Category talk:White supremacist groups in the United States

Why this category needs [[Template:Distinguished subcategory|Racism in the United States]]

Not all white supremacist groups are solely white supremacist in their racism. For instance many of them are also opposed to interracial marriage, which is not a matter of white supremacy but of pure and unadulterated racism. If such groups are only in this category and not also in the parent category Racism in the U.S. then a false claim is being made that the only way in which they're racist is because of their belief in white supremacy. As category jedi User:Obiwankenobi said here, "Usually a non-diffusion argument is because you've specified part of who they are, but you didn't capture the whole essence." That is clearly the case for those white supremacist organizations which are racist in other ways.

Secondly, User:Fat&Happy, when you revert an edit, you ought to initiate discussion per WP:BRD rather than leaving absolutist edit summaries like "no discussion or consensus that this needs to be a distinguished subcat." In fact, there's no discussion because you chose not to initiate any. Your guidelines are not policies, no matter how many times you assert that they are.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm - this is a tricky one. The parent target, Category:Racism in the United States is a topic category (as opposed to a set category, which the groups one is), and I'm not really sure how a topic category with non-diffusing set children should work - it's sort of a contradiction in a way - topic cats are a bit more wonky, since they include many unlike things (unlike set cats, which usually contain all of the same thing, like Category:American novelists or Category:Churches in Paris).

I think what happens more frequently is that certain topic sub-cats are considered partially diffusing, depending on each individual article - e.g. some of their members belong only within, while others can still remain in the parent as they aren't considered to have been fully diffused by the child cat. If the whole cat is non-diffusing as you propose, that means all of the subcats, and all articles underneath the subcats, would likely have to be bubbled to the parent- which I'm not sure is necessarily desirable.

I've added White supremacy to the Category:Racism in the United States category, but I'm not sure if there's a good case to bubble all of the groups up to Racism. To me, when I read this category, it doesn't say "the only way they are racist is through white supremacism", it just says "here is a subset of racist groups that we can put together under a single banner/shared ideology". So perhaps rather than saying the whole thing is non-diffusing, perhaps you could make the argument that some reasonable subset of articles should be placed in the parent as well? If there were a Category:Racist groups in the United States (although that name itself is problematic...), you may have a better argument for making this a non-diffusing aspect of that, if you can show that the white supremacy part is just part of their story. Non-diffusing seems to make more sense when it's set containing set, as opposed to topic containing set. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I haven't paid enough attention to the terminology. So there's diffusing, partially diffusing, and non-diffusing? The template I put on the category: Template:Distinguished category, says specifically that the category includes things which may be included in the parent category. I took that to mean that some of the things in the child can then go in the parent if it's appropriate, so I didn't mean that everything in this category should be in the racism category. Only those groups which are more broadly racist than just white supremacist, which is not all of them. How is "distinguished" described in the language of diffusingness? Do you think it's reasonable to put the template back on? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I've thought of "distinguished" as being more or less equivalent to non-diffusing - if you look at the history of the guidance, it used to talk more about distinguished cats, and then moved to calling them non-diffusing. So I've only used it on truly non-diffusing cats, where basically all the contents remain in the parent. However, it is worded a bit more loosely than that, so it could probably fit. Again, though, you might be better off creating Category:Racist groups in the United States and putting some of them in there? And yes, cats can be partially diffusing - American novelists is a great example - it partially diffuses American writers - so it really depends on who you are - if you're *only* known as a novelist, then you don't need to remain in the parent, but if you've done lots of other writing besides, then perhaps you need to be in other subcats of American writers, so it didn't fully diffuse you. The same is true of all of the by-genre novelist cats - those have been all partially diffusing (in practice), though now they are likely to become non-diffusing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about creating the category, but maybe in the mean time it would be good to bring the templates for categories up to speed with current practice, or is there some way to unambiguously template a partially diffusing category so that no one thinks an argument is being made to put *every* member of the category into the parent? If not, maybe the distinguished category template should be tweaked so it's clearly non-diffusing and we should make a template for partially diffusing. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

White nationalist groups

They also go in this category. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

EURO should not be listed as "White Supremacist Organization" unless that is indisputable.

EURO (European-American Unity and Rights Organization) has not labelled itself as being a "white supremacist organization". Unless this label is otherwise indisputable, it would be improper to place it in this list. While EURO is not a "living person" (see WP:BLP) it has a membership which consists of living persons. They might reasonably object to having an organization to which they belong as being labelled a "white supremacist organization". Another reason that EURO should not be listed is that there do not appear to be any hallmarks of a "white supremacist organization" in the stated policy, which is quoted in WP:European-American Unity and Rights Organization. Quite to the contrary, it calls for 'equal rights for white people', including elimination of "affirmative action" policies. Frysay (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)