Please don't revert edits that shouldn't be reverted. Deciduous Maple ( talk) 04:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
"Racism" is a made-up, artificial word used as a silencing tacticis so ridiculous that it undermines neutrality and credibility, and suggests that this discussion is a dead end. Grayfell ( talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It's fine the way it is now. This whole thing started as a big troll organized off wiki. Even 'Deciduous Maple' is a trollish name, making fun of User:EvergreenFir who was the first one to disagree with this stupidity. DFTT folks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This book] has some interesting comments not included in any way in the article:
"In the two decades after the Civil War, notions of white supremacy began to coalesce, based initially on British-Israelism. Although British-lsraelism peaked in England in the 1920s with only 5,000 members (Barkun 1997:13), figures such as C. A. I.. Totten found a much wider audience in the United States. Though not a promoter of British-lsraelism as such, Totten used it as the basis of his own version of white supremacy. This belief had great impact on a young evangelist, Charles Fox Parham, who on January 1, 1901, would claim that people in his congregation began speaking in tongues at several revivals, and this was a direct communication from God. He shortly thereafter founded the Pentecostal movement (Barkun 1997:20). Pentecostalism grew rapidly in the South and the Midwest, and gained another influential supporter in the form of J. H. Allen, who transferred the key belief of white supremacy into Midwestern Methodism (Barkun 1997:21). At this point, however, white supremacy was primarily a belief that Anglo-American whites would fulfill crucial sections of biblical prophesy. It had not yet acquired the persecutionary virulence of later versions, especially in the 1920s when the Klan reached the height of its national prominence, and again in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, the fact that white supremacy became a central organizing theme in the early days of two major evangelical groups is important. The issue of segregation after the Civil War, and slavery before the war, created divisions among evangelicals, and eventually disempowered evangelicalism during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and only recently are evangelicals in general drawing together against racist beliefs. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention, the single largest evangelical organization, did not renounce slavery or segregation until 1995 (Newman 2001). Prior to the 1990s, evangelicals would often travel in other, less tolerant directions. With the appearance of Reuben F. Sawyer in 1921, American evangelicalism in the South and the Southwest moved closer to the Ku Klux Klan. Klan rhetoric at this time emphasized both hatred of blacks, the focus of the first wave of Klan activity immediately after the Civil War, which Sawyer and others now joined with strong anti-Semitism and the need to preserve white culture in addition to what they saw as the genetic purity of the white race." Doug Weller talk 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
We keep getting people saying X can't be a white supremacist because they don't want to rule over non-whites. Which is nonsense. The ADL paper o white supremacism [5] says " However, generally speaking, white supremacists of whatever sort adhere to at least one of the following beliefs: 1) whites should be dominant over people of other backgrounds; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own “culture” that is superior to other cultures; and 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. Anti-Semitism is also important for the majority of white supremacists, most of whom actually believe that Jews constitute a race of their own—a race with parasitic and evil roots." Doug Weller talk 10:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Not a forum: any further discussion should restart with specific, well sourced, proposals for article improvement. . . Edaham ( talk) 15:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Although grammatically correct, the first sentence emphasizes the superiority aspect, to such an extent that it could be mistaken as the definition. It's not white superiority, it's white supremacy. The statement, "centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief", is the main culprit which makes the first part of the sentence outweigh the second part, which is the more important part. It seems that some people want to overemphasize this. This page doesn't have enough about the origin of this term, which was a term for the Nazi racial program, in turn a type of populism. Otherwise, racist ideologies were a response to rapid urbanization and migrations of the 20th century (like the 20th century KKK, for example). Trying to push it back much before this, you will have to prove ideologies existed, and racist science was created with a racist intent. The last thing I propose is to change the "Southern Africa" section to "Zimbabwe" and "South Africa". The reason is because Rhodesia is possibly the best example of white nationalism. 71.161.203.168 ( talk) 23:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee
or a box
|
This article is well written and very complete, it focus a lot on a literal deffinition of what why suppremacy is. It will make the article more complete if it includes more information about the effects of white supremacy today. Yivi29 ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Yivi29
Merge Proposal and / or
Redirect.
Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {requested article} into this talk page's article was:
Mostly poor sources, a subset of white supremacy. Most of the article should be scrapped. Carl Fredrik talk 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hrm, just did a quick count of opposition votes and it's Many to One. The nays carry it. Time to take down the for sale signs, eh? — Myk Streja who? 02:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
propose inserting white supremacist into header, should not allow members of group to whitewash Povertyiswrong ( talk) 12:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A copy of this template can be found here.
The "Russia" section is not analogous to the US, South Africa, and what was the other? - Germany? It consists of just one line about how 10 years ago there were lots of skinheads in Russia. Either this has to be seriously beefed up or deleted since it is currently not analogous either in quantity or quality. The article could instead use a section on the British Empire and the white supremacist assumptions that underpinned its expansion. 2001:4643:B0B3:0:F8BC:4ABE:3E9E:5C47 ( talk) 02:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done
this post doesn't contain more information. It contains your musings on the subject of the article Edaham ( talk) 01:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As most of these articles seem to do they focus too heavily on the notion that white supremacy is based more on racial bigotry than it is on either cultural elitism of just logical observations on the superior development of some cultures over others. For example: Is the culture of Switzerland superior or inferior to the culture of Saudi Arabia? One culture that accepts the coequal status of gender, sexual orientation and for the most part race, over one that does not. Based on most of this article it makes it seem that if the Swiss believe their ways are superior to the Saudis then that would make them white supremacists. Rather than just possibly that this particular white culture is superior to that particular non white culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 ( talk) 00:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ++++ I'm confused. Doesn't the argument that any race or culture is "superior" to another contain an implied bias that said "superiority" is either innate or inherent and also permanent? That certainly seems to the be way the early "race scientists" viewed it. Which is also troubling because such a view would make the contemporary definition of "racism" self-contradictory: 1) If one race were inherently superior to another then that innate superiority would prevent losing hegemony to the inferior race. 2) There would be no need to create laws to suppress "lesser" races (i.e. voter suppression/Jim Crow) because the inherent superiority of the dominant race would be enough. 3) If racial superiority is viewed as a competition for dominance between races, then one race losing its dominance over another is a normal evolutionary process. 4) The repeal of legal obstacles to inter-racial competition (i.e. segregation, Jim Crow, anti-hate speech laws) required the support of the majority of the dominant race. Those "suffering" from the rising equality would by definition the least fit of the dominant race and should probably be ignored. 5) If racial superiority is a competition, then groups like the KKK should be moral exemplars and running self-improvement programs and job training rather than holding torch-lit marches and getting in fights with counter-protestors. Marching in formation shouting "Jews will not replace us!" seems to be the exact wrong thing to do. I'd appreciate a subsection clarifying the faulty logic. I can't be alone in the concept not making sense in general. 2001:56A:7659:9600:2457:AD8E:C0EE:2DD9 ( talk) 22:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Required reading wp:forum wp:soap wp:or wp:talk wp:5p |
The majority information presented in the White supremacist article is relevant aside from the "Relationships with black separatist groups" section. I didn't understand how relevant that section was to the topic of white supremacy. JayKMPix ( talk) 05:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on White supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (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 |
Two big issues:
Why not just link "critical race theory" somewhere in the text of this section?-- Carwil ( talk) 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm adding a section called "Use in academia" describing the use of "white supremacy" to denote a system of racism that privileges white people regardless of the presence or absence of hateful intent. This definition is related in important ways to the topic discussed here, obviously, but has a substantially different meaning. I would appreciate some input a bit later on as to whether it should be branched off into a separate article, but for now it can simplify some confusion elsewhere.-- Carwil ( talk) 01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a rather general problem lurking in the background here, though I'm not sure how to deal with it. This use of 'white supremacy' is not, in fact, an *academic* use of the term. Rather, it's a use of the term largely isolated to certain narrow academic disciplines that tend to be (a) largely motivated by leftist (i.e. leftish liberal and lefter-than-liberal) political ends and (b) tied up with a cluster of Continental philosophical views like critical theory (as noted above). Most discussions of race in academic *philosophy* departments don't seem to use the term in this way. The real problem in the background is difficult to deal with, and I'm not sure how Wikipedia would do it... There's a kind of rhetorical inflation in play that's adopted for largely political reasons, and it's trendy in areas of academia that tend to be leftist and closely tied to the view (e.g. in critical theory) that the proper goal of such disciplines is "emancipatory" rather than scholarly/scientific. Thus the rhetorical inflation is promoted for the political end of making ordinary racism seem even worse (by inaccurately *calling* it white supremacism)...but then people gesture at this usage as an "academic" usage, suggesting that the usage is prompted by disinterested scholarly/scientific inquiry... This is an important point, but, again, not one that's easily handled in an objective way. Of course Wikipedia itself also commonly ends up with a similar kind of slant with respect to issues of this kind...so that's another layer of the problem... The real problem I suppose is that scholarship and activism are so mixed together in areas of this kind as a matter of principle...so it's very difficult to find disinterested/non-political scholarly sources to gesture at... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.47.138 ( talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Acording to the article about nazism and the respective sources, these people were not white supremacist. They thought the Germans were the superior race and that they should rule over all Germans (including lost land in WW1). Their hatred were mostly aimed at eastern Europeans and Jews.
This article is based on the idea that white supremacy are an ideology. It is not, just a word to describe colonialist thought. That it would be good for everyone if European powers ruled the world.
Nordicism don't have anything to do here either. They were the first ones to argye that the nordic people were superior to all other people. You do also have many other people arguing that their people were superior.
My suggestion is that we remove everything that has nothing to do with this term. I do also think we should remove the part about Ukraine, because the political strife has caused a lot of name calling and defamatory statements.
If you want to, you can go to the wikipages I have writen about and take a look at the sources they have used. 129.177.144.192 ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The part about Ukraine should definitely be in the neo-nazism article, where I have moved it to. There is definitely overlap between the white supremacist ideology today and neo-nazism. But in order to be factual all countries with neo-nazi organisations should be cited especially Russia, which contains the largest neo-nazi organisation of the world, (see citation in the article that I copied from the article on Neo-Nazism) five times more members than in the United States. Clearly the objective of the article on white supremacy with parts on Ukraine and the United States but excluding Russia is politically motivated and against Wikipedia guidelines. Veritas de terra orta est ( talk) 23:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would white supremacists use the swastika as their symbol? Sounds like someone is trying to ruin the article... 112.198.83.66 ( talk) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not a politically correct person but I do wonder if the terms' whites' or 'blacks' are the right ones to use in an article like this. I appreciate that using only 'white people' or 'black people' might become a little monotonous but I still think we should generally avoid the terms 'whites' and 'blacks'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
White power is a whole different concept with a different history of definition, should have a separate entry and not redirected here. -- State of clarity ( talk) 12:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Well said James. White power is no different than other race power pride, the same goes for race supremacy, it is no different. I didn't know that white power has a specific definition. Please get this changed as it is wrong. ActorBoss ( talk) 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As someone else said white power and white supremacy are two different subjects. Notice on the page of black power there is literally nothing morally bad said but on this there is. Why was white power redirected to white supremacy? Shouldn't the same happen to black power and be directed to black supremacy? I believe in white power but that does not mean I believe in exterminating and creating black genocide. As I said this page is incredibly biased as this is the new white power page and frankly I'm hugely insulted. The black power page says that the words "black power" is a positive political slogan yet the Black Panthers used and still use it despite the FBI in their own words saying "The Black Panther Party (BPP) is a black extremist organization founded in Oakland, California in 1966. It advocated the use of violence and guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government." Please change this and make different pages. If not I strongly encourage other people to battle against Wikipedia until this is done as this not acceptable and extremely unfair to the people that are proud of being white.
ActorBoss ( talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
White supremacists give lectures about the East Asian Intelligence control over the design of the IQ test in general. They simply claim that the Intelligence Agencies of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan (even Singapore that isn't East Asian but has a significant Chinese population) etc. use agents inside the companies or commissions which design the various tests, to produce a test that corresponds to the average mentality, abilities and faculties of the East Asian population. Also they claim that the East Asian probabilistic distribution (bell curve) of IQ per person, is "bumpy" and lacking statistical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410C:A00:2575:EF28:A5B5:25FD ( talk) 18:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see the authors of this article have tried to mix in different ideas here, probably to make a longer article.
The nazis belived the Germans and to a lesser extent the Germanic peoples to be a superior race/people. You write about nordicism, which are more or less what Adolf Hitler belived in.
The reasoning you use to justify this is the idea, is that there are different defenitions of white. Can you find sources for this? Have there been different defenition than European or a decentant of Europeans?
It is also kind of sad that you use Nazism as a kind of white supremacism, even though thousands of people from Poland died from German atrocities. Just like the Jews, who also look like Europeans.
Is there anyone who would like to at least check up on this. To me this article look like a mess. 37.253.211.21 ( talk) 20:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
White people is a racial classification specifier, used for people of Europid ancestry, with the exact implications dependent on context." Context is the important word, here. White is loosely defined and sometimes includes (some) Jews and sometimes doesn't. This blurred line is well documented and frequently discussed by academics and within Jewish communities. [1] [2] [3] It's a social construct based only in part on physical traits and ancestry, but there is no pass/fail "whiteness test" or anything similar. It mainly depends on cultural context and what is convenient for the person doing the defining. White supremacists are as susceptible to these shifting boundaries as everyone else, although they tend to pretend otherwise. If you want to change the article, you should be more specific, and be willing to cite reliable sources. Grayfell ( talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I suppose this should ideally go in the Talk page for "white supremacists" category, but given that that the search term redirects here I believe a general discussion of what defines a white supremacist would be more useful here. The list of people included in the "white supremacist" category seems arbitrary and lacking in any cohesive theme. There are Klu Klux Klan members and the actor John Wayne. Given that a large majority of political figures from the 19th century and earlier subscribed to this philosophy, we could include them all, especially if their attitudes informed policy. Andrew Jackson is not included, but arguably should be considering that his "Indian" removal policies were fueled in part by his overarching belief in the superiority of the "white race." I tried to add Andrew Johnson to the category but was immediately reverted--and here is someone whose racist ideology was considered extreme even by many of his contemporaries.
So I suppose I am saying that the Wikipedia community seems to be having trouble come to grips with this concept. Some of the more notorious racists like John Calhoun are uncontroversial, but Woodrow Wilson's inclusion in this category would be met with outcry, even though there is ample evidence that he did believe in white superiority and that he and his cabinet directed segregationist policy based in part on those attitudes.
Many excuse the white supremacists of previous eras as "men of their times." However we cannot excuse or ignore their beliefs because they were commonplace or because they inconveniently tarnish their historical legacies. We should only see them in a different context than those white supremacists living today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1db2 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Why would Catholic white supremacists be anti-Catholic? Alfie Gandon ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Different forms of white supremacism put forth different conceptions of who is considered white, and different white supremacists identify various racial and cultural groups as their primary enemy. White supremacist groups have typically opposed people of color, immigrants, Jews, and Catholics." Discarding the entire sentence because one word isn't satisfactorily supported by a source doesn't seem like the right way to fix this problem. The book is a 244 page college textbook which provides an overview the topic. It can be browsed online (at least it can where I am). I haven't found anything unambiguous for this, but it does support that they overlap.
White immigrants are often white supremacist; why would they oppose themselves? Alfie Gandon ( talk) 12:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
various racial and cultural groups" they identify as their enemies. Wikipedia is simply saying that they have been identified as enemies by white supremacists. The article isn't saying that it's a logical target. The statement on anti-immigration is not presented as being all-inclusive of every white supremacist, nor of applying to every single immigrant regardless of context. We could rephrase it to specifically say "non-white immigrants" but that seems pedantic to me and not entirely accurate. As a general overview in the lead, this seems sufficient. The point of white supremacy is the assumption that whiteness is acceptable and that non-whiteness is to be opposed, but how that manifests in practice is much more complicated, and that's what the article should attempt to explain. This is not confined to the US, either. European white supremacists tend to blur lines a bit more, [4] but the underlying tenet is the same. Grayfell ( talk) 22:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This is regarding this edit. For the lead, no sources that I saw uses "lazy" or "mean". The source was one op-ed, which seems entirely insufficient for making such a stark claim with such prominence. Saying "has been argued" is a WP:WEASEL, and while the quotes were sourced, there were not attributed in text, which is very important for providing context. All sources added reference two people, Kevin Drum or John McWhorter. Conor Friedersdorf also agrees, but his article is specifically about social media arguments about Drum's statements, making this sort of... diffused. Their opinions are of interest, but I do not think they should be emphasized in the lead without more substantial secondary coverage, ideally non-opinion coverage, which is lacking. Maybe not, but saying it's "lazy and mean" isn't going to work.
The This CNN source from McWhorter is another example of him making his point, but it doesn't really discuss the usage of the term "white supremacy" in any depth, so I've removed it. Grayfell ( talk) 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I coincidentally came across this article from The Atlantic which discusses Drum and Friedersdorf's articles. The gist is that persuasion isn't necessarily the goal of the label, and Drum's argument only makes sense because of decades of hard work fighting white supremacy, work which was constantly decried as uncivil just as Drum himself is doing. Anyway, I'm going to resist the temptation to add this, but I'm sure it's just one of many on this topic, and figuring out due weight is only going to get more tricky. Again, non-opinion coverage would be ideal. Grayfell ( talk) 09:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged two unsourced passages as needing citations. I have been involved in editing this page for awhile on and off and am not WP:TAGBOMBing. These are simply things that should be referenced (I noted that I guessed one of these was true in my edit summaries). The two passages are:
Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.and
The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.We "get" to use consensus for this, lucky us.
Having "racist ideology" in the lede makes the article sound childish, and as such I will remove it. Post here if you disagree. Please don't revert edits that shouldn't be reverted. Deciduous Maple ( talk) 04:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
"Racism" is a made-up, artificial word used as a silencing tacticis so ridiculous that it undermines neutrality and credibility, and suggests that this discussion is a dead end. Grayfell ( talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It's fine the way it is now. This whole thing started as a big troll organized off wiki. Even 'Deciduous Maple' is a trollish name, making fun of User:EvergreenFir who was the first one to disagree with this stupidity. DFTT folks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This book] has some interesting comments not included in any way in the article:
"In the two decades after the Civil War, notions of white supremacy began to coalesce, based initially on British-Israelism. Although British-lsraelism peaked in England in the 1920s with only 5,000 members (Barkun 1997:13), figures such as C. A. I.. Totten found a much wider audience in the United States. Though not a promoter of British-lsraelism as such, Totten used it as the basis of his own version of white supremacy. This belief had great impact on a young evangelist, Charles Fox Parham, who on January 1, 1901, would claim that people in his congregation began speaking in tongues at several revivals, and this was a direct communication from God. He shortly thereafter founded the Pentecostal movement (Barkun 1997:20). Pentecostalism grew rapidly in the South and the Midwest, and gained another influential supporter in the form of J. H. Allen, who transferred the key belief of white supremacy into Midwestern Methodism (Barkun 1997:21). At this point, however, white supremacy was primarily a belief that Anglo-American whites would fulfill crucial sections of biblical prophesy. It had not yet acquired the persecutionary virulence of later versions, especially in the 1920s when the Klan reached the height of its national prominence, and again in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, the fact that white supremacy became a central organizing theme in the early days of two major evangelical groups is important. The issue of segregation after the Civil War, and slavery before the war, created divisions among evangelicals, and eventually disempowered evangelicalism during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and only recently are evangelicals in general drawing together against racist beliefs. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention, the single largest evangelical organization, did not renounce slavery or segregation until 1995 (Newman 2001). Prior to the 1990s, evangelicals would often travel in other, less tolerant directions. With the appearance of Reuben F. Sawyer in 1921, American evangelicalism in the South and the Southwest moved closer to the Ku Klux Klan. Klan rhetoric at this time emphasized both hatred of blacks, the focus of the first wave of Klan activity immediately after the Civil War, which Sawyer and others now joined with strong anti-Semitism and the need to preserve white culture in addition to what they saw as the genetic purity of the white race." Doug Weller talk 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
We keep getting people saying X can't be a white supremacist because they don't want to rule over non-whites. Which is nonsense. The ADL paper o white supremacism [5] says " However, generally speaking, white supremacists of whatever sort adhere to at least one of the following beliefs: 1) whites should be dominant over people of other backgrounds; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own “culture” that is superior to other cultures; and 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. Anti-Semitism is also important for the majority of white supremacists, most of whom actually believe that Jews constitute a race of their own—a race with parasitic and evil roots." Doug Weller talk 10:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Not a forum: any further discussion should restart with specific, well sourced, proposals for article improvement. . . Edaham ( talk) 15:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Although grammatically correct, the first sentence emphasizes the superiority aspect, to such an extent that it could be mistaken as the definition. It's not white superiority, it's white supremacy. The statement, "centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief", is the main culprit which makes the first part of the sentence outweigh the second part, which is the more important part. It seems that some people want to overemphasize this. This page doesn't have enough about the origin of this term, which was a term for the Nazi racial program, in turn a type of populism. Otherwise, racist ideologies were a response to rapid urbanization and migrations of the 20th century (like the 20th century KKK, for example). Trying to push it back much before this, you will have to prove ideologies existed, and racist science was created with a racist intent. The last thing I propose is to change the "Southern Africa" section to "Zimbabwe" and "South Africa". The reason is because Rhodesia is possibly the best example of white nationalism. 71.161.203.168 ( talk) 23:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee
or a box
|
This article is well written and very complete, it focus a lot on a literal deffinition of what why suppremacy is. It will make the article more complete if it includes more information about the effects of white supremacy today. Yivi29 ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Yivi29
Merge Proposal and / or
Redirect.
Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {requested article} into this talk page's article was:
Mostly poor sources, a subset of white supremacy. Most of the article should be scrapped. Carl Fredrik talk 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hrm, just did a quick count of opposition votes and it's Many to One. The nays carry it. Time to take down the for sale signs, eh? — Myk Streja who? 02:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
propose inserting white supremacist into header, should not allow members of group to whitewash Povertyiswrong ( talk) 12:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A copy of this template can be found here.
The "Russia" section is not analogous to the US, South Africa, and what was the other? - Germany? It consists of just one line about how 10 years ago there were lots of skinheads in Russia. Either this has to be seriously beefed up or deleted since it is currently not analogous either in quantity or quality. The article could instead use a section on the British Empire and the white supremacist assumptions that underpinned its expansion. 2001:4643:B0B3:0:F8BC:4ABE:3E9E:5C47 ( talk) 02:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done
this post doesn't contain more information. It contains your musings on the subject of the article Edaham ( talk) 01:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As most of these articles seem to do they focus too heavily on the notion that white supremacy is based more on racial bigotry than it is on either cultural elitism of just logical observations on the superior development of some cultures over others. For example: Is the culture of Switzerland superior or inferior to the culture of Saudi Arabia? One culture that accepts the coequal status of gender, sexual orientation and for the most part race, over one that does not. Based on most of this article it makes it seem that if the Swiss believe their ways are superior to the Saudis then that would make them white supremacists. Rather than just possibly that this particular white culture is superior to that particular non white culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 ( talk) 00:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ++++ I'm confused. Doesn't the argument that any race or culture is "superior" to another contain an implied bias that said "superiority" is either innate or inherent and also permanent? That certainly seems to the be way the early "race scientists" viewed it. Which is also troubling because such a view would make the contemporary definition of "racism" self-contradictory: 1) If one race were inherently superior to another then that innate superiority would prevent losing hegemony to the inferior race. 2) There would be no need to create laws to suppress "lesser" races (i.e. voter suppression/Jim Crow) because the inherent superiority of the dominant race would be enough. 3) If racial superiority is viewed as a competition for dominance between races, then one race losing its dominance over another is a normal evolutionary process. 4) The repeal of legal obstacles to inter-racial competition (i.e. segregation, Jim Crow, anti-hate speech laws) required the support of the majority of the dominant race. Those "suffering" from the rising equality would by definition the least fit of the dominant race and should probably be ignored. 5) If racial superiority is a competition, then groups like the KKK should be moral exemplars and running self-improvement programs and job training rather than holding torch-lit marches and getting in fights with counter-protestors. Marching in formation shouting "Jews will not replace us!" seems to be the exact wrong thing to do. I'd appreciate a subsection clarifying the faulty logic. I can't be alone in the concept not making sense in general. 2001:56A:7659:9600:2457:AD8E:C0EE:2DD9 ( talk) 22:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Required reading wp:forum wp:soap wp:or wp:talk wp:5p |
The majority information presented in the White supremacist article is relevant aside from the "Relationships with black separatist groups" section. I didn't understand how relevant that section was to the topic of white supremacy. JayKMPix ( talk) 05:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on White supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)