Talk:White supremacy

Archive

• /Archive 1

Alleged WS sites

Is is entirely PoV to have alleged WS sites on? That depends heavily on who is doing the alleging, doesn't it? I mean, so many links to organisations are both here and in the WN article. Is there actually a yardstick for white supremacism? Is it an internal term or an external term?

I personally think it should apply to groups that want a return to slavery or colonialism or similar systems. --Edward Wakelin 20:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Entirely PoV"? Certainly not. Entirely NPOV? Possibly not: in a lot of political articles, we establish article-specific criteria for classification, e.g. what specific authorities we may cite. Do you have a suggestion? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No, there aren't any authorities that are impartial, because the only people who give a damn are the possible white supremacists themselves, who may or may not say they're WS, and groups like the SPLC, which basically benefit from making white supremacism look as huge, dangerous, and monolithic as possible. Perhaps it would be best to have only sites that outright say they're WS, and with WN only established groups like AmRen and the BNP? Anything in-between could go in a list of "undetermined white supremacist or nationalist groups"? I dunno. --Edward Wakelin 19:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the SPLC have been known to exaggerate the importance of some rather marginalized groups; I'm not sure they exaggerate their politics. Perhaps we may be able to get consensus (for example) that the views of SPLC and perhaps some other groups such as the ADL represent an "upper bound" on which contemporary groups should be counted as white supremacist: that groups the SPLC and ADL do not count as white supremacist should certainly not be listed here. At the same time, a "lower bound" would be the few groups that openly identify themselves as white supremacist. I would hope we can raise that lower band: that we may be able to agree on certain authors as sufficient authorities that if they use this term to describe a group, that is citable and is sufficient for listing of the group here. I'd also, add, though, that the least important part of this article is a laundry list of uninfluential groups each consisting of half a dozen fools in spiffy uniforms. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it should just be entirely self-defined. I mean, it's not as though there's really a comprehensive definition for "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" or "white separatist". --Edward Wakelin 23:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree with self-defined providing anything but a lower bound. This is a term used mostly by opponents and by scholars. Relatively few -- even of those who clearly meet the definition -- tend to use the label to talk about themselves. There are probably a handful of "white nationalists" and "white separatists" who are not supremacist, but, frankly, I don't find the distinction very useful to talk about most of them. "White supremacisist" is certainly the prevailing phrase used in academic discusion of this ideology, and this article should cover the phenomenon clearly. And again, as I've said before, mostly I could care less about a few contemporary grouplets openly advcating a generally discredited ideology. The real issue here should be that this ideology had a dominant position down into living memory, which echoes institutionally down to this day. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Point there. Why not quote the most impartial experts possible on X being a white supremacist group? White nationalism as a movement may actually be rather newer: Racist (not necessarily white) societies previously have frequently found some group percieved as being different in terms of "blood" to do the shitty work. --Edward Wakelin 00:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Link selection

There's a difference between supremacists and seperatists, and the Nordic Portal is a forum based on the ideology of Nordic seperatism/preservationism. Thus, it is not a White Supremacy site. The same goes for the Skadi forums, by the way. Oh, and the fact that some moderators use certain images as avatars and in their signature doesn't give any proof of the political orientation of the admins & most other users. You are advised to immediately stop these broad generalisations. Thanks for your patience...Aor

Not everyone differentiates between supremacists and seperatists. We clearly stated that all sites listed are "Alleged or stated white supremacist websites." BTW, it's not a broad generalisation when we point out that a moderator uses pictures of Hitler as his avatar and signature. --Gramaic | Talk 22:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia does differentiate thus, and its inappropriate (and disturbing) that you are attempting to force supremacism on these people and organisations. People are allowed to self label. Sam Spade 23:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not attempting to force anything on anybody. Some people differentiate between supremacism and seperatism, and some people don't. In fact, most people I know don't differentiate between white supremacists and white seperatists. --Gramaic | Talk 23:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats great, people I know don't use either term at all ;) But the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has an article for White Supremacism and another for White Nationalism. So, either the articles need merged, or you need to respect the distinction. Sam Spade 23:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the links now since neither Jmabel nor Gramaic are willing to discuss the issue. Please do not restore them without discussing it here previously. Aor 05:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

We're more than willing to dissuss any kind of issue. Aor, just as Jmabel has said, you've only made vague excuses. In addition you've accused me of manupilation and let's not forget the political propaganda you claimed I had! --Gramaic | Talk 08:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge the difference between preservationism and supremacism? If yes, read this: http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=24080#post24080 . That's the Skadi forum rules. Excerpt: "This is a Free Speech Forum for Germanic preservationists." (Read it all though!) If not, well, get a grip and leave it be. Aor 09:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The only "preservationism" that I know of refers to old buildings. Can Aor define the term as he is using it? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Preservation means saving something from destruction. Preservationism in this case means saving Nordic Culture/Race and Germanic Culture/Race respectively from destruction. Hope this helps. Aor 00:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't. You are drawing insider's distinctions that I am not sure it is useful for Wikipedia to abide by. This would be like saying that Communist state should not include those states that claimed merely to be "on the road to a Communist society". As for saying "I'm removing the links now": you (or someone else, to be honest I haven't kept track) have been removing them almost daily. And we've been restoring them. So what's new? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

When you speak of preservation is it like we Native Americans attempting to preserve our heritage? --Bumpusmills1 05:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

With many groups, yes. The implication seems to be that any organizations or individuals who wish to defend and preserve European folk,heritage,culture etc are by default White Supremacists. This is plainly ridiculous.Hengest 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask, if all you are trying to do is preserve culture (Preserving heritage is a contradiction in terms) I assume you have no problem if, for example, Blacks and/or Jews move to the region but adopt the local culture? If so, then I see that there might be a distinction. If (as I suspect) NOT however, then clearly these are just extenal rationalisations intended to make the movement seem les like the raceialist movement it really is. White Supremacy is white supremacy wheither you intend to 'wipe out the mud people, or just 'Cfeate a new nation only for people of one race'. Different methodology does not differentiate the basic nature. Nordenfeldt

Disputed?

This article has a {{totallydisputed}} tag on it, but there seems to be no statement of the nature of the dispute. There is the usual wrangling that is found on any controversial article, but that doesn't usually call for this tag. If no one indicates in the next 24 hours precisely what dispute merits this tag, I am removing it. My guess is that, at most, some particular section or sections are actually disputed. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up a section. Sam Spade 13:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

So you consider the entire article totally disputed because you question the relevance of three external links? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that this article is not neutral, because it describes people as supremacists even when they a) clearly state that they are none and do not want to be classified as such and b) the definition of white seperatism is simply not the definition of white supremacism. Those who ignore fact a) and b) are consciously making a bad name out of white seperatists at the cost of neutrality. Aor

So precisely what statements in the article are you objecting to? If the article is considered disputed, there needs to be a clear statment of what is disputed, not a vague generality. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up a section. Aor 05:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, what I glean from that section is the issue of the three links that have been back and forth. If there is other specific material in the article that is at issue, please be clearer. There is nothing anyone can do to resolve vague complaints. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, I would like to know why you still edit the link section instead of debating the problem. Until now, you have made no effort to hide that you're manipulating this article to fit your own political propaganda. Aor 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My own political propaganda? lol How exactly am I manipulating this article? If we are to look at, for example, Skadi. Everything in the website screams white supremacist! Just take a look at the forums "Racial Classification," "Physical Anthropology," etc. --Gramaic | Talk 20:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You are still evading my question. Now tell me, what is *White Supremacist* about racial classification or physical anthropology? You are acting by false definitions! Aor 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And, Aor, you are totally evading my question. What, other than the inclusion of these links, is disputed. Because 3 external links do not merit placing a {{totallydisputed}} tag on the whole article. If I don't have an answer within 24 more hours, I will feel free to remove that tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not add the tag, ask someone else about it. I don't see that tag anywhere anyhow. Aor 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If you will look at the top of the section, you will see that this started with my asking why the article has a {{totallydisputed}} tag on it. No one gave any response other than "scroll up a section", which seems to suggest the dispute is over the inclusion of three external links. I have now repeatedly asked for clarification, and received none. It also looks like someone else has meanwhile removed the tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Identity

Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity:

"Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."

Sam Spade 14:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I've noticed you don't agree to having Skadi and tNP in the "External links" section. I was wondering what do you think of these threads from Skadi?; 'Nordicist vs Southern European', 'The Biological Superiority Of The Nordic Race', Question about an Italian subrace. If what's written in these threads are not white supremacist, I don't know what is. Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 20:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, for starters those are forums, and forum posters are not verifiable expert witnesses or spokesfolk. 2nd, I skimmed one of them, and it seemed like adebate about if mediteraneans are white or not, along w some general crudeness and low quality discussion. One guy brought up some archaeological stuff that was vaguely promising, but not much came of it. I saw no evidence of Skadi, much less tNP being either supremacist nor othwerwise worthy for inclusion in the external links of this page. The fact is, these guys don't self label as White Supremacist, and its just some random forum, not notable here. Sam Spade 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Plus, how somebody self-labels often provides a view into their mindset. The guy who refuses to be called a white supremacist probably is different from the guy who says "Hell yeah, I'm a white supremacist". Of course, some white supremacists are probably saying "white nationalist" or "white separatist" because they think it's more acceptable... But probably not that many, because if somebody was going to try to "hide" their racial views, they could do a much better job of it. --Edward Wakelin 21:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Origins of white supremacy

According to James Loewen in "Lies My Teacher Told Me", white supremacy originated during the Age of Discovery, when European nations were seeking an ideological justification for both the displacement of indigenous peoples and the enslavement of black Africans. Slavery, anti-Semitism, and many other phenomena associated with white supremacy existed long before this, of course, but the sense that non-white peoples were innately biologically inferior seems to have come into being along with the changes in military technology and social organization which made it possible for European imperialists to conquer and/or colonize large portions of the world.

Perhaps the most famous discoverer, Christopher Columbus, provides a striking example of the attraction of, and results of, white supremacy for Europeans. Columbus at first believed the people he encountered in the Americas were handsome and intelligent. However, later, when he had returned to the Americas he changed his mind, referring to them as "cruel", "stupid", and "warlike". The demonization and infantilization of the Arawak nation on Haiti justified Columbus' policies there, which included enslavement, institutionalized rape, barbaric punishments (including cutting off the Indians' hands) and eventual genocide. [1]

• This kind of stuff might be appropriate (if reworded) on the whiteness studies page, but its completely out of place here, not to mention absurdly biased and poor;y cited. Sam Spade 13:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• It isn't particularly well-written or well-cited, but it is substantially correct. I believe that the way to strengthen the article is to do a better job of writing this, not to remove it from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, its bunk, but if you can cite it and write it neutrally, I can see it being included as one view among others. Sam Spade 14:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the passage in question, I think. I don't think it's particularly poorly written myself (unless "poorly written" means "POV" in this context, which is perhaps a problem.) The charge of poor citation seems fair, too, though it is currently better cited than Sam's assertion that it's "bunk." It might help if Sam could explain more clearly what it is he objects to here. Sam, are you objecting to the claim that white supremacy started during the Age of Exploration? Or to the link between white supremacy and European imperialism? Or to the charges against Columbus? And if you have other views of the origins of white supremacy to cite, maybe you could name sources or provide links?

There seems to be some measure of confusion as to whether "white supremacy" should refer to all historical claims of superiority by whites, which go back quite a ways, or whether it should refer only to more recent white power movements. I keep meaning to look the term up in the OED, but forgetting -- if someone else remembers before me that would be helpful. I'm currently reading Eric Foner's "Reconstruction" and he uses "white supremacy" to refer to Andrew Johson and to many others in the pre and post-civil war period. Foner's a leftist, but he's also one of the most respected historians of his period. Again, I'm not sure that this is the question at issue, but if it is it does seem to be the case that at least one well-regarded historians uses the term "white supremacy" to refer to events at least 150 years in the past. NoahB 01:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Some anonymous user added this new addition to the article;

White Supremacy is the direct or indirect subjugation of ALL "non-white" people by white people, for the basic purpose of "pleasing" and/or serving any or all "white" persons, at all times, in all places, in all areas of human activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War. It is the only functional RACISM, in existence, among the people of the known universe that is based on "color" and/or "anti-color" in the physical make-up or physical appearance of persons. White Supremacy is RACISM for the sake of RACISM. White Supremacy IS Racism and Racism IS White Supremacy. White Supremacy (Racism). As long as White Supremacy (Racism) exists, no other form of RACISM can exist at the same time anywhere in the known universe.

Racism, in the form of White Supremacy, is the greatest motivating force, by people, that exists among the people of the known universe. Every person in the known universe is either practicng White Supremacy (Racism), or, he or she is compelled, at all times, to react to those persons who are practicing it. Both the practice of White Sipremacy (racism), and the reaction to it, effects all people, in all the nine areas of human activity.

White Supremacy was established for the sole purpose of practicing RACISM against all non-white people on the planet though the use of deception, subjugation, manipulation, and direct violence or the threat thereof.

All white people benefit directly or indirectly from the global system of White Supremacy (Racism) and all non-white people are victims of that system.

Four Stages of White Supremacy (Racism)

1. Establishment

2. Maintenance

3. Expansion

4. Refinement

I was wondering does anybody find this new addition to the article okay? If you ask me, I think the old intro was better. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Need I even say that? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the submitter's heart is in the right place, but he's incorrect in saying that all racism is white supremacy. There certainly are other flavors of racists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 11 Nov 2005.

88 and other symbols

I just read that 88 is a symbol of WS. Are there others?--Gbleem 02:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Cosmotheism

Can anyone explain why this link:

• Cosmotheism Community Church

which goes to the church founded by William Pierce, does not belong? Pierce was a well-known proponent of white suptremacism, and the website has significant white supremacist content. -Willmcw 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly Will. This site also sponsors and has many links to other white supremacist organizations such as National Alliance (or maybe National Vanguard), and has a link to the Creativity Movement, the organization that is headed by Matt Hale. --Gramaic | Talk 03:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just keep reverting and don't say anything. Eventually that person will get bored and give up.--Gbleem 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

(This is just a thought, not a campaign.) I've always considered the distinctions between White-supremacists/separatists/nationalists to be obvious - and accuracy is important. Such distinctions are important to the people who hold those views. I'm inclined to think that moving “cosmotheism.net" from the "White supremacist" article to the "White separatist" article might settle things down and bring Wikipeace. I see that there's a nice set of similar links already lined up in the "nationalist" article. Why not add it over there? It seems silly to keep restoring the link time and again in "supremacist" if a slightly different designation will make everyone happy-ish. Cheers.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.136.157 (talk • contribs) . 00:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a wiki-crime. -Willmcw 22:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, why did you edit my comment? If not you, then who? It was NOT unsigned, it was signed Anon, short for anonymous. -- Signed Anon

No sir, that is not your comment! That comment was made by Willmcw, which he wrote in my talk page back in September. [2] --Gramaic | Talk 04:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I paraphrased Willmcw. To paraphrase is NOT plagiarism, and separatism is NOT supremacy. Cosmotheism is not White supremacy.-- signed Anon

Then how exactly is Cosmotheism not white supremacist? One of the factors that points that Cosmotheism Community Church is white supremacist, is that it has a link to the Creativity Movement website, the organization that is run by Matt Hale. BTW, if you are User:Anon, you must log in, all I'm seeing in the history page is your IP address. --Gramaic | Talk 05:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If the only proof you need of White supremacism is a link to some other website, then would you agree that Wikipedia.org is a White Supremacist website? I challenge you to quote anything from the scriptures of Cosmotheism that proves White supremacy. Separatism, sure, but not supremacy. I am not "user" Anon, that name is anonymous, like yours.

No, that's not the only reason. Cosmotheism was founded by one of the most prominent White Supremacists. If you don't think Pierce was one then you must not believe the philosophy exists. Please register if you want a username, but don't use someone else's. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cosmotheism does not teach White supremacy. If you think it does then you are ignorant of Cosmotheism and are not qualified to make this decision. Do you have Richard Nixon and Billy Grahm listed as anti-semites? Probably not because I think you're just pushing an agenda to slander Cosmotheists. As some said once before, Wikipedia makes a distinction between White separatism and White supremacy. You too should acknowledge the distinction. These articles should include only facts. I have not tried to change the article on William Pierce, but I will not sit idly by while you to MIS-LABEL Cosmotheism as White supremacist.

May I ask- who started the movement in modern America? What groups are White Supremacist today? What is the proper designation for Cosmotheism and why? Please help us out with the facts. -Willmcw 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The three books of Cosmotheism were written by William Pierce. However you cannot attribute everything he believed to Cosmotheism or all Cosmothists. IF he were a Republican, neo-con, vegetarian, woman-hater would not mean that Cosmotheism cosists of those things. To be truthful and accurate, Cosmotheism must be judged only on what Cosmotheism is.

What groups are White Supremacist today? Any group that declares Whites to be supreme. Cosmotheism says nothing in this regard. Cosmotheism says that biological diversity is a function of evolution and therefore the “will of God”. Cosmotheism teaches that we must preserve this diversity and even increase it so there will be more opportunities for mankind to achieve Divine Consciousness.

Cosmotheists could be accurately described as racial separatists. Separatism preserves biological diversity. Nothing would prevent a group of Black nationalists from adopting Cosmotheism, but if they truly followed the teaching of Cosmotheism they would be racial separatists. William Pierce himself said that, “Our truth tells us that no man, NO RACE [emphasis mine], not even this planet, exists as an end in itself. The only thing which exists as an end in its self is the whole.” He also said that if we fail to achieve Divine Consciousness that the Creator would try again, and again, and again, but would some day eventually reach the goal of Divine Consciousness.

removed line

I removed this:

A list of famous white supremacists would be far too long to include in this article; for example, it would include virtually all politically active people in the pre-Civil War United States or in apartheid-era South Africa.

Like most of this article, it's way too specific towards white supremacy in the US (and South Africa in this case). Why would politically active people in those countries be any different than, say, Queen Victoria, Hitler, or Napoleon III? I tried to make the statement more inclusive at one point, but it was removed.--Cuchullain 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems really weird. Because the statement, which you seem to agree is accurate, was not inclusive enough, you think it is better off not making the point at all? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is already too US-specific, and the point has already been made elsewhere in the article. I don't think the article gains much from the above statement beyond a somewhat Americocentric reiteration.--Cuchullain 04:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

White supremacy in the United States

As mentioned above, this article is too U.S. oriented. The "White supremacy in the United States" section was originally called "White supremacy through history," then it was renamed "White supremacy in the United States." Then I renamed it, "White supremacy around the world," then it was later changed back to "White supremacy in the United States." This section was meant to describe the historical events of white supremacy that took place all over the globe, not just in the United States. --Gramaic | Talk 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It may have been meant to discribed white supremacy around the world, but it was almost all about the US anyway. If someone adds info about other places, they should go into another section.--Cuchullain 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Montecito

Cut from article

Currently, Montecito, California is home to a burgeoning group of white supremacists. They call themselves "white fighters" and seem to act without malice; however, there are rumors that they have been behind some of the Montecito region hate crimes.

Unless someone can cite for this, and give some indication why what is happening in Montecito is on a scale that matters, this does not belong in an encyclopedia article that doesn't even mention Hayden Lake, Idaho. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oriana Fallaci

Please the one who included Oriana Fallaci in the white supremacists category, give proofs and respectable sources backing your claims. This is not a place for defamations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vincent shooter (talk • contribs) 5 Feb 2006.

I'm not the one, and certainly she would not belong there on the basis of her writings in the 1960s and 1970s, but I've also heard independently that she has headed that way in recent years. Does anyone have something solid on this?

- Jmabel | Talk around 10 Feb 2006

Else Christensen

I would dispute the inclusion of Else Christiansen in this list. The list purports to be people "primarily known for their support of white supremacy". This is clearly not the case with Else Christensen who is primarily known for being a pioneer of the modern Odinist movement and for her work with rehabilitation of prisoners. Even the wiki page dedicated to her makes it clear that she was not a white supremacist.

Can someone give some validation to the accusation and also to the allegation that the Odinist Fellowship is a WS organization?Hengest

I have removed Else Christensen and the Odinist Fellowship and suggest they remain removed until someone can give valid reasons for their inclusion. Christensen and her organization promoted an ethnocentric faith in the same way as Shinto or the Native American beliefs are promoted by their adherents. This in no way constitutes White Supremacy. Through her prison outreach work Else actually turned many people away from such negative ideals as WS and to more positive paths.

It is about time this thing was sorted and guidelines produced rather than the current arbitrary addition of individuals and groups based upon someone's opinion or agenda.Hengest 11:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary white supremacists

I think the list of Contemporary white supremacists should be organized according to some criteria, such us nationality and type of belives, otherwise be removed. It doesn't make sense to have a long list of names without any additional info about them.--tequendamia 15:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. To just add people without any kind of validation seems to be very wrong and it appears that there is no set definition or criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hengest (talk • contribs) 22 February 2006.

Nationalities

Was it really a good idea to add various nationalities but then fail to move people to their relevant nationality? Hengest 12:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This was done!--tequendamia 23:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

rockwell

I know George Licoln Rockwell did speeches in Canada but I don't think he was Canadian??

• He was American. I've moved him. Now, will someone tell me why he is listed as "contemporary"? - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish and Italians

I've noticed that "Irish" and "Italians" are constantly being deleted from the lists of people that white supremacists discriminated against. Can someone please explain why are they being deleted. Please don't say because "Irish" and "Italians" are white, or because there are Irish and Italian white supremacist organizations. Irish and Italians were once discriminated against by white supremacists, and many white supremacists do not consider Italians and other dark-skinned Europeans to be white. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 08:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are Irish dark-skinned Europeans? --Ezeu 08:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Irish are dark skinned Europeans or not. Some are, Colin Farrell is a good example. Irish were once discriminated against by white supremacists, that's the main thing were talking about. --Gramaic | Talk 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Irish and Italians

Gramaic, you say some Irish are dark skinned, In general Irish people are tall and fair skinned. You state you include them in the non-white section because they were once discriminated against. In fact it was Irish Catholics that were discriminated against by the KKK and other such groups. I am an irish Protestant man and what you say should be included in a sub-section under historic sectarianism and not racism. Irish people are a grouping within the larger family of Aryan peoples. Irish people are closely related to the northern French, Southern English and Welsh. Irish people are along with the Swedish and Nordic peoples the most white or fair skinned in the whole of Europe.

Yes most Irish are fair skinned people, but a minority of Irish are darker skinned. George Clooney (who is of Irish ancestry), is another good example of a few of the darker skinned Irish. Irish and Italians are not included in the list because of their racial heritage, it's because these groups of people were once harrassed by white supremacist groups. Irish Catholics (like you mentioned earlier) being discriminated by the KKK is a good example of Irish struggling against white supremacists. Let's move on to Italians. Italians, Greeks and other Mediterranean whites were also constantly harrassed by the KKK and other white supremcists. In fact, the KKK (in the past) did not allow Italians and other Mediterrannean whites into their organization. Today for many white supremacists, white = Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon. These types of white supremcists are known as nordicists. --Gramaic | Talk 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Germans were discriminated against too, just like Italians and Irish. During the 1800s the English basically considered themselves the only "whites" of Europe and discriminated against everyone. Why don't you read some of the things Thomas Jefferson had to say about the Germans. He noted their complexion as "swarthy", too. The Irish and Italian thing needs to be changed.~~

Irish and Italians

Yes I understand what you're saying but it was because of Religious denomination that most Irish people were being discriminated against. Irish people are in general 99% fair skinned and I make this statement as an Irish person living in Ireland. English people(of anglo-saxon origin) are slightly darker skinned than Irish people and you could say this of most other nationalities within Europe. If you include Irish people as being discriminated by white supremicists, you should therefore include the French, Scottish, Austrian and a large amount of other Nationalities who are fair skinned and whose religion in general is Catholic. The Irish were once discriminated historically but like I say you should have this under sectarianism and not white supremacy since the Irish are an Aryan peoples.

Australian White Supremacists

Hi. I've just deleted Alan Jones (radio) from the "Contemporary white supremacists" section. He's a right-wing shock-jock who likes controversy and has often been accused of racism but (as far as I know) no-one here has publicly called him a White Supremacist.

I doubt very much that Australia is free of White Supremacists, but I can't think of any notable ones. (I guess White Supremacism isn't as profitable here ...) Even Eric D. Butler, founder of the anti-semitic Australian League of Rights, doesn't fit into this category, IMO.

—Chris Chittleborough 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Woops, found one: Jack van Tongeren. Sigh. User:Chris Chittleborough aka CWC(talk) 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re list of Contemporary White Supremacists

There were lots of problems with this section of the article:

• People listed under the wrong nation.
• People who died over 50 years ago are hardly "Contemporary".
• People whose Wikipedia articles say they're White Separationists being listed as Supremacists.
• Vandalism is too easy.

I have therefore WP:BOLDly started a subpage at Talk:White supremacy/Workspace-People to discuss (1) the criteria we use to add people to this list or remove them from it and (2) the individuals currently or recently listed there. Please check the subpage and WP:BOLDLY fix my errors, foolishnesses, etc.

Furthermore, I have WP:BOLDly reworked this section of the article. I've changed to 3 columns, used country names instead of nationalities, and removed a lot of names. As always, corrections and further improvements are welcome. Please confine discussion of this list to the subpage. Thanks.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazis

Nazis were not white supremacists then.

"He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. 'To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time' (Himmler said). 'This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. . . After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate...I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans...This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race . . . it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race . . . At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness . . . I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer."

So the white supremacists screwing the others europeans and forgeting that without spanish, italian, irish, croatians or whatever and just what they think is WHITE there will be pretty much no one left, self proclaming themselves NAZIS are childish idiots and would be shot by the SS right away.

I know WS and Nazism is NOT the same thing, obviously, but there is a conection made by stupid ones that should be destroyed because is misinformation. OK that Hitler himself couldn't see beyond german borders but still changed his mind about romanics and slavics during the course of the war, Himmler in the other hand had a much wider vision about race, and knew that it's important to make as much allies as possible in a certain range.

Secondly vikings would never be superior than romans, since Rome was already a potence and the 'pure nordics' lived like beasts, so it's still a stupid ideology, i would understand romanic supremacy but barbarian it's not easy to understand.

Whatever, the word "Nazi" is in the text 10000000000000000 times and no one clarifies that the cited things are deformations condemned by nazi leaders, that's what I'm complaining about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.10.59.170 (talk • contribs) 7 May 2006.

Fred Phelps is a highly public figure in his "God Hates Fags" campaign, but he is by no means a white supremacist. Strangley enough, he fought alongside Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights movement. I believe this is even listed on his Wikipedia page. I'll take him off of the list here.

Those Neo-Facists

A few days ago, user 58.169.55.43 (t·c) changed a heading from "Contemporary white supremacists" to "Contemporary white supremacists and neo-fascists". Since then, user 212.251.123.223 (t·c) has edited the list under "Greece" by

1. adding the description "(Popular Orthodox Rally party member)" after Kostas Plevris, and
2. Adding "Kyriakos Velopoulos (Popular Orthodox Rally party member)".

Note that we do not have articles about Kostas Plevris and the other person listed under "Greece", Nikolaos Michaloliakos.

I've now removed the "and neo-facists" bit, on the grounds that this article is about White Supremacy, a narrowly defined and overtly racist way of thinking, not about neo-facism or Neo-Facism. I completely support the efforts of previous editors to distinguish White Supremacy from White separatism and "White nationalism", and strongly oppose confusing White Supremacists with the large and very blurry category of neo-facists.

(When editing an article like this, we have to remember that "Wikipedia says so-and-so is a white supremacist" is a slur that will carry increasing weight in political debate, even though it might be more accurate to say "Wikipedia said such-and-such for 17 minutes before a vandalism-fixer reverted the edit".)

Questions:

• Do other editors agree with keeping the focus narrow?
• Are the people listed under Greece really Supremacists? (Presumably they would be Greek Supremacists, not White Supremacists.) Our article about Mr Velopoulos does not show him in any such light.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes (to the fisrt question). The current article is almost completely focused on recent US (if it is that important there should be leaf), the whole centuries before got ignored. Some info is here, on top of the Talk. Pavel Vozenilek 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we have zero evidence that any of the 3 people from Greece meet our criteria, I'm moving them all to the Talk:White supremacy/Workspace-People page. (See also here.) On the other hand, we do have a WS here in Aus: Jack van Tongeren, so I'm adding him to the article. —CWC(talk) 11:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I added `neo-fascists' as well on the grounds that advocates from Italy and Malta were included. Looking up Google Images I cannot say that Roberto Fiore epitomizes my stereotypical perception of a `white' person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.1.246 (talk • contribs)

(When you leave a comment on a talk page, please type in ~~~~ at the end. That's how the rest of us are "WP:SIGning" our comments. It makes "conversations" much easier to follow. Thanks.)

Adding "and neo-facists" was one way to make the heading agree with the content. I advocate the opposite approach: only list people who are known to be White Supremacists from their own statements or from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.

And indeed, the Roberto Fiore says nothing about White Supremacy. Unless someone objects, I'll remove his name from the list. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

`PAN-CAUCASOIDISM'!

The `Pan-Aryanist' Ideology should change its name to `Pan-Caucasoidism'. Considering they accept Syrians, Lebanese, Turks and Algerians, these people are mostly Caucasoid but are not Indo-Europeans descended from Aryans. Ironically The word Aryan is a Sanskrit word and generally pan-Aryanists do not regard the majority of South Asians as acceptable. This I surmise is based on the assertion that Indo-Pakistanis are stereotypically percieved as being dark skinned. The fact is that most South Asians from the northern regions are no darker than what most West Asians are (see human skin colour). The `anti-Indian' attitudes from white racialists in Britain has probably also contributed to distort Pan-Aryanist doctrine as well. This is also probably why Arabs on the Arabian peninsular are not accepted by Pan-Aryanists because many are mixed with Negro blood and it is noticable in their appearance Ruts 77 4 June 2006.

Changes made 29-Jun-2006

I've done a partial rewrite of the "Ideology in contemporary white supremacy" section, mainly in an attempt to get rid of over-long sentences. Here's a list of the major changes in content:

First Paragraph

• Deleted "relationships and" from "opposition to racial mixing, especially interracial relationships and marriages"

because I suspect that relationships between "white" women and non-"white" men are what the White Supremacists really hate.

• Deleted "(See also: Race and intelligence, The Bell Curve.)"

because I don't see how articles on the realities of race and intelligence are relevant to what white supremacists believe.

Seventh Paragraph

• Tried to distinguish (Fundamentalist) Christianity from Christian Identity (which, AFAIK, is explicitly racist).

Final Paragraph

• Deleted entire para "Many white supremacists still exist, yet congregate under alias groups of other names."

because it's unintelligible. I guess it's intended to mean that many contemporary White Supremacists have "gone underground" and pretend to be "just" White Separatists or White Nationalists, or anti-Zionists, etc. Should we say something to this effect? Do we have any citations for it?

Improvements, corrections and comments are all welcome. (If you check the revision history, you'll see that at present I need all the help I can get.)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Beginning

Why are Italians the only European group singled out for discrimination by white supremist groups in the beginning paragraph. After all, are we to say that a Portuguese person or a Greek person wont be but an Italian will. It is already stated the following sentence that some also discriminate among Slavic and southern Europeans, so Italians need not be singled out in the beginning paragraph.

Plus a lot of this article uses a Nordicist point of view, whereas there are white supremist groups originating in southern Europe now saying that northern Europeans are actually inferior due to their high non-European mixing with Asians. After all it is a proven fact that Asian/Mongol admixture is higher Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe and can reach frequencies of 50 percent. - Galati