Jump to content

Talk:White supremacy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Criticism

'White supremacy' is often used as a pejorative label by non-white, anti-white, communist and advocacy organizations to misconstrue white ethnocentric organizations and activists to the public. This entry needs a NPOV tag and a cleanup.--Wittsun (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing

User:The Undertow, you reverted my edit which included sourcing all of your claims of OR. Yahel Guhan 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

'Racist' in Lead

Yahel Guhan insists on placing 'racist' in the lead of this article. Incidentally removes racist from the Black supremacy article. User also insists on "You can call it white nationalism, white suprematism, white pride, or anything else. It is all the same, in that it is all the same racist dogma designed to say white people are dominant to black people." So pretty much, I'm questioning the motives here, the clear POV pushing agenda and I want a source review with that last addition. Either all supremacy articles have 'racist' in the lead or none, but no more of this anti-white sentiment shown by a user who adds "Secondly, Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise." I've warned you before that your edits are POV-pushing. Just because you have a source, doesn't necessarily mean it merits inclusion either. Please think long and hard about your behavior and how it does not represent each race with equality. the_undertow talk 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We are never going to reach a consensus as long as you continue making personal attacks and uncivil ranting about how much you think I am a racist. Your only justification for removing the racist link is you want standardization. Standardization is not necessary when the concepts are different, and sources say they are different. Yahel Guhan 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Really. Show me the source that backs up your wonderful neutrality as displayed with this comment: I think the white supremacy is generally more associated with racism than black supremacy, as there are no forms of white supremacy (as far as I am aware) which cannot be termed "racist." Most forms of black supremacy are "racsit," but not all forms are. Many things associated with black supremacy are not in fact racist per se. Is there a source for this? Are you being serious that white supremacy is always racist and that black supremacy is noy in fact 'racist' per se? 'Supremacy' implies racial superiority, no matter how YOU feel about it. An standardization in the lead is a must. We will never reach consensus until you treat all race articles the same. the_undertow talk 05:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"Supremacy implies racial superiority" So what?. That does not mean it is racist. And standardization is not necessary, unless two topics are the same or similar. Yahel Guhan 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Black supremacy and white supremacy are similar. If Wikipedia defines racism as members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups then you are deeply going against consensus when you say that racial superiority does not imply racism. But then again, it's really a moot point, considering your comments about race in general. That's why I'm building the Request for comment because anyone who feels it necessary to add the category 'racism' to the Michael Richards article, while removing the same category from The Black Panthers article has a skewed view and cannot remain neutral. You are far too biased to be editing race-related articles, Yahel. the_undertow talk 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The sourced definition in the article; according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of the racism article reads:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

'[1]

Nothing about supremacy here. That is your original research. Yahel Guhan 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I cited our own article, so there is no OR here. In addition, you defined racial discrimination, which is an active principle. Racism, is passive or active. We are defining 'racism,' the word you are trying to add, not 'racial discrimination.' You are not staying on topic. the_undertow talk 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well "our own article" is OR. Still, this method is WP:SYNTH. Yahel Guhan 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Either find consensus to add 'racism' to the lead, or refrain. your behavior at this point, is too questionable. the_undertow talk 08:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, there is a long discussion on Talk:Black supremacy where consensus was reached to include racist in the lead. I agree that there should be a standardization because contrary to what Yahel states, both are racist ideologies. We should be consistent through our articles. Lara❤Love 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ UN International Convention on the Elimination of All of Racial Discrimination, NEW YORK 7 March 1966

July 08

I've removed the word from the lede for several reasons.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

White supremacy, by definition, according to the source is racist. I don't see how it is POV to say so, nor do I see how it "implies" any viewpoint that isn't correct. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Even if it's technically accurate, it carries an implied viewpoint. Per NPOV, we cannot definitively state viewpoints as fact. We don't make the page sympathetic to white supremacists by excluding the word "racist", because a reader would easily figure that out by the words "based on the assertion that white people are superior to other racial groups." Sceptre (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Implied viewpoint? It does not. "Per NPOV, we cannot definitively state viewpoints as fact." Since when? I see editors do it all the time. (See for example Israel and the apartheid analogy or Evolution) But unlike those issues, this article tells facts. It is not an opinion that white supremacy is a racist ideology, it is a fact. a reader would easily figure that out by the words "based on the assertion that white people are superior to other racial groups." Now there is a new theory. From what I have seen so far, I doubt it. It has been disputed whether that means racism by some, so it is not obvious from that. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, just because article X does it does not mean this article can do it. Did you even read WTA? It says even if a term such as 'racist' is technically accurate (as in this case), we shouldn't use it because it implies a negative viewpoint. Besides, those are two massive straw men - AoIA is a known POV cesspit, and evolution is a scientific accepted fact. Sceptre (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What viewpoint does a definition give? If something is defined as a synnomym for racist, that does not mean it is implying a POV to say it is racist. And although evolution is a scientific fact, some people (creationists) may disagree with that, so technically, is that a POV? Maybe, but that would not warrent any change in the article. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE Remove "Rasist" from the lead. Allow me to quote the current (7 NOV 2008, 11:46 PM) Black Supremacy Lead "Black supremacy is an ideology based on the assertion that black people are superior to other racial groups." Contrast that with "White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other racial groups. The term is sometimes used specifically to describe a racist[1] political ideology that advocates the social and political dominance of whites.[2]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.89.3 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Everyone on here needs to get a life and just put up the correct information the first time and we wont have these problems. you people get ignorent people all confused with your false "facts" you put up here for fun, it's not funny but annoying. and its not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.23.55 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

There appears to be a great deal of Original Research in this article. The entire "history" section, for example is without citations or verifiable sources. The article should read as encyclopedic, though many statements throughout are subjective. Perhaps it should be sourced or reworked. Or perhaps remove the entire section? EyePhoenix (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Zionism

Zionism must be included as a white supremacist group. Its founders were white Europeans, its backers were and are white Euopreans, and it claims to represent "God's chosen people" - which can only be viewed as a claim to be the "master race" since no rational person takes any bloodthirsty tracts written thousands of years ago to be anything more than "childish superstition" [Einstein]. This perfidious movement first terrorized then bought somebody else's land without their consent and continues to bribe and blackmail its way to stealing more of that land and massacring and dehumanising its people. It should be noted that the head of the privately-owned Federal Reserve and all its dozen directors are Zionists and that they continue to fund this bastard state, bribe and blackmail the venal politicians of the US with lavish gifts of money through their vicarious agents, charge usurious interest to print what will soon be worthless scraps of paper and fund wars wherever they be staged. Their members head all of the major media in the English-speaking world. To forestall any name-calling, these barbaric supremacists have nothing "Semitic" about them in any form; they are white supremacists par excellence and the gravest threat to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.109.156 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also the sentence: "White supremacy has often resulted in anti-black racism and antisemitism." seems completely biased. To start with, Jewish is not a race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because Jewish isn't a race doesn't mean that white supremacy doesn't lead to antisemitism. Anyway, according to the Jew article it is an ethnicity, nationality, and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totallygayusa (talk • contribs) 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But Jews aren't European~ They might be described as white, but if Jews are white, then so are Arabs - who are also Semites. Of course traditionally Arabs regarded themselves as whites, especially in north africa.JohnC (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Jews in Israel are roughly split 50/50 amongst European Jews and Middle East [arab looking] Jews, the two groups have and are mixing pretty steadily in Israel...Its a distortion of reality to call Zionists "White" OR racist. Give it another 30 years and Israeli Jews will be thoroughly mixed and still 100% Jewish. A racist ideology would not allow white skinned folks to breed with different folk, I will agree that Zionism is pro-Jew however it is pro-Jew regardless if the Jew is white, arab or black.. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Anachronistic?

Is the word "Anachronistic" actually important in the definition of White Supremacy, as in "White supremacy is the anachronistic belief that white people are superior..." vs "White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior..."?

This word has been in there since April 21 2009. It was subsequently removed; however, Dawn Bard reinstated it on the basis that it was the "consensus view" that anachronistic should be in there.

Please can you provide a reference for such a consensus view? Alternatively, should the word "anachronistic" be added to pages such as Racial supremacy and Black Supremacy? Should it also be added to the pages on Sexism, Ageism, in fact, any page concerning discrimination?

I do not in any way condone or support White (c.f. racial) Supremacist views; I find them abhorrent. However, in the name of article neutrality and consistency, I suggest that this word be removed. --155.198.108.162 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. No matter how repugnant I find the subject of the article to be, putting the word "anachronistic" in the lead obviously violates WP:NPOV. And I see no discussion anywhere here, including the 2 archives, of the word as it is used in this context. How can a consensus exist if there was no discussion about it in the first place? The word should be removed. I'll give it a week. At the end of that time, I'll remove the word as a clear violation of WP:NPOV if no objections are raised here. Age Happens (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I only looked at the history of this page becuase of the word "anachronistic." I am not sure how this could be used. It is referring to a belief. Beliefs are neither right nor wrong, they are facts. Bob believes X, Fred believes Y. It doesn't matter when they believe these things. They exist as a belife in Bobs time period and in Fred's time period regardless of of their adherence to reality. There are people, today, who believe the earth is flat it is not anachronistic to say John believes the earth is flat. You can say not many people believe that now, that is something people used to think but not today, etc, but you would be wrong sine John believes it now.

If you are saying that only backwards trogladytes believe such today, you are not only begging the question in a "no true Scotsman" fashion, but are engaging in the same sort of condecending, you not better, behavior that this word accuses others of.

Or perhaps the person who inserted this word meant it to mean that there was a time when this believe reflected reality, but that time has passed. "Sure, black's ( or whomever) used to suck but not anymore".

Which is it. 75.177.47.137 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I checked the talk page before just removing that word; it obviously has nothing do to here, it's completely POV. Furthermore, this is the kind of bias that will drive some users away from Wikipedia and turn towards Conservapedia or something. My opinion is that white supremacy is a silly concept, but I believe the WP article doesn't even need to be biased in order for readers to reach that conclusion. It's like saying "breatharians are stupid people who think they can get nutrients from the air", whereas a NPOV version would be "breatharians believe they can get nutrients from the air". In both cases, the breatharians are called out on their bullshit. But in the first case, the breatharians can claim WP is biased and therefore unreliable. 151.65.77.149 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Anachronism suggests either that white supremacy was once right but is now wrong, or that it is no longer a term in use. The only anachronism is the use of that term at all.JohnC (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading amalgamation of terms.

To group White Nationalist Separatism together under "White Supremacy" is highly misleading. Both terms can even be consider mutually exclusive, if one considers that "White Supremacy" requires the presence of non-Whites that the White group can dominate or be "supreme" to. White Separatism is just requiring a society and social order that would be exclusively for Whites, something like a White state were non-Whites would only have access as guests meeting the requirements of the host. --41.17.186.128 (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

supremacy versus superiority

This article now begins thus:

White supremacy is the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds.

But I understand the word "supremacy" to mean not just superiority, but rather that one group actually dominates another—makes the rules, gives orders, etc. It implies something enforceable. Superiority, on the other hand, merely means being better. "White superiority" would mean white people are better than other people; "white supremacy" should mean white people give orders to others. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Word to avoid

I wouldn't doubt it if someone (probably without an edit summary) tried to sneak the word "racialism" into this article. This is not synonymous with the word "racism". Can the lead editors of this article beware of this please?--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

White Supremacy has lead to Anti-Semetic and Anti-Black Violence alone?

That sounds purposefully misleading. It's lead to violence for all non-white's and Jewish people. There isn't even a reference that proves that it leads to violence for those two races alone. I changed it before and I'll change it again because it takes away from the truth of the article.174.3.167.186 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism

I dispute that "White supremacy" is rooted in ethnocentrism. Kevin B. MacDonald has said that they rank low in ethnocentrism. I think it is not the result of chauvinism, but rather based on objective analysis. Rrrrr5 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Peacock terms

[1] How is this a peacock term? Rrrrr5 (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

isn't saying white supremacists think themselves superior to other races enough without adding they think they are "culturally, intellectually, and morally" superior? This isn't supposed to be written like a racist tract.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how these are peacock terms. If your problem is with the lack of citations, we don't need citations because it is so well-known that these are the essential foundations of White supremacist belief. If you really want some citations I could cite some White supremacist literature. I could even cite Hitler. Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is erroneous to use "it is so well-known" as a rationale for adding unsourced content. Writing things off-the-cuff because they are deemed common knowledge by some, is unencyclopedic and violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Remember, Wikipedia articles do have an underlying intent to be written such that they will inform a layperson who quite possibly may never have been introduced to the article's subject beforehand. That said, I do agree that the content in question is likely often associated with white supremacism, and therefore you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources published by notable authors that cast such descriptions of white supremacism. Common knowledge is the easiest kind of knowledge to find reliable sources for (after all, it's common right?), so it's perhaps the single weakest argument for not citing reliable sources. John Shandy` • talk 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Racial Holy War"

I removed the text where it states that the World Church of the Creator (now known as "The Creativity Movement") believes in a certain day that a "Racial Holy War" is to kick off. It is clear from their writings that they believe that all races are natural enemies and in a "war" for their own survival and expansion on planet earth, and Rahowa is the White Race's war for survival, expansion and advancement under the Creativity religion which started with the formation of their religion by the publishing of the book Nature's Eternal Religion in 1973 by Ben Klassen. Incidentally, that very day is referred to them as "Rahowa Day" and it is observed as a holiday by them on March 20th. It is also the day in which their first world center was built. Also, one can look at their book Rahowa! This Planet is All Ours! and see that they believe it to be more or less a "revolution of values through religion" or "straightening out the White man's thinking" as they put it. So, to sum it up: Rahowa is not going to "occur," it is happening right now in their eyes, and it is not in the sense that some may thing it is, at least not to them, as they have no genocidal plans set, or anything like that. 98.250.41.169 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why no facts?

Why doesn't this article elaborate upon white-supremacist beliefs and reasoning, like the articles about other belief systems do? It should at least reference, for example, average IQ differences between groups and disparities in historical achievements between races. I believe these and similar facts form the foundation for this line of thinking, and excluding them constitutes a severe anti-white-supremacist bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.220.147 (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Events

White supremacists are still in effect today. Facts, but especially recent pictures portraying white supremacists, their views, and their actions could be very enlightening for this article. --afa86 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid not based on White Supremicist beliefs?

I would question the comment (opinion) that "White supremacy was also dominant in South Africa under apartheid".

There is an argument that the ideological basis of Apartheid was quite the reverse of White supremacism.

Pre-1948 South Africa had, for historical reasons, a franchise largely limited to white citizens. Rather like the American Deep South, New Zealand or Australia at the time. The Nationalist Party knew that this was indefensible, so thought up the idea of separate states or territitories for different "nations" to live their own lives. So rather than being a political ideology based on a sense of permanent and inherent white superiority, apartheid was more a theory designed to treat, in principal if not in practise, all races as "separate but equal". That may be racist, but is it Whtie supremacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter much, since its an incorrect description of the apartheid ideology which was in no way based on a principle of racial equality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I'm adding Russia, Afghanistan and Iran to article lead as they have more whites than South Africa. 182.185.62.104 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited to reflect accurate definition of "supremacy"

The first sentence of the entry was incorrect. Holding that one's group is "superior" is neither necessary nor sufficient to supremacism. Indispensable is that the supremacist members of the group in question hold that their group should rule over the other groups. This example should make it clear: whether Supreme Court justices think they are "superior" to judges sitting on other courts is irrelevant to the meaning of "Supreme" in the phrase. The word denotes that the Supreme Court rules over the other courts.

I changed "is superior to" "should rule over". As it was defined it was dysphemistic as well as factually incorrect. An instructive example of the distinction that was conflated in the previous definition: "We had air superiority over the enemy" (more/better planes, pilots); "We had air supremacy over the enemy" (we dominated their airspace.) I ask that anyone reverting do the following:

1. justify your re-definition with examples from any political context of using "supremacy" to where the word doesn't mean something like "ruling over" "dominating" or "having ultimate authority over".

2. explain in your revert definition how someone who holds that his group is inferior in every way to other groups but thinks that his group nonetheless should rule over others (an opinion with an incoherent rationale, perhaps but not impossible to have) is NOT supremacist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 (talk • contribs)

The sources cited in the article explain the use of the term. Your argument is based on the etymological fallacy. The roots of the words and how they're used in other contexts, e.g. "air supremacy," are irrelevant. Words have more than one meaning and this article is overloaded with sources that use the word in the way it's used here. Furthermore, you're wrong about the meaning of the word, which Merriam Webster defines as meaning "a state of being supreme," and it defines "supreme" as (def 2) "highest in degree or quality". That's obviously what's being referred to here. Find a source that supports what you say, because your theorizing about it is worthless here. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the "roots" of the words" but the meaning the head of the phrase. You didn't bother looking at the first definition of supreme, "highest in rank or authority". A white person who doesn't believe that white people are superior but holds nonetheless that they should rule over other races is a supremacist, is he not? Your new (and unique in political context) meaning in this context (and this context only) blurs an important distinction and dysphemises a descriptive opinion by conflating it with a prescriptive one. Also, you will have to look far and wide to find an HBD person or anyone else who discusses racial differences in cognitive and temperamental characteristics who holds that White people have higher IQs than Ashkenazis or lower violent crime rates than Japanese.

I looked at both definitions. The order in which definitions appear in a dictionary doesn't privilege one over the other. Your arguments are interesting but not germane. Find sources which support your preferred meaning of "supremacy" in this context or leave the lead as it is. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One definition of a word should not be preferred over another. But defining the word "supremacy" in an unique way when every other use in political/ideological context has a different meaning is unjustified (by anything other than ideological extremism) semantic abuse. That a person can possibly be of the opinion White people should rule over other races and at the same time be the opposite of a "White Supremacist" should give one pause to wonder if we're not dealing with a misnomer here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You consider it a misnomer because of your idiosyncratic theories. Find sources to support your position and I will happily agree to change it. While you're at it, you might find sources to support your assertion that "every other use in a political/ideological context has a different meaning." Have you actually checked all of them, did you read that somewhere, or are you just asserting it because it makes sense to you so you figure it must be true? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Try this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause

Or Oxford dictionary Definition of supremacy noun 

 the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status:the supremacy of the king

or this oxford definition of "white supremacy" white supremacy Syllabification: (white su·prem·a·cy) Definition of white supremacy noun 

   the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.


If what you call supremacy/supremacism is not misnamed, then kindly point me to the Wikipedia entry or other reference for the word that refers to the ideology where one holds that one's group should rule over others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "white supremacy" is a noun phrase, and as such its meaning is not determinable definitively by the words that make it up, just as a "people's republic" is very rarely a "republic." Secondly, your Oxford definition of "supremacy" has "status" on the list, which is the meaning here. Secondly, your Oxford definition of "white supremacy" says that it is the "belief that white people are superior," so it supports the lead as it stands. The part about the implication being that white people should be in charge is covered in the second sentence of the lead. If we were to make the change you propose we would lose information that is contained in the definition you quote.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

With your "People's republic" example, you conflate the intended meaning of those who coined the phrase with a mismatch between the meaning of the phrase and its referents. "People's republic often is a mismomer. Those who use the word "incorrectly" (in a general semantics sense) are often ideologically tone-deaf to its intended meaning -- the same as most who use "white supremacy".

I have shown that ruling over other races is essential to "white supremacy" according to Oxford, otherwise they would have limited or left out the second clause as you do.

If you leave the entry as it is, you imply that the information contained in the Oxford definition's second clause is not essential to supremacism when it clearly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the "people's republic" example, try any of a zillion other noun phrases. Is there always a mirror involved when someone's the mirror image of someone else? Are there always cats when there's a cat fight? This is how noun phrases work in English. Anyway, how are you going to explain the fact that white separatists, who at least claim that they don't want to rule over anyone but that all races should live apart, are commonly called white supremacists in reliable sources, not to mention common parlance? Leaving it as it is allows for this common usage of the phrase and explains yours in the very next sentence, calling it another sense of the phrase, which is what it is. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A cat fight, whilst it may not involve cats, is still a fight as traditionally defined. Same with mirror image. You'll have a harder time finding a phrase where the noun head has an inverted meaning.

Jared Taylor's position is often dysphemised and straw-manned (even if one accepts the re-definition) as such by some of the same "relibale" (according to whom?) sources, even though he has stated repeatedly that Oriental peoples have higher IQs and lower crime rates than whites. If Oxford dictionary is an authoritative source, then its sole definition of the word (they don't list an alternative definition) should be "supreme" over the dysphemistic, propagandising, semantically (and often factually) incorrect common usage and the first and second sentences in the entry inverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

See, you're wrong about "mirror image." Even your precious OED says Something that resembles the image produced by a mirror, in having left and right interchanged or its constituent parts arranged in reverse order but being otherwise identical. Also in extended use. It's the extended use thing that describes the phenomenon whereby a mirror image can have neither a mirror nor an image involved. One of the examples they give is from Orwell: "Fascism..is a sort of mirror-image..of a plausible travesty of Socialism." Where's the mirror, where's the image? You're also wrong about "cat fight" but in a more subtle way. With "white supremacy" we seem to agree that there are people who might be considered white involved and the question is over supremacy. But I think we also agree that there's supremacy involved and differ over what kind, since that word has more than one meaning. A cat fight might have no cats in it and it might have no physical violence, or it might have physical violence. Your argument is parallel to one that claims without any support that in certain contexts "cat fights" must always involve physical violence. I don't know why you think that I'm arguing for an inverted meaning of supremacy. I'm just saying that sometimes "supremacy" in "white supremacy" means one thing, sometimes another. Finally, your definition, from the 3rd ed Oxford American Dictionary, says that "white supremacy" implies "should therefore dominate society". It doesn't actually say that it implies that whites should dominate non-white peoples, as my example of white separatists shows.
Most importantly for our present purposes, the lead paragraph (see WP:LEAD) should reflect the well-sourced information in the body of the article. If you go randomly changing it to a quote from the OED then that's not the case. First rewrite the article, with sources, then rewrite the lead. Second, don't be in such a hurry. We're discussing it here, and there are only two of us, and it's only been a day. That's not consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). Take your time, make your arguments, propose sentences and I'll make counterproposals and we'll figure something out. If we end up not being able to agree there are ways to invite uninvolved and disinterested other people to join the discussion. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That both "fight" and "image" have either literal and metaphorical meanings in the respective phrases that you cite is irrelevant. The meanings of the words do not differ from standard meanings in isolation when they are taken as the heads of the phases. Orwell could have as well said, with the same meaning of 'image', "Fascism..is a sort of reversed image..of a plausible travesty of Socialism". Or a yet better example, "you are the image of your father".

"Supremacy" (and white supremacy as well), according to Oxford dictionary, has only one meaning. Miriam is ambigious about a possible second meaning. In any event, it is an absolute concept. Would you agree on that? Or can something (or a race of people) be "relatively suprmeme"?

I let the lead paragraph stand as it was except to insert the dictionary definition in the prominent place it deserves to be. The dictionary definition of the phrase should appear most prominently and non-standard definitions follow, even if the non-standard definition is in common currency. That's the way Wikipedia usually deals with defining any non-propaganda term.

You're not telling me that sources in the rest of the article do not deal at all with people who believe that whites should rule over others, are you? My edit is not inconsistent with the sources that use as example of people who deny a desire to rule over others, as it retains the original statement covering such beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So why don't you propose a sentence that's consistent with the style of other leads and we'll talk about it. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this. It is better for my propaganda purposes to be able to point to this entry as yet another example of most controversial topics on Wikipedia being hopelessly partisan propagandistic to the point of Wikipedia becoming a grotesque parody of itself. Feel free to continue to use the propaganda re-definition that doesn't distinguish someone who holds that Germans have a more acute sense of what they call "Ort und Ordnung" than Africans from a guy that wants to blow up the Reichstag so that Germans can take their rightful place as a superior people and the supreme rulers of all of Africa. Carry on shunting aside the the original meaning of the term when it was coined (which is its sole dictionary definition to this day) so well as the absolute meaning of "supremacy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.102.137 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, carry on, then! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I changed my mind too. You're right. I changed the lead. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

White Supremacy involves but is not limited to White Supremacism

The lead as is now written mostly describes "white supremacism", the belief in white superiority, with overtones of political domination as discussed above. I greatly appreciate the action that Carwil has taken in creating a section on academic coverage and bringing in the much-beloved bell hooks. However I disagree with the implication that "white supremacy" primarily refers to a belief and only secondarily or academically refers to a system, condition or state of affairs. This distinction lurks within the above discussion and would be confirmed by a use of the OED definition.

"White supremacy" is the state of affairs in societies where white people disproportionately control resources and make laws. It is not disputed that Slavery in the United States reflected a period of white supremacy. Whether the United States remains a white supremacist nation—or whether "white supremacy" is merely the aspiration of rogue "white supremacists"—is disputed. That this dispute exists in the United States, at this moment in history, is not a good reason to mis-define the term on Wikipedia.

Although the Google News archive does not go way way back, it does provide a clear indication of how the term has been used after approximately WW2. Look at this search. The first result, from 1965, concerns the legal regime of white-dominated Rhodesia. And many more results from that era use the term in this way. Also check out this search focused on South Africa, where white supremacy was more recently an explicit legal arrangement. Even this very recent article about a "white supremacist" makes clear that "he devoted his often violent life in vain to defending white supremacy". They don't mean he made typed angry posts on message boards "promoting the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds"—they mean he took paramilitary actions in an attempt to maintain the Apartheid regime and the culture of racial oppression that accompanied it.

It is true that as we approach the present day, the term becomes more and more blurred with "white supremacism". ( But I would suggest that just because the mass media change their usage (as they do every decade or so with "terrorist") does not mean Wikipedia should uncritically reflect these changes. We should prefer instead the widespread academic usage of "white supremacy" to refer to a system of control—a usage which probably does "express" the historical continuity of but also represents continuity with historical usage. Academics investing a definition for shock value would be one thing. "Neo-Confederate", for example seems to be a neo-logism used by detractors to emphasize certain elements of Southern culture. Or, in an unrelated example, "Paraliterature" seems to be an academic term used to marginalize non-canon literature. Also see: Other, Modernity, Object and other words which academics have borrowed from ordinary usage in order to impart a specialized meaning. Contemporary academic use of the term "white supremacy" is distinct because it reflects the term's historical and global usage. groupuscule (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


Groupuscle: "White supremacy" is the state of affairs in societies where white people disproportionately control resources and make laws. It is not disputed that Slavery in the United States reflected a period of white supremacy. Whether the United States remains a white supremacist nation—or whether "white supremacy" is merely the aspiration of rogue "white supremacists"—is disputed. That this dispute exists in the United States, at this moment in history, is not a good reason to mis-define the term on Wikipedia."


The problem I have with that is that the phrase "White supremacy" in its common usage is a pejorative. "Whites" make laws and control resourses in 96% White Iceland. Does it follow that "White supremacy" reigns in Iceland? Or Korean supremacy in Korea? A better case might be made that "Jewish supremacist" is not a tautological description of 20% Arab Israel. And if "White supremacy" were purely denotative, one could argue that what reigns in the US is that very subtype of White supremacy, Jewish supremacy, judging from Jews' enormously disproportionate represenatation to their population representation among the richest people in America lists, big finance, ivy league admissions, political representatives and Supreme Court justices and the enormous power of AIPAC.

Unsigned above seems to be reaching for a conclusion that is supported by neither the text of this article nor the common use of either term. Simple demographic numbers have nothing to do with the political/philosophical cnoncept known as white supremacy. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you really not recognise the difference between "reaching for a[n unsupported] conclusion" and arguing against Groupuscle's definition by way of example?

Sorry, I thought you were Groupuscle. Can you sign your posts, please? This is getting confusing. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Move?

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Black supremacy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems

Couple of problems. Definition in first sentence is unsourced and seems too much of a generalization given the various strands in existence. Secondly, I don't believe it is appropriate to redirect White power to this article (as it currently does) given that many of these groups that promote so-called "white power" are not necessarily promoting white supremacy, but rather white separatism. I don't believe it is NPOV to conflate supremacy with separatism. Laval (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Query regarding comment deletion.

Copied here from my talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about this material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - Not trying to be contentious, but just out of curiosity how is my statement factually incorrect? I'm interested to know where, other than European or other extant 'Western Countries' (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, etc. usually with a white majority (except S.A)), white Supremacy exists?

First of all, SA and Zimbabwe are enough to make it factually incorrect. Second, it really needs a source. You stuck it in front of a footnote, making it seem as if the source supports it, which it actually doesn't. If it's true in its qualified form (i.e. excluding SA, Zimbabwe, and, for all I know, any number of other former colonies) you really need a source which says so explicitly. I'm going to copy this to the article talk page because that's a better place for the discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you discuss it here? If what you want to include is true, you ought to be able to find a source for it. I have my doubts about its truth and its relevancy, but if you come up with something naturally I'll accept it. However, what's really not OK is to stick the statement in front of a footnote to a specific page of a specific book which does not say anything about what you are asserting. Don't you see the problem with that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, take a look at WP:BURDEN before you put it back in, please. As it says there, Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source..— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no article on jewish supremacy?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:NOTFORUM

When typing the term into the wikipedia search box, it gets redirected to the article on David Duke. It seems rather odd, since jews regard themselves as "God's Chosen People". So shouldn't there be a relevant article of this nature on that subject? Just asking.64.134.242.219 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are solely for discussing the improvement of the article. That said, there is no such page because there are no reliable sources that claim it exists. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Germany

Note that, in it's annual report, German Verfassungsschutz defines a Neo-Nazi as a person who was sentenced to imprisonment or monetary fine for right wing crimes and misdemeanors (such as negating shoa or inciting ethnical hate). Thus, there are more than 6,000 Neo-Nazis in Germany. The number 26,000 vaguely corresponds to the members of far-right political parties, like NPD and DVU. The ideas of white supremacy are much more widespread in German society, e.g. in some of the Burschenschaften, especially the Deutsche Burschenschaft with 15,000 Members. There may be white supremacists being members of both a Burschenschaft and a far-right party, but political activism in elections etc. might not appeal to every member of a Burschenschaft, et vice versa. In the aftermath of 9/11 and financial crisis, politicians and writers like Thilo Sarrazin [[2]] (SPD, Social Democratic Party) and Udo Ulfkotte spoke out for euroscepticism and an end of multiculturalism, which, in their eyes, failed in Germany and Europe, and against "islamification" of Germany. In his Book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany is abolishing itself, published in 2010 and sold over 1,5 million times) Sarrazin uses biological "arguments" in his images of misfit, violent and religionally mislead foreigners or citizens of foreign descent and speaks out for eugenics. Following Sarrazin's books and his foreign predecessors like Geert Wilders and Pim Fortuijn, new NGO's (like Pro Deutschland and Pro Köln) protested against the construction of mosques and multicultural social centers, and chapters of Ku Klux Klan were founded. Their members were police officers (see: Ku_klux_klan#Other_countries ) as well as Beate Zschäpe, member of far-right terrorist organization National Socialist Underground [[3]]. Due to statistics from German Government, between the reunification in 1990 and 2009 84 people were murdered by fascists, neo-nazis and other people who believe in white supremacy. German newspapers name higher numbers between 100 and 187 victims. In 2013, German minister of the Interior announced that 746 cases of killings or attempted killings were to be re-examined because they could be overlooked hate crimes by white supremacists. Results are expected im summer 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/german-police-killings-far-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.145.108 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Racist" in lead

Subsequent note Consequent to this, I have begun a request for comments below. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Even after the page has been protected, there continues vandalism of the lead removing the word "racist". The word is there per WP:LEAD. Nowhere in the entire article is it remotely suggested that White supremacy isn't racist. It is well sourced over and over that it is a racist ideology. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Omitting the word "racist" isn't suggesting that White supremacy isn't racist. I'm somewhat undecided but ultimately I favor omitting the word. I think its inclusion is ultimately gratuitous. The two versions of the first sentence of the lead are as follows:
A White supremacism' is the belief, or promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites.
B White supremacism' is the racist belief, or promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites.
I think the time to comment on the subject of the article is not in the first sentence. The first sentence should be spare. It should define the essence of the subject, not pass comment on it. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
White supremacy can definitely be classified as racist in most cases, but it does not HAVE to be racist. First and foremost, it can be referring to white culture and not the race. Secondly, it can be referring to an evolutionary need to put "your own group" first, and not actually classify groups as superior or inferior. But most importantly, I find that it is unnecessary to denote a group before describing WHAT that group is. It does not look objective. And please stop referring to every edit you do not approve as vandalism. We are all here to make wikipedia better, and even if you don't approve of others edits you should assume good faith. Amlaera (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
An account that hasn't edited since 6 months ago suddenly revives to edit this page only... call me suspicious. Also your logic is WP:OR; no such thing is mentioned in the article. We don't write about what could be. Again, the term is 100% warranted and is an accurate reflection of the article. Every single section mentions racism. The effort to remove it under a guise of NPOV are disingenuous (and that's being generous). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not "vandalism" to remove an unnecessary emotive adjective from the beginning of an article. There is no reason this adjective belongs in the first sentence, if as you said, there is plenty of evidence stating said fact in the article. Think of it this way: of the two following sentences, which sounds better in terms of how efficiently information is conveyed?

"EvergreenFir is an article-editing Wikipedia editor. She edits Wikipedia articles."

Or,

"EvergreenFir is a Wikipedia editor. She edits Wikipedia articles."

Both these examples have an explanation after the lead sentence explaining that EvergreenFir edits articles, thus it is redundant to add the "article-editing" adjective in the beginning. Forgive me if this idea seems absurd, but I believe it is one of common grammatical sense; the adjective "racist" is redundant, emotive, and unnecessary, and should thus be omitted from the article. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

See above. WP:LEAD. Literally every section mentions racism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like you've listen to the arguments presented at all. Amlaera (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
They were utterly unconvincing. You offer mental gymnastics. I offer guidelines and Wikipedia policy (namely WP:DUE; it would be UNDUE to exclude it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Also not redundant per WP:Redundancy. To a nonspecialist reader, this information cannot be taken for granted. See WP:BEGIN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If you read WP:Redundancy it says "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." I could make the intro "White supremacism is the racist, hateful, ice-chilling and totally worthless belief, or promotion of the belief, .. etc" but it would not make the intro more descriptive, it would just make it bloated and seem very nonobjective. It would be WP:UNDUE if we didn't mention racism AT ALL in the article, but what we are arguing for is that racist in the intro is both unnecessary and bloating. Amlaera (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's neither and ridiculous to suggest it is. When you say nonobjective I think you are trying to refer to neutral point of view. The inclusion of this word is actually encouraged by that Wikipedia policy, by WP:LEAD, and by WP:BEGIN as it describes the topic of the article succinctly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is actually EXPLICITLY stated in WP:BEGIN that, as I mentioned above: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."
You are misunderstanding WP:NPOV if you think we have to clarify what kind of belief it is in the lead. It is better to describe WHAT that belief is and then write how it is denoted in the article. Amlaera (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What User:EvergreenFir said. Not much to add.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) What User:EvergreenFir said. Not much to add.Haminoon (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh hai dar! 2k monies and fgsfds

The recent edits are coming from 8chan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The recent edits came only from a few individuals who believe that "racist" should not be in the beginning sentence. 8chan is not a person, but rather a place where one individual shared his frustration with a SJW Wikipedia editor and asked like minded individuals to help remove the word, and now to argue on the talk page as to why it shouldn't be there. Our edits no more "came from 8chan" than your's did from whatever sites you like to browse (or, should I say, Wikipedia). The fact that you are now attempting to out group those who disagree with you would imply that you don't have much of a real argument regarding this issue. Deciduous Maple (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I just got your username. Cute. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought of it myself. Deciduous Maple (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Way to go, not even responding to his arguments and stopping all discussion claiming its "trolls". No one is even edit warring, we are discussing our views on the talk page and trying to reach consensus. Amlaera (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that 'racist' in the lead paragraph is important for summarising the article, and as such I have reverted a recent attempt to remove this adjective from the lead. If I'm mistaken (white supremacy is not described as racist by the article) do feel free to revert me and let me know why at my talk page or here. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not necessary to summarize the article by naming one mode of thinking "white supremacy" falls in to. As I have already pointed out, it is noted in detail in the rest of the article how white supremacy is racist, thus there is no need to include the word in the first sentence. Deciduous Maple (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
per WP:LEAD The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. So yes it belongs in the lead as white supremacy is the definition of racism. Drop it now. You are not helping yourself here. Avono (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:BEGIN: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". It just bloats the first sentence. Also, we should describe what the belief actually is before denoting it. Amlaera (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Seconding what Amlaera said. Additionally, white supremacy being racist is not the most important aspect to bring up. The most important aspect is what "white supremacy" actually means, that being either that white people are superior to people of other races, or that "white culture" is superior to that of other races. And again, read my EvergreenFir is a Wikipedia editor analogy if you have not already (it is above). Deciduous Maple (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Putting in "racist" in the first sentence is not "overloading" the first sentence. Putting in "racist" in the first sentence is not "everything notable about the subject" it is THE notable thing about the subject. Putting in "racist" in the first sentence does NOT "bloat" the first sentence. That idea is ridiculous - a single, relevant word, composed of seven letters "bloats the lead". Gimme. A. Fucking. Break.
Yes, white supremacy being racist IS the most important aspect to bring up. And it also IS what "white supremacy" actually means. Now, please, stop being silly. And the rest of us are gonna ignore the obvious trolling. So bye-bye, go back to where you came from.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
How exactly is something being racist the most important aspect to bring up? Why is it such a big deal whether or not something fits into the definition of being racist? Just about everyone already believes that white supremacy is racist, and if they don't, they will learn of all the things that have come from white supremacy by reading the article. The only thing the word adds to this article an emotive, and slightly childish tone that would signal to readers the presence of butthurt SJWs. I say this not to discredit those who disagree with me, but merely to express what I feel the effect of this language will be on the article. Again, your continued attempts at outgrouping by saying "back to where you came from" and labeling certain users as "trolls," as well as using cuss words, further demonstrates that you have a very weak argument for the continued presence of the word in the article. For these reasons, I maintain that the word "racist" should be removed from the lead sentence of the article. Deciduous Maple (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is simply astounding how you can ignore every argument (or not understand them at all I guess..) and end the debate with a cry of "trolls!". We should not label a belief before describing what it is. If you look at the Liberalism articles first sentence: "Liberalism is a political philosophy ... etc" with your logic that should be "Liberalism is a freedom-loving political philosophy ...etc" It is redundant, bloating and seemingly biased styling that makes it look like a child had written it. Amlaera (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I responded to your argument. Let me respond to it again, since you somehow missed it the first time. Specifically, the argument that a single, seven letter, word, which is relevant, summarizes article content, and is notable, somehow "bloats" the lede is ridiculous. "Racism" *is* the belief, not "labeling a belief". More precisely, this article is about a particular kind of a belief (racism in favor of whites and against non-whites) which is an element of a class of beliefs (racism in general). And if you think that having that word in there is somehow "seemingly biased", then you've got a problem.
@DM, seriously guy, if you're gonna complain about "cuss words" in a comment, you proooobbbbaaaaaaaabbbbbllllyyyyyy shouldn't use terms like "butthurt SJWs" in your own comment. Also seriously, if you're gonna call something "childish", you prooooooobbbbaaaaaabbbbbblllllyyyyy shouldn't use expressions like "butthurt SJWs". I also like the weaseling that follows immediately after, about "I say this not to discredit those who disagree with me". Right. Because referring to editors who disagree with you as "butthurt SJWs" is not at all an attempt "to discredit". No, no, no. Not at all. This may come as a shocking surprise to you but most normal people, above a certain age, and not suffering from bouts of adolescent obnoxiousness, don't spend their time obsessing about the evil "SWJs" and looking for them under every rock. Most normal people, above a certain age, and not suffering from bouts of cluelessness do happen to think that "White Supremacy" is "racist". Perhaps some day you too can become one of these people. Good luck.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
"this article is about a particular kind of a belief" exactly, and we should describe it before we classify it as racist belief. What you don't seem to understand it that we are not claiming that white supremacy is not racist, we are simply taking issue with the formatting of the lead. Also, it seems like you are just insulting us, not really discussing the issue at hand, and it is detrimental to your case. Amlaera (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1. When I used the term "butthurt SJWs," I was making note of who the article sounded like it was written by, not saying that you are a butthurt SJW.
2. I have no problem with a cuss word in a comment. It's when they appear on Wikipedia, a place that is supposed to be at least somewhat formal, that they indicate a certain lever of immaturity.
3. I do think white supremacy is racist. I do not, however, think "racist" should be in the first sentence of the article, because it is redundant, emotive, and unnecessary.
4. Insulting me by claiming I am a certain age is an extremely immature way to argue a point, especially considering this is on Wikipedia. As I have said now twice before, your outgrouping and ad hominems only demonstrate that your argument is a weak one. Rather than resorting to such methods, it would be better if you gave legitimate refutations of your opposing arguments. Deciduous Maple (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Note I have begun a request for comments below to address this. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments: first sentence of lead

Decision posted below. Shii (tock) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (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.

New editor to page here. There is clearly a disagreement between editors above (both recently and years ago). The natural resolution is to keep the current lead (choice 2) and request input from other editors through a request for comments.

Which should be used as the first sentence in the lead?

  • Choice 1: White supremacism is the belief, or promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites.
  • Choice 2: White supremacism is the racist belief, or promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites.

The first choice omits the description of racist; the second includes it. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Choice 3: White supremacism is a form of racism centered upon the belief, or promotion of the belief, that white people...".

Relevant policies

Relevant policies collected and linked here for reference

Collate relevant policies below for ease of reference. To avoid creating any kind of bias, please place these in alphabetical order. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Survey

  • Weak support for choice 1 To me, it reads slightly more clearly to focus specifically on the content of the set of beliefs of white supremacy before decribing reaction to it. On the other hand, my support is only weak: I doubt many sources, if any, would claim white supremacy is not racist, so that its description as racist is rather standard. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You know what, the last thing we need here, is a bunch of newly created single purpose accounts showing up, trying to "help", especially given the obvious canvassing on outside pages of dubious status. Now, you obviously know how to start an RfC. So I tell you what - you file this RfC under your regular user account and then I might consider taking it seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion. This is my current IP address (which changes over time, as do many home IP addresses), not a single purpose account. I came across the matter because of a post made at ArbCom here. I do not have a standard user account: I just edit anonymously. I cannot say I take a particular side particularly strongly at all and I am certainly not a member of 8chan or any related messaging boards. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for participating. Please may you summarise your arguments here? A closer will have to look through this and it will be helpful to keep the reasons together and nicely structured.
Summary of arguments:
We should not label a belief before we have described what that belief is. If you look at the Liberalism article's first sentence: "Liberalism is a political philosophy ... etc" with that logic it would be "Liberalism is a freedom-loving political philosophy ...etc" It is redundant, bloating and looks like biased styling.
And Per WP:BEGIN, we should keep the opening sentence concise and not overload it. Amlaera (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is concise and not overloaded. One (uno! 1! 2-1!) single word will not make it "not concise" or "overload it". Please be serious. Your strawman about "liberalism" has been already addressed and debunked above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Strawman. Nowhere in liberalism does it say that it's "freedom loving". Literally every paragraph of this article says it's racist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you do not seem to understand analogies. Lets take a simpler example from below. "Orange is a fruit" versus "Orange is a round non-lethal type of fruit" Both are true and verifiable, yet it is redundant. Such details should be in the rest of the article, not in the lead sentence. Amlaera (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Same thing. Non-lethality is not a defining characteristic of it. I'm done with these silly strawmen. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Both "round" and "non-lethal" perfectly describes an orange, and they are verifiably true. And just throwing in the word "strawman" will not win you an argument automatically. Amlaera (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
When it is an obvious strawman or a false analogy, then yes, it does. If you're having trouble understanding the difference, then there's not much that can be done to help you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That right there shows that you only have a surface understanding of what a strawman or false analogy is. What you don't seem to understand is that you can't just spout fallacies. They also have to apply to my argument for it to be credible. Amlaera (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Choice 2 - Per everything I said already. To recap: (1) Literally every paragraph references racism, (2) to remove it is WP:UNDUE and (3) against WP:LEAD, (4) WP:BEGIN says it should be there as it describes the subject to a novice reader accurately, and (5) WP:NPOV is not a concern as the statement is repeatedly sourced... over and over. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, lets go one step further, let's just replace every word in the introduction with the word "racist", it is the only thing the reader needs to know about the subject, and since its referenced a bunch of times it is okay! We dont even need a description of what the belief is or anything, a word repeated is enough!
WP:BEGIN clearly states that the opening sentence should be concise and not overloaded. It is not unreasonable to want a description of the subject before it is categorized as racist. Amlaera (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 - I think that including the term 'racist' would be unhelpful. It is true that white supremacist are generally racist, however the very concept of 'racism' often boils down to individualistic value judgements which is not needed here at Wikipedia. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 02:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this here from the top of the discussion (before the survey). 86.170.130.156 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Choice 3 - Change my vote to the new option per reasoning below by others. Arfæst! 18:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 or Choice 3 The belief is racist to be sure, but there is no reason to introduce this value judgement in the definition. It comes across as not too subtle editorializing similar to the way that skepticist editors prefix "pseudoscientific" to the definitions of all belief systems that doesnt conform to positivistic scientism. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I would dispute that it's a "value judgement". A value judgement would be whether "racism" (or "White supremacy") are "bad" or not. Now, most people would probably make that value judgement in a particular way. But that doesn't make the word itself a "value judgement". I mean, if you can't describe "White Supremacy" as "racist", what exactly can you describe as racist? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont think I would describe anything as racist in the definition sentence of a wikipedia article. I dont think being racist is part of the definition of white supremacy, racist is a a description of the implications and consequences of white supremacy. It may be justified in the lead, but not in the definition. In general it is bad style to add superfluous adjectives in definition sentences, "intelligent design is the unscientific belief that", "numerology/psychoanalysis is the pseudoscientific discipline that", "ponzi schemes is the illegal practice that", "homosexuality is the controversial sexual orientation that", "collectivism is the counternatural", "mango is the sweet-tasting fruit" - in all those cases the adjective is superfluous and problematic in that it expresses a judgment and stance towards the topic in wikipedias voice (regardless of whether or not the judgment is objectively true or not).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Choice 2 - I don't think labeling something as 'racist' is a value judgement. While it's not very popular in many cultures nowadays, it's an adjective like any other, and it means a certain thing (it is not a direct synonym for 'bad'.) As such, I support using it in the lead paragraph to summarise the article (per WP:LEAD), as it does so nicely. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Choice 3 is even better- still a good summary, much more clearly written. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Choice 3 (an alternative formulation) : "White supremacism is a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people...". In other words, replace "the racist belief" with "a form of racism centered upon the belief". An alternative phrasing rather than simply keeping or removing the word from its present context. I think this addresses some of the concerns expressed by those who consider this a matter of clarity, definition, and/or good writing (though it certainly won't be an improvement for anyone who wishes to argue for some non-racist white supremacism). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I think maybe that is the best. Provided we have sources that describes it as a form of racism rather than a belief. This shouldnt be too hard to come by.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 Works for me EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Choice 2 - in this context using the word "racist" is neither "biased", nor "bloated" (one word?!??), nor "undue", nor "childish". It is appropriate. There is a set of things which can be described as "racist". "White supremacy" is an element of that set. It is no different to say that "White supremacy is a racist belief" than to say "The Orange is a fruit...". Yes, most readers probably know that "White Supremacy" is a kind of a "racism". But most readers probably also know that an "Orange" is a "fruit". Yet we still put that in there, in the lede, because it summarizes the article (which is exactly what the lede should do!) and because it categorizes it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm also fine with Choice 3 suggested by Rhodododo-dendrites. Actually, I think I prefer it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
But "Orange is a fruit" is describing it exactly how we would want it. How you want it would make it "orange is a round non-lethal type of fruit", which is simply unnecessary. Its true, but such details can be left for the rest of the article, not the leading sentence. Amlaera (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Will you please stop with the goofy analogy? As explained above, it's a false analogy. Whether or not an orange is "non-lethal" is not one of the key characteristics of an orange. The fact that "white supremacy" is "racist" is. Already explained. Now stop it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Another issue is the fact that another usage of "white supremacy" is to describe the social fact of systemic racism and dominance by whites over people of color. Here it does not describe a belief, but a set of social processes, relations and institutions the outcome of which is structural racism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the "Choice 3" above addresses that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 Using "racist" to describe white supremacy is unnecessary and redundant. It is already clearly noted many times later in the article that white supremacy is racist, thus there is no reason it needs to be in the lead sentence. As the word is currently used in the lead sentence, "racist" give the article an emotive, childish tone right from the beginning, which should not be the case in a Wikipedia article. The only thing that should be in the lead sentence is the most important and basic information, that being the definition of white supremacy (the belief that white people are superior to people of other races, or that white culture is superior to that of other races). I am therefore in favor of omitting the word. Deciduous Maple (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is already clearly noted many times later in the article that white supremacy is racist, thus there is no reason it needs to be in the lead sentence. - no, that is *exactly* why it should be in the lede, because the job of the lede is to *summarize* the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
When white supremacy is shown to be racist later in the article, it is not for the sole purpose of showing that it is racist. The entire rest of the article focuses on examples of white supremacy, and how the belief has manifested its self in different countries / societies. By showing these examples, it is inevitably shown that white supremacy is racist, not the other way around. "Racism" is a term referring to the belief that certain traits are inherent to certain races. By this definition, white supremacy is almost always racist. The lead sentence is not a place to list all the ways of thinking that the subject fits into, it is a place to describe what the subject is, using only the most basic information about the subject. So sorry to disagree.Deciduous Maple (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. We are NOT listing "all the ways of thinking that the subject fits into". We're just calling a DUCK a duck. This *is* "the most basic information about the subject".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm truely sorry if you disagree with me (actually I'm not), but "white supremacy" being racist is not the most basic information about he subject. The most basic information, as I have said many times before, is that white supremacy means believing that white people are superior to people of other races, or the same for culture. If you take a look at the other comments on this page, you may notice that no one arguing for the omission of the word is putting up this stubborn of an argument on other users' comments. You already stated in your comment what option you wish for and why, as have I. If you could stop with the persistant last-wording, that would be great. I have already read your comment, thus I know what option you prefer. Deciduous Maple (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint the lead should not include racist. Amlaera (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This is like invoking Goodwin's Law on the talk page for Adolf Hitler. Yes, generally you shouldn't call somebody a Nazi... unless they really were a Nazi. Likewise, the guideline you link to above applies only to cases where the usage of the word - "racist" in this case - would be contentious. I really really really hope that is not the case here. Hence, it doesn't apply.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
And yet, the Adolf Hitler page does not start with "The nazi Adolf hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party" That would be redundant no? And I am not invoking Goodwin's Law, it is a wikipedia guideline stating that we should avoid just these kinds of word, even when they are absolutely true, they still have a negative connotation, and should be used with care, not just thrown in. And I don't even take issue with calling them racist. I take issue with the formulation of the lead sentence. What I am saying is: Don't throw in racist before we even have a description of what white supremacy is. Amlaera (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to point out that, so far, this RFC has been very respectful considering the controversial nature of the topic, congratulations really must go to everyone. Certainly it has been much better than the previous discussion on this topic. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 04:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for choice 1. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. "White supremacism" is "racist". But it would be ever so slightly gratuitous on our part to utilize the first sentence of the lead to both define "White supremacism" and to characterize it as "racist". The second sentence would be fine for characterizing "White supremacism" as "racist". Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Bus stop: Would it not address these concerns to instead say that "white supremacism is a form of racism" rather than "the racist belief" (removing the adjective/label and instead explaining it as, well, a particular kind of racism)? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I think the word "racist" is inessential to the definition of "White supremacism". The concept can be defined without noting that it is "racist". In theory there can be non-racist White supremacism. Racism is an opinion of White supremacism. It just so happens that it is a universally-held opinion. But if there was an opinion in some quarters, or all quarters, that White supremacism was not racist, the essential definition of White supremacism would remain the same. That "essential" definition is our "Choice 1". Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
That is a very interesting theory. I dont personally see how that would be even theoretically possible. And it is also irrelevant since all sources about White Supremacy describes it as racist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Many sources fail to mention racism in their first sentence. Here is one. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

My own problem with the option #2 formulation is that "racist" there is just bad writing. It's adjectival form looks unnecessary and indeed reads like a WP:LABEL. ...But that it is a "form of racism" rather than "the racist belief" fits perfectly with the consensus among reliable sources (it is "universally-held", as you say). That it is a form of racism is not therefore an "opinion". It is, after all, implicit in [race] (white in this case) + [supremacism] (which necessarily means superior to non-white). Furthermore across reliable sources (we use secondary rather than tertiary), the by far most frequent context it is written about, if not explicitly defined as such, is that of racism. In popular culture, press, literature, etc. that it is racist is absolutely essential to its meaning. The view that racism is not central (or "essential") to the definition of white supremacism seems to be explained only by statements such as your own that "In theory there can be non-racist White supremacism" (i.e. WP:FRINGE). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It would not, because that wording is incorrect. Racism is used as a description of an action. White supremacy is a belief. I could be for a rewriting of the lead sentence, but not with that wording. And honestly, the lead looks fine in choice 1. Amlaera (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Amlaera: That's not what racism means according to our article on racism, which begins "Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems" (emphasis mine). Racism can describe actions, but of course it's about beliefs as well (being the cause of the actions). So again, according to that definition, the choice #3 should assuage your concerns. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for choice 2, second option would be compromise Choice 3. Definitely oppose choice 1. The body of the article has instance after instance of reliable sources describing White supremism as 'racist', it is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE for us to not include it in the lede. Dave Dial (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
How exactly would it be WP:UNDUE to not have the term 'racist' in the lede? Because your logic does not make any sense. Arfæst! 01:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Well actually, it makes perfect sense, per Relative emphasis:

According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.

Emphasis mine. Dave Dial (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the lead definitely has to mention the racist assumptions and implications of white supremacy, but it need not be in the definition sentence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it should not be in the first sentence of the lead, but it should be in the second sentence of the lead. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option1 Is a neutral statement. Wikipedia is not for advocating a viewpoint. Most people will be able to work out for themselves that it is racist and the few that don't will not change their view because of a biased lede. Furthermore, a biased lede would be an insult to the intelligence of those who can work it out for themselves. Op47 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option1 The fact it's a racist belief is self-evident. We don't need to shove it down their throats. DOCUMENT★ERROR 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option1 The description shows its racist, adding the word is not needed. AlbinoFerret 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option3 Normally, I would have voted option1 as I feel the term racist is redundant as it is implied, the only people who wouldn't imply it are people who are themselves White Supremacists and who won't change their view just because that word is added. HOWEVER, simply due to the fact that there is outside co-ordination on 8chan trying to circumvent the system and have the word "racist" removed all together, I feel it should have some mention of racism in the lede as it is obviously important to the neo-nazi's that it shouldn't be there, and their view certainly does not represent the mainstream or "accepted" view of white supremacy. War wizard90 (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not disagreeing with you that white supremacy is racist, nor that option 3 is a good option, but why does it matter if there is "outside coordination" to get the word removed? Are 8chan users not people who should also have a fair say in what the lede says? Would you say the same thing if there was a thread on Reddit or Tumblr asking for help keeping the word in the sentence? Deciduous Maple (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 3. That white supremacy is racist is self-evident and is, therefore, redundant. Option 3 seems to be the clearest and most direct definition, so I would prefer that definition. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 or 3 - See this Oxford English Dictionary definition of "racism". Its definition is essentially a general statement that it is the belief that some races are superior to others. It seems pretty evident that White Supremacy is simply that definition but made specific for White people. This seems like a simple one to me. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Decision

The arguments that struck me the most are as follows:

  • Historical and sociological narratives, described in the article and certainly in any sources one might find, both define white supremacy by classifying it as a form of the more general concept of racial prejudice. We have an obligation to note the broader category of racial prejudice, because it is so key to understanding the phrase "white supremacism" as employed in sources.
  • Racism is defined on Wikipedia as "prejudice plus power", among other things. There was some dispute over white supremacism is only the theoretical bit, or whether it also includes practice, thereby perfectly fitting the definition of racism. The content of the page currently seems to support that white supremacism is chiefly theoretical and ideological.
  • Choice 2 is poorly worded and makes "racist" look like a superfluous insult rather than the reality, which is that racism is a defining category under which white supremacism might be placed. There was not a lot of support for this wording.
  • Choice 1, while cleaner-looking, is also poorly worded, because it does not recognize that all of the subheadings on the page explain how white supremacism overlaps with various categories of racism -- scientific racism, structural racism, Nazi racial ideology, apartheid, and Nordicism. The word "racism" appears quite often on the page and this should be reflected all the way up to the first sentence of the lede, which functions as a lede within the lede.

"White supremacy is a form of racial prejudice which holds that..." is an entirely accurate lede. "White supremacy is a form of racism" may also be entirely accurate, depending on how we interpret both this article and the Racism article. I close this RfC by leaning for the general wording suggested by Choice 3, and suggest a bit of follow-up discussion over specific terminology. Shii (tock) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shii: Thank you for closing that RfC and explaining your decision so thoroughly. I have edited the lead per your closure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Subsequent discussion on closure and new wording

Opening this section to discuss any issues with the wording in Option 3. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that "racial prejudice" is more accurate than "racism."
Our article on racism begins: "Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."
Our article on prejudice begins: "Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case."
Our article on discrimination begins: "Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice."
This article begins with the words in question followed by "...centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites."
So this article's first sentence describes both prejudice (the belief that non-whites are inferior) and discrimination (that whites should dominate in politics, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. And current lead uses racism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Right, but it's my understanding this sub-section exists because Shii, in his/her close, suggested that whether racism is more/less accurate than "racial prejudice" would be a good topic for discussion. I say stick to racism. (Some nice out of context soundbites here if we were in public :) ). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 January 2015

Please link "anti-miscegenation laws" in the section "United States" to Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

The sentence that I presume you refer to currently begins "Many U.S. states banned interracial marriage through anti-miscegenation laws until 1967", which already has a link, although not to that specific page - is the request to make it more specific? If so, how about making the preceding link more specific as well, as in "Many U.S. states banned interracial marriage through anti-miscegenation laws until 1967"? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot - Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

White supremacy vs White supremacism

The title of this article is "White supremacy," but the definition immediately changes the word being defined to "white supremacism." This change subverts the meaning of the word. The change to "ism" is defined as a form of racism, which is essentially an *attitude* or *approach* or *bias.* By contrast, others who have methodically defined the term "White supremacy" use it (with out the 'ism') to describe something else: a state of affairs in which white peoples and nations collectively dominate, exploit and benefit from dominating non-white people, and an ongoing project to maintain such. This definition of white supremacy names and characterizes a *system*. The below definition is expanded in the cited source to address precisely the difference between racism (or one might say "white supremacism") and white supremacy.

"White Supremacy is an historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations, and peoples of color by white peoples and nations of the European continent, for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power, and privilege." [1]

As this definition has existed for decades and as it defines the expression systematically without changing it to another word, I recommend the "white supremacism" definition either be (a) moved to another article (as it defines another word), (b) removed entirely, or (c) appear below the definition supplied in this comment. 104.57.64.153 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://soaw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=482
That meaning is covered in the article as well. I know that "White supremacy" has different meaning in academic circles, but the WP:COMMONNAME is primarily what's covered here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That does not, however, change the problem that the article was titled "White supremacy" but started with "White supremacism is a form of racism [...]", without acknowledging the article title, which was infelicitous at best and rather quite confusing for the reader, who was led to think that there is some mistake, or that there is no difference between "white supremacy" or "white supremacism", since the intro effectively implied that the terms are exactly synonymous, so exactly, completely and obviously that there isn't even a need to mention the other term. I have now added the article title to the intro and explained that the term can also refer to a form of systemic inequality. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also note that WP:COMMONNAME is, predictably, about common names (terms to use as article titles), not common meanings. A possible alternative solution would be to add a hatnote and direct the reader looking for the academic meaning to some other article where it is covered (if the material about the academic meaning were to be removed and, if necessary, moved elsewhere). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems like the current article is conflating two different concepts: (1) societal racism and (2) hate group-style ideological supremacism. Perhaps the first would be best discussed at White supremacy, and the latter at White supremacism.--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted paragraphs on White Supremacy in the U.S.

The following was deleted today as "unsourced":

White supremacy is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: importation of slaves was legal for 20 years; slaves counted as 3/5 in determining seats in the House of Representatives (though the slaves could not vote), and even the fact that each state has two senators regardless of population had the effect of increasing the power of white supremacists, who were mostly from sparsely-populated states. According to the Dred Scott decision, African Americans were not citizens even if born in the U.S.; this was remedied after the Civil War in the 14th Amendment.

The Civil War was fought over the question of white supremacy, and black slavery, in the South. The outbreak of the Civil War saw the desire to uphold white supremacy cited as a cause for state secession[1] and the formation of the Confederate States of America.[2] However, though slavery was prohibited everywhere by 1865, whites continued dominant in the United States, though with an interruption, the Reconstruction period.[3]

  1. ^ A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."
  2. ^ The "Cornerstone Speech", Alexander H. Stephens (Vice President of the Confederate States), March 21, 1861, Savannah, Georgia: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition."
  3. ^ Fredrickson, George (1981). White Supremacy. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. p. 162. ISBN 0-19-503042-7.

deisenbe (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Deisenbe, and thank you taking these issue to the talk page per WP:BRD. There is certainly valid information in your proposed edits, but this is a controversial page and the language and sourcing needs to be solid. I have three main issues with the proposed edits: (1) I think it's incorrect to say that white supremacy "is enshrined" in the U.S. Constitution, as all the language in the Constitution about slavery and 3/5 of a person has long since been amended; (2) the notion that the system of voting for U.S. senators does (or did?) increase the power of white supremacists definitely needs a reliable source; and (3) stating that the civil war was fought over white supremacy and black slavery really oversimplifies that conflict (see the article on American Civil War)--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

White supremacy and nazism

Acording to this article, nazism and white supremacy combined in the early 19th century, and claimed that white people were a part of a superior Aryan race.

Acording to history books there are large differences between white supremacy and nazism. While white supremacy is the belife that white people are superior to others and should rule over them, nazism is very different. They belived germanians were superior, in to an extent western Europeans, but not slavic peoples. They were one of the lowest, even thought they are European and look like whites.

The Nazis were also allied with the Japanese, and I dubt they thought of them as inferior. They were actually impressed.

So the part about nazism should not be here.77.18.161.207 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_supremacy/Archive_3&oldid=1142782962"