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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the header paragraph, the article describes as a "political ideology". I contest that it is not, since it has no basis of a system of governing. Bizerus ( talk) 15:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
White Supremacy is the failure of early Europeans to recognize humanity in others not like themselves and acting upon the ignorance in demeaning dominating behaviors, leading to acts of genocide. 1RBunn ( talk) 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/department-homeland-security-strategy-adds-white-supremacy-list-threats-n1057136 FusionLord ( talk) 05:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 04:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
White supremacy →
White supremacism – -ism indicates an ideology. The parent article is also at "Supremacism". Article editor (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Lmatt (
talk)
16:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Since when German supremacism = white supremacism. You're playing with the words here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:50C5:4A00:C496:DCFD:42FC:B8B7 ( talk) 21:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Napata102 ( talk) 06:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC) the reference to criticism of 'white supremacy' has been reverted by some knee jerk reaction without any explanation. Mills has written that: '‘Those termed white have generally had a civil, moral, and juridical standing that has lifted them above the other “races” They have been the expropriators; others have been the expropriated’‘ This simply does not reflect history where whites were also being enslaved by Corsairs and sold to North Africa. This is heavily documented even Wiki has an entry on it: /info/en/?search=Barbary_pirates ... How can he say that whites were always the slavers /expropriators in relation to non-whites?. The reference to criticism and a simple quote is entirely justified. The recent work suggesting that those who view whites as always on top have internalised white racism is also simply of general interest. No one is seeking to prove their points on wiki simply that readers should be aware of the alternative views, have teh reference to follow up and make up and make up their own minds. I will seek to revert the entry. Napata102 ( talk) 06:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
"The term is also used to describe a political ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical, or institutional domination by white people (as evidenced by historical and contemporary sociopolitical structures such as the Atlantic slave trade, Jim Crow laws in the United States, the set of "White Australia" policies from the 1890s until the mid-1970s, and apartheid in South Africa)." Social, political, historical, or institutional domination by white people... of what? Their own countries? Or is the sentence implying a world domination by white people conspiracy theory? 2600:6C50:757F:DD72:7C50:4D7:6525:7DAF ( talk) 06:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The 2nd sentence of the lead says: White supremacy has roots in scientific racism, and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments.
This reads as if Wikipedia is saying that racism is founded in science, particularly since pseudoscientific arguments are mentioned separately.
I propose a change to: White supremacy has roots in the pseudoscientific doctrine of scientific racism and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments.
Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
These early theories guided pseudo-scientific research assumptions; the collective endeavors to adequately define and form hypotheses about racial differences are generally termed scientific racism, though this term is a misnomer, due to the lack of any actual science backing the claims.
Racism existed during the 19th century as " scientific racism", which attempted to provide a racial classification of humanity.
The term scientific racism refers to the use of science to justify and support racist beliefs, which goes back to the early 18th century, though it gained most of its influence in the mid-19th century, during the New Imperialism period.
Whiteness is a western concept based on colonialism. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine do not base their ideology on whiteness as whiteness is foreign to Ukraine, and many of them are hardly "white" to begin with. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine align themselves with people in Chechnya, the Caucasus, and even Central Asia. Their common enemy is Russians, who are a European people, so the idea that white supremacy is their actual motive is ludicrous.
There's no mention of Latin America, despite the fact that the concept of whiteness, racial purity, and racial categorization all have their origins with the Spanish colonization of the Americas? This page seriously needs work on. There is not one Latin American country that wasn't built on white supremacy, same goes for Anglo America.
White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. Is it correct, that the (mostly) people, who belive, that they are bether than others, bether than Blacks or bether than Yellows or Reds or bether than every other specific group of peope, know that their belief/faith is racist? -- 194.230.159.102 ( talk) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia present a nice definition of White supremacists. They don't say anything about terrorists activities that they do. Where as for Antifa they put a lot of negative things: terrorist, illegal, which is probably lies by white people and push by Trump! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.175.113 ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
{I moved this stuff out of the RfC because it is not responsive to the statement about which comments have been requested. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC))
In the previous RfC, I made several comments that were interpreted as being off topic. My comments were not intended to be off topic. Anyway, I still believe that black and white supremacy need to be described as the same thing. I have mentioned that even if there is an almost universal opinion on an issue, there will still be those that disagree. I have also mentioned this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.:
This quote says that all types of racial supremacies are dangerous. I believe that this quote should be used to make the decision on how to describe both supremacies. I have also mentioned that we could support our descriptions of supremacies if we add polls based on political ideologies and political parties. I would like to know everyone's opinions on everything that I just mentioned. GamerKiller2347 ( talk) 19:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Read in its proper context, it's clear that King means that black supremacy is "dangerous" to his movement for civil rights for all. To use this to leverage to a statement in Wikipedia's voice that black supremacy is "racist" is not only a drastic misreading of King's words, it's an expression on GK2347's part of a PoV so severe as to disqualify them from editing either of these articles. King's statement that "Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy." cannot be twisted into meaning that both have precisely the same qualities, since it actually means that favoring any one group over any other is antithetical to King's philosophy and his moral crusade. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)And then another thing I can understand. We’ve been pushed around so long; we’ve been the victims of lynching mobs so long; we’ve been the victims of economic injustice so long—still the last hired and the first fired all over this nation. And I know the temptation. I can understand from a psychological point of view why some caught up in the clutches of the injustices surrounding them almost respond with bitterness and come to the conclusion that the problem can’t be solved within, and they talk about getting away from it in terms of racial separation. But even though I can understand it psychologically, I must say to you this afternoon that this isn’t the way. Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy. [Applause] No, I hope you will allow me to say to you this afternoon that God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men and brown men and yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race. [Applause] And I believe that with this philosophy and this determined struggle we will be able to go on in the days ahead and transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
I have come up with this opener for white supremacy:
Thoughts? GamerKiller2347 ( talk) 03:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a reason you're getting zero support. A lot of people show up wanting to argue some version of "truth" or advocate their favored position on issues. We wouldn't be able to function if we allowed that sort of approach - on the internet there is always someone who will spend 43 months arguing the "truth" that the Earth is flat. In order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a chaotic mess and endless argument zone, we have a set of policies defining a certain kind of approach to content. I would summarize it as "Wikipedia is supposed to be an accurate summary of what Reliable Sources say about a subject". You won't get very far if you step away from that model. This article says "White supremacy [] is the racist belief..." because lots of Reliable Sources say that. There appear to be very few sources on Black supremacy, and apparently they don't directly call it racist. And that's the end of that. You can't engage in Original research or Synthesis to just make up what you think the articles should say. We can't and wont do that, because a hundred thousand articles would turn into chaotic endless argument zones if we allowed truth or fairness or whatever else be argued. If you have a concern that one of the articles isn't accurately summarizing the available Reliable Sources, then you can cite the sources and there are various policies and guidelines for (potentially) supporting that case. Right now it seems you're trying to argue truth or fairness or something, which doesn't work. Right now, I'm not seeing you presenting any sort of case that either of the articles is an inaccurate summary of the sources. Alsee ( talk) 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Black and white supremacy have one thing in common: They believe that their race is superior to other races. This fits the ADL's definition of racism. Therefore, I have a reliable source to prove that both are racist. GamerKiller2347 ( talk) 07:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
"All the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That's why you keep being asked for reliable sources for your contention, which you have not been able to do. You do not seem to be able to wrap your head around that. Bring us some sources that support you and they'll be honestly considered. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting to add these paragraphs to the "Effect of the media" section.
Add this paragraph after Richard Hasen's block quote: As the White supremacist movement shifted its presence from print to digital, they were consistently looking for new technologies they could exploit and penetrate with their ideologies. For example, Daniels mentions how the emergence of cloaked sites, websites published under a concealed authorship in order to hide a political agenda, allowed for White supremacists to expand the range of acceptable ideas to discuss, or what she refers to as shifting the “Overton window.” [1]
Add this sentence between the Jessie Daniels quote and the sentence about Kathleen Blee: Once white supremacists symbols travel from their separated community and into the public discourse of mainstream media, they see it like a victory as they have successfully shifted the “Overton window” and have possibly inspired “normal” people to question their other ideologies.
Add this paragraph to the end of the section: The algorithms of search engines and social media platforms have also allowed for ideas of white supremacy to permeate society. In her recent publication, Daniels writes how the rise of the alt-right, as well as the recent ideas of white supremacy and white nationalism, are due in part to the “emerging media ecosystem powered by algorithms.” [2] Search engine algorithms enable these racist ideas to spread as they “deliver search results for those who seek confirmation for racist notions” [3] as in the case of Dylann Roof where a Google search of “black-on-white crime” shaped his racist beliefs and eventually led to him committing the Charleston church shooting. These search engine algorithms and their autocomplete features also suggest racist ideas to users and provide websites where communities can support and grow their white supremacist ideologies. As previously mentioned, the algorithms of social media platforms also increase the spread of White supremacist ideas when hate symbols like Pepe the Frog travel from anonymous platforms like 4Chan and Reddit to mainstream news media sources which amplifies and shifts the focus to ideas of White supremacy. Frledtofu ( talk) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Western supremacy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Western supremacy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sdrqaz ( talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MBJAnderson.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest not, though I'm open to being persuaded. We do not, of course, specify the race of every other person we cite in this article (or any other article I'm aware of that deals with issues of race). I also see nothing in the quotation that makes Blow's race especially relevant. He is not, for instance, referring explicitly to his own experience as a black man but rather to that of others. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (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.
@ Rsk6400: "Neo-Nazism" is mentioned in the introduction as underlining "white supremacy", so the term can stand in for white supremacy. Also, the British Commonwealth paragraphs are not only colonial times because Winston Churchill is mentioned in a recent event and other information could surface. Shouldn't New Zealand then be with other Commonwealth countries instead of at the bottom? Altanner1991 ( talk) 08:23, 19 April 2022 (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.
The most recent edits to this page seem a little strange and don't quite read correctly. I think this page needs some attention from a moderator. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B ( talk) 03:45, 27 July 2022 (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.
Neo-Nazism should be in the article because it is generally about white supremacy rather than fascism. Altanner1991 ( talk) 22:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE JULY 2022
@
Rsk6400: or any other commentors
Please discuss if you believe white supremacy should not include general neo-Nazi content. Since this has been ongoing for a long time (a few weeks already) I will go ahead short of any discussion. Altanner1991 ( talk) 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
For the record here is the portion in question as the Russia and Ukraine portions have been properly moved to the Neo-Nazism article and the archive link was missing: "White supremacy, as with racial supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony and power, and has frequently resulted in violence against non-whites." [1] It's connected to a reputable university and is more sourced than the average news article; not sure why that would be the case that it's not allowed. Altanner1991 ( talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400 Why are you removing the inclusion of the holocaust in the introduction alongside apartheid/White Australia/Jim Crow? It appears to be disruptive and you can be reported. Altanner1991 ( talk) 10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: You have failed to communicate why the holocaust portion is being reverted. Altanner1991 ( talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: The body of the article has the same content so it can definitely be on the page; not sure how my sources are any different. We can seek dispute resolution to help in the matter. Altanner1991 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I am retracting my request for this talk page section because Jewish people are, in fact, sometimes considered "White". Altanner1991 ( talk) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 2015-02-12 suggested (
help)
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.
@ Rsk6400 Gobineau was highly influential with regards to white supremacy: see his article page. Altanner1991 ( talk) 00:26, 10 August 2022 (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.
He was no white separatist, considering he's a basque nationalist, and therefore do not want a state for white people, but one for the basque, I don't think I need to give any source for this, considering it's the main reason he's known for The basque savior ( talk) 22:50, 11 August 2022 (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.
Archive 2 has lots of debate on whether or not to include this, and Grayfell ( talk · contribs) in 2016 asserted that it remain in the article. It would be good to find a clear consensus on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Altanner1991 ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Altanner1991: While I feel well able to go along with your edits until 04:27, 30 July 2022, I don't see much justification for your more recent ones. The most important problems I see are the removal of Rhodesia and South African apartheid together with your changes at the beginning of the lead section. According to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, an article should start with a good definition. The idea of having an extra section called "definition" seems strange to me. Also, "White supremacy" has been used by a lot of normal people (not only scholars), including White supremacists themselves, especially during the bad old days of Jim Crow. White Australia also obviously is about Whitenesss, and - yes - White supremacy was justified by pseudo-science (I'll add the reference soon). -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Should we add a sub-section about white supremacy in latinamerica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 ( talk) 13:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Generalrelative reverted [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_supremacy&diff=1087305767&oldid=1084332087 this edit that I had done, saying it ought to be discussed here.
BEFORE:
White supremacy or white supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them.
AFTER:
White supremacy is any social order in which white people dominate those of other races and are considered to be entitled to such domination because of their supposed superiority to those others. White supremacism is the belief that white supremacy should prevail.
My edit summary said:
Here I am distinguishing between supremacy and supremacism; the former being the social order in which one group dominates others and the latter being the beilef that that is as it ought to be.
Although my phrasing may not be perfect and might bear refinement, the difference between the meanings of these two words should be made clear. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400 @ Generalrelative I would like to respond to your comments about my edits — they seemed well sourced but as you raised concerns I will answer to that in discussion.... The changes were based on what is sourced, that means that Apartheid has no references to white "supremacy" other than Baasskap alone, and even there it is only a single source. Rhodesia is the same situation: we need sources much like was said with regards to the Holocaust. Regarding the definition of the term(s), my basis was on WP:LEDE, which further states that article introductions should not include anything not already in the body of the article, unless for small random facts in certain situations. To adhere to this principle, the first section would be called Description (instead of Definition). Not sure what you mean by scholars and white supremacists having used the term, in the latter example since Jim Crow as you said, but it is good you will add a reference for White Australia. Thanks as always and best, Altanner1991 ( talk) 22:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
In scholarly work, particularly in critical race theory or intersectionality,... What I wanted to say was that also outside of scholarly work and especially outside critical race theory people use the expression "White supremacy". I think that important because you don't need an elaborate theory to see that White supremacy is blatant racist. Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should have that section in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 ( talk) 21:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Anti-Mexican sentiment and Racism against Black Americans into the see also section. Many white supremacists hate Black Americans and Mexican immigrants. 91.207.28.164 ( talk) 10:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Hispanophobia and Afrophobia to see also section. White supremacists hate Hispanics and anything African. 91.207.28.164 ( talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The link for "now-discredited" sends to pseudoscience page, that's not a proof that scientific racism is discredited. Can we have an actual proper proof? Also, is racism correct word for racial science? 84.250.178.217 ( talk) 14:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
should read Atlantic Slave trade and Jim Crow laws 208.38.229.201 ( talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Is the Nazi Germany section possibly original research? The Nazis were Aryan supremacists, they never recognized the concept of the white race. This seems like the equivalent of describing Hutu Power as a "black supremacist" ideology. Helioz9 ( talk) 05:36, 26 May 2023 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the header paragraph, the article describes as a "political ideology". I contest that it is not, since it has no basis of a system of governing. Bizerus ( talk) 15:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
White Supremacy is the failure of early Europeans to recognize humanity in others not like themselves and acting upon the ignorance in demeaning dominating behaviors, leading to acts of genocide. 1RBunn ( talk) 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/department-homeland-security-strategy-adds-white-supremacy-list-threats-n1057136 FusionLord ( talk) 05:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 04:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
White supremacy →
White supremacism – -ism indicates an ideology. The parent article is also at "Supremacism". Article editor (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Lmatt (
talk)
16:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Since when German supremacism = white supremacism. You're playing with the words here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:50C5:4A00:C496:DCFD:42FC:B8B7 ( talk) 21:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Napata102 ( talk) 06:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC) the reference to criticism of 'white supremacy' has been reverted by some knee jerk reaction without any explanation. Mills has written that: '‘Those termed white have generally had a civil, moral, and juridical standing that has lifted them above the other “races” They have been the expropriators; others have been the expropriated’‘ This simply does not reflect history where whites were also being enslaved by Corsairs and sold to North Africa. This is heavily documented even Wiki has an entry on it: /info/en/?search=Barbary_pirates ... How can he say that whites were always the slavers /expropriators in relation to non-whites?. The reference to criticism and a simple quote is entirely justified. The recent work suggesting that those who view whites as always on top have internalised white racism is also simply of general interest. No one is seeking to prove their points on wiki simply that readers should be aware of the alternative views, have teh reference to follow up and make up and make up their own minds. I will seek to revert the entry. Napata102 ( talk) 06:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
"The term is also used to describe a political ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical, or institutional domination by white people (as evidenced by historical and contemporary sociopolitical structures such as the Atlantic slave trade, Jim Crow laws in the United States, the set of "White Australia" policies from the 1890s until the mid-1970s, and apartheid in South Africa)." Social, political, historical, or institutional domination by white people... of what? Their own countries? Or is the sentence implying a world domination by white people conspiracy theory? 2600:6C50:757F:DD72:7C50:4D7:6525:7DAF ( talk) 06:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The 2nd sentence of the lead says: White supremacy has roots in scientific racism, and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments.
This reads as if Wikipedia is saying that racism is founded in science, particularly since pseudoscientific arguments are mentioned separately.
I propose a change to: White supremacy has roots in the pseudoscientific doctrine of scientific racism and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments.
Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
These early theories guided pseudo-scientific research assumptions; the collective endeavors to adequately define and form hypotheses about racial differences are generally termed scientific racism, though this term is a misnomer, due to the lack of any actual science backing the claims.
Racism existed during the 19th century as " scientific racism", which attempted to provide a racial classification of humanity.
The term scientific racism refers to the use of science to justify and support racist beliefs, which goes back to the early 18th century, though it gained most of its influence in the mid-19th century, during the New Imperialism period.
Whiteness is a western concept based on colonialism. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine do not base their ideology on whiteness as whiteness is foreign to Ukraine, and many of them are hardly "white" to begin with. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine align themselves with people in Chechnya, the Caucasus, and even Central Asia. Their common enemy is Russians, who are a European people, so the idea that white supremacy is their actual motive is ludicrous.
There's no mention of Latin America, despite the fact that the concept of whiteness, racial purity, and racial categorization all have their origins with the Spanish colonization of the Americas? This page seriously needs work on. There is not one Latin American country that wasn't built on white supremacy, same goes for Anglo America.
White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. Is it correct, that the (mostly) people, who belive, that they are bether than others, bether than Blacks or bether than Yellows or Reds or bether than every other specific group of peope, know that their belief/faith is racist? -- 194.230.159.102 ( talk) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia present a nice definition of White supremacists. They don't say anything about terrorists activities that they do. Where as for Antifa they put a lot of negative things: terrorist, illegal, which is probably lies by white people and push by Trump! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.175.113 ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
{I moved this stuff out of the RfC because it is not responsive to the statement about which comments have been requested. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC))
In the previous RfC, I made several comments that were interpreted as being off topic. My comments were not intended to be off topic. Anyway, I still believe that black and white supremacy need to be described as the same thing. I have mentioned that even if there is an almost universal opinion on an issue, there will still be those that disagree. I have also mentioned this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.:
This quote says that all types of racial supremacies are dangerous. I believe that this quote should be used to make the decision on how to describe both supremacies. I have also mentioned that we could support our descriptions of supremacies if we add polls based on political ideologies and political parties. I would like to know everyone's opinions on everything that I just mentioned. GamerKiller2347 ( talk) 19:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Read in its proper context, it's clear that King means that black supremacy is "dangerous" to his movement for civil rights for all. To use this to leverage to a statement in Wikipedia's voice that black supremacy is "racist" is not only a drastic misreading of King's words, it's an expression on GK2347's part of a PoV so severe as to disqualify them from editing either of these articles. King's statement that "Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy." cannot be twisted into meaning that both have precisely the same qualities, since it actually means that favoring any one group over any other is antithetical to King's philosophy and his moral crusade. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)And then another thing I can understand. We’ve been pushed around so long; we’ve been the victims of lynching mobs so long; we’ve been the victims of economic injustice so long—still the last hired and the first fired all over this nation. And I know the temptation. I can understand from a psychological point of view why some caught up in the clutches of the injustices surrounding them almost respond with bitterness and come to the conclusion that the problem can’t be solved within, and they talk about getting away from it in terms of racial separation. But even though I can understand it psychologically, I must say to you this afternoon that this isn’t the way. Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy. [Applause] No, I hope you will allow me to say to you this afternoon that God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men and brown men and yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race. [Applause] And I believe that with this philosophy and this determined struggle we will be able to go on in the days ahead and transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
I have come up with this opener for white supremacy:
Thoughts? GamerKiller2347 ( talk) 03:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a reason you're getting zero support. A lot of people show up wanting to argue some version of "truth" or advocate their favored position on issues. We wouldn't be able to function if we allowed that sort of approach - on the internet there is always someone who will spend 43 months arguing the "truth" that the Earth is flat. In order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a chaotic mess and endless argument zone, we have a set of policies defining a certain kind of approach to content. I would summarize it as "Wikipedia is supposed to be an accurate summary of what Reliable Sources say about a subject". You won't get very far if you step away from that model. This article says "White supremacy [] is the racist belief..." because lots of Reliable Sources say that. There appear to be very few sources on Black supremacy, and apparently they don't directly call it racist. And that's the end of that. You can't engage in Original research or Synthesis to just make up what you think the articles should say. We can't and wont do that, because a hundred thousand articles would turn into chaotic endless argument zones if we allowed truth or fairness or whatever else be argued. If you have a concern that one of the articles isn't accurately summarizing the available Reliable Sources, then you can cite the sources and there are various policies and guidelines for (potentially) supporting that case. Right now it seems you're trying to argue truth or fairness or something, which doesn't work. Right now, I'm not seeing you presenting any sort of case that either of the articles is an inaccurate summary of the sources. Alsee ( talk) 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Black and white supremacy have one thing in common: They believe that their race is superior to other races. This fits the ADL's definition of racism. Therefore, I have a reliable source to prove that both are racist. GamerKiller2347 ( talk) 07:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
"All the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That's why you keep being asked for reliable sources for your contention, which you have not been able to do. You do not seem to be able to wrap your head around that. Bring us some sources that support you and they'll be honestly considered. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting to add these paragraphs to the "Effect of the media" section.
Add this paragraph after Richard Hasen's block quote: As the White supremacist movement shifted its presence from print to digital, they were consistently looking for new technologies they could exploit and penetrate with their ideologies. For example, Daniels mentions how the emergence of cloaked sites, websites published under a concealed authorship in order to hide a political agenda, allowed for White supremacists to expand the range of acceptable ideas to discuss, or what she refers to as shifting the “Overton window.” [1]
Add this sentence between the Jessie Daniels quote and the sentence about Kathleen Blee: Once white supremacists symbols travel from their separated community and into the public discourse of mainstream media, they see it like a victory as they have successfully shifted the “Overton window” and have possibly inspired “normal” people to question their other ideologies.
Add this paragraph to the end of the section: The algorithms of search engines and social media platforms have also allowed for ideas of white supremacy to permeate society. In her recent publication, Daniels writes how the rise of the alt-right, as well as the recent ideas of white supremacy and white nationalism, are due in part to the “emerging media ecosystem powered by algorithms.” [2] Search engine algorithms enable these racist ideas to spread as they “deliver search results for those who seek confirmation for racist notions” [3] as in the case of Dylann Roof where a Google search of “black-on-white crime” shaped his racist beliefs and eventually led to him committing the Charleston church shooting. These search engine algorithms and their autocomplete features also suggest racist ideas to users and provide websites where communities can support and grow their white supremacist ideologies. As previously mentioned, the algorithms of social media platforms also increase the spread of White supremacist ideas when hate symbols like Pepe the Frog travel from anonymous platforms like 4Chan and Reddit to mainstream news media sources which amplifies and shifts the focus to ideas of White supremacy. Frledtofu ( talk) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Western supremacy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Western supremacy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sdrqaz ( talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MBJAnderson.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest not, though I'm open to being persuaded. We do not, of course, specify the race of every other person we cite in this article (or any other article I'm aware of that deals with issues of race). I also see nothing in the quotation that makes Blow's race especially relevant. He is not, for instance, referring explicitly to his own experience as a black man but rather to that of others. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (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.
@ Rsk6400: "Neo-Nazism" is mentioned in the introduction as underlining "white supremacy", so the term can stand in for white supremacy. Also, the British Commonwealth paragraphs are not only colonial times because Winston Churchill is mentioned in a recent event and other information could surface. Shouldn't New Zealand then be with other Commonwealth countries instead of at the bottom? Altanner1991 ( talk) 08:23, 19 April 2022 (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.
The most recent edits to this page seem a little strange and don't quite read correctly. I think this page needs some attention from a moderator. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B ( talk) 03:45, 27 July 2022 (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.
Neo-Nazism should be in the article because it is generally about white supremacy rather than fascism. Altanner1991 ( talk) 22:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE JULY 2022
@
Rsk6400: or any other commentors
Please discuss if you believe white supremacy should not include general neo-Nazi content. Since this has been ongoing for a long time (a few weeks already) I will go ahead short of any discussion. Altanner1991 ( talk) 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
For the record here is the portion in question as the Russia and Ukraine portions have been properly moved to the Neo-Nazism article and the archive link was missing: "White supremacy, as with racial supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony and power, and has frequently resulted in violence against non-whites." [1] It's connected to a reputable university and is more sourced than the average news article; not sure why that would be the case that it's not allowed. Altanner1991 ( talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400 Why are you removing the inclusion of the holocaust in the introduction alongside apartheid/White Australia/Jim Crow? It appears to be disruptive and you can be reported. Altanner1991 ( talk) 10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: You have failed to communicate why the holocaust portion is being reverted. Altanner1991 ( talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: The body of the article has the same content so it can definitely be on the page; not sure how my sources are any different. We can seek dispute resolution to help in the matter. Altanner1991 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I am retracting my request for this talk page section because Jewish people are, in fact, sometimes considered "White". Altanner1991 ( talk) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 2015-02-12 suggested (
help)
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.
@ Rsk6400 Gobineau was highly influential with regards to white supremacy: see his article page. Altanner1991 ( talk) 00:26, 10 August 2022 (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.
He was no white separatist, considering he's a basque nationalist, and therefore do not want a state for white people, but one for the basque, I don't think I need to give any source for this, considering it's the main reason he's known for The basque savior ( talk) 22:50, 11 August 2022 (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.
Archive 2 has lots of debate on whether or not to include this, and Grayfell ( talk · contribs) in 2016 asserted that it remain in the article. It would be good to find a clear consensus on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Altanner1991 ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Altanner1991: While I feel well able to go along with your edits until 04:27, 30 July 2022, I don't see much justification for your more recent ones. The most important problems I see are the removal of Rhodesia and South African apartheid together with your changes at the beginning of the lead section. According to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, an article should start with a good definition. The idea of having an extra section called "definition" seems strange to me. Also, "White supremacy" has been used by a lot of normal people (not only scholars), including White supremacists themselves, especially during the bad old days of Jim Crow. White Australia also obviously is about Whitenesss, and - yes - White supremacy was justified by pseudo-science (I'll add the reference soon). -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Should we add a sub-section about white supremacy in latinamerica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 ( talk) 13:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Generalrelative reverted [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_supremacy&diff=1087305767&oldid=1084332087 this edit that I had done, saying it ought to be discussed here.
BEFORE:
White supremacy or white supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them.
AFTER:
White supremacy is any social order in which white people dominate those of other races and are considered to be entitled to such domination because of their supposed superiority to those others. White supremacism is the belief that white supremacy should prevail.
My edit summary said:
Here I am distinguishing between supremacy and supremacism; the former being the social order in which one group dominates others and the latter being the beilef that that is as it ought to be.
Although my phrasing may not be perfect and might bear refinement, the difference between the meanings of these two words should be made clear. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400 @ Generalrelative I would like to respond to your comments about my edits — they seemed well sourced but as you raised concerns I will answer to that in discussion.... The changes were based on what is sourced, that means that Apartheid has no references to white "supremacy" other than Baasskap alone, and even there it is only a single source. Rhodesia is the same situation: we need sources much like was said with regards to the Holocaust. Regarding the definition of the term(s), my basis was on WP:LEDE, which further states that article introductions should not include anything not already in the body of the article, unless for small random facts in certain situations. To adhere to this principle, the first section would be called Description (instead of Definition). Not sure what you mean by scholars and white supremacists having used the term, in the latter example since Jim Crow as you said, but it is good you will add a reference for White Australia. Thanks as always and best, Altanner1991 ( talk) 22:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
In scholarly work, particularly in critical race theory or intersectionality,... What I wanted to say was that also outside of scholarly work and especially outside critical race theory people use the expression "White supremacy". I think that important because you don't need an elaborate theory to see that White supremacy is blatant racist. Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should have that section in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 ( talk) 21:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Anti-Mexican sentiment and Racism against Black Americans into the see also section. Many white supremacists hate Black Americans and Mexican immigrants. 91.207.28.164 ( talk) 10:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White supremacy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Hispanophobia and Afrophobia to see also section. White supremacists hate Hispanics and anything African. 91.207.28.164 ( talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The link for "now-discredited" sends to pseudoscience page, that's not a proof that scientific racism is discredited. Can we have an actual proper proof? Also, is racism correct word for racial science? 84.250.178.217 ( talk) 14:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
should read Atlantic Slave trade and Jim Crow laws 208.38.229.201 ( talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Is the Nazi Germany section possibly original research? The Nazis were Aryan supremacists, they never recognized the concept of the white race. This seems like the equivalent of describing Hutu Power as a "black supremacist" ideology. Helioz9 ( talk) 05:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)