Talk:White supremacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khajehmal (article contribs). 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 (article contribs).

Why no mention of Donald Trump

I guess Donald Trump paid Wikipedia alot of moneey to remove his name from this article since he is a well known supporter of white supremacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.12.170 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You will need to use a reliable source in order to add your requested content. 2600:1012:B12D:1903:0:7:2DDE:201 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

this is what trolling looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.245.204 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"From memes to race war: How extremists use popular culture to lure recruits"

See [1] Doug Weller talk 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Scare quotes?

Why are there scare quotes around " 'races' " in the intro when MOS:SCAREQUOTES (if I understand it correctly) forbids them? - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears to have been added with this edit [2], with no clear explanation. I'll remove them. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

It is unreasonable to make the words "white supremacY" (Historical Events) equal to "White supremacISM" (belief). The article seems to be focused on "white supremacISM" (belief). A separate WIKI for historical examples of White SupremacY around the World should be created, to include for example the arrival of the White Supremacists at Plymouth, MA in 1620, the establishment of Jamestown in 1607, the Conquest of Mexico, etcetera. 74.76.77.139 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

Recently added a WW2-era poster as lead image, it was reverted citing MOS:IMAGE. My (paraphrased) response on the reverting editor's talk page was:

Hi @Generalrelative:

Here to discuss your recent edit: "Image did not belong in the lead. I am not sure it belongs anywhere in the article either, per MOS:IMAGE. What does it illustrate?"

It illustrates a clear distinction in the way white/"Aryan" people were perceived in Nazi Germany (a society widely acknowledged as white supremacist) versus Black people. The poster serves as an Exhibit-A of sorts when it comes to what white supremacy is.

The image may be considered offensive, but I imagine that any historical image attempting to convey the concept of "white supremacy" would be as well. There is no gore, no acute suffering, no atrocity. It seems that it adheres to MOS:SHOCK and MOS:OMIMG.

MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES doesn't apply as the article is about a belief regarding an ethnic group/race, not the group itself.

As for MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, the core strength of the image is its age, which speaks to how long white supremacy has been around; it's not a new phenomenon but one that the world has been dealing with for quite some time. In my mind this overrides concerns about the visual darkness of the image.

I still think it's fit for the lead. If that view isn't shared, I propose that we include it in the History:Germany section as it's a specific illustration of white supremacy in that country in the described time period.

Thoughts? Sweetstache (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Sweetstache, for launching this discussion. For reference, this is the Nazi propaganda poster under discussion: [3] There are two issues here: 1) Does this image belong in the lead, and 2) does it belong in the article at all.

1) In my view the argument against inclusion in the lead is more clearly self-evident. MOS:LEADIMAGE states: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. The image in question does not illustrate the topic of white supremacy specifically, nor is it the type of image one would expect to find in a high-quality reference work on the topic. Indeed, it seems likely that white supremacy is one of those topics mentioned in the MOS for which no easy representation exists, and that is fine. Further, LEADIMAGE also states: Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Since the image in question is clearly shocking in the way it seeks to depict people of African descent as subhuman, it violates this second stipulation as well.

2) The argument against inclusion at all is more subjective, but I would argue that it does in fact run afoul of MOS:OMIMG, particularly the part which enjoins us to Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. This image is so deeply offensive and dehumanizing that its only encyclopedic value would be to illustrate precisely these aspects of Nazi propaganda. In my view the primary thing this image would serve to do were it to be included here would be to give pornographic pleasure to neo-Nazis who happen to be perusing the article and cause People of Color who may be looking to this page for information to feel gratuitously harassed. (Please note that it is clearly not Sweetstache's intention to cause these reactions –– I think their good faith is clear from the context –– but nonetheless I believe that this will be the likely outcome of inclusion.) Per OMIMG we should include such offensive images only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. In this case, I would argue, none of these conditions is met. Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Is there a way in which one can pictorially represent the idea of "white supremacy" without shocking large numbers of people? Its logical conclusion runs so contrary to modern liberal democratic ideals and morality that the belief itself is shocking. Maybe that's an argument against including it as a lead image, and I think I see your point on that. But to shy away from including the image at all because it will (most definitely) shock many people seems to doing marginalized groups a great injustice. White supremacy has led to their mass murder in the past, and making that connection clear is, IMHO, for the best. We ought not repeat the dark part of history that this poster came from. The more people that understand the fact--especially with a dose of shock--that mask-off white supremacy has only recently been marginalized in the Western world, the better. I think there is significant value in associating the belief with the feeling of shock itself. This image is used over at Holocaust victims#Additional Non-Europeans to contextualize the thought process of a regime that slaughtered 17 million people in cold blood. The belief that this poster exemplifies--this article--was the beating heart of that regime. Don't we want that fact to be crystal clear? Sweetstache (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, Sweetstache, but I'm still not convinced that the image has an overriding encyclopedic value here –– or at Holocaust victims#Additional Non-Europeans for that matter. Regarding the latter, be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is typically a form of argument we avoid in talk page discussions. I do want to emphasize that it's clear to me you're coming at this from a genuine concern to improve the encyclopedia. We just have different intuitions about what is going to be helpful to readers, and the guidelines leave a lot of room for interpretation in matters like this. I would suggest that we now take a step back and wait for others to chime in and hopefully resolve the issue one way or the other. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No Nazi poster, please. The topic is larger than that. Let's not lead the reader to think the topic is primarily about Germany during two decades of the last century. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thoughts on adding it to the History:Germany section, and limiting its context/influence to that part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetstache (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

German Nazi ideology was built on centuries of prejudice against Jews, while white suprematism was built on centuries of economic exploitation of Black people. The two topics should be treated differently. While Hitler had some Black people murdered or sterilized, whiteness was not important for his rhetorics, thinking, or ideology. When Nazis used the term "negro", it was to attack their opponents as being too friendly towards or being corrupted by Black people - in the case of the poster the opponent under attack is the Catholic Church, in many other cases it was American culture, e.g. in the form of Jazz music. That's why I think the poster doesn't belong here at all. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

White supremacy outside Europe and the anglosphere

Why is there no mention of white supremacy in the Middle East? Several middle eastern/North African countries such as Mauratania and Libya have major racial issues and a caste system that places black at the bottom and white on top. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)