Talk:White supremacy

Citations needed.

I have tagged two unsourced passages as needing citations. I have been involved in editing this page for awhile on and off and am not WP:TAGBOMBing. These are simply things that should be referenced (I noted that I guessed one of these was true in my edit summaries). The two passages are:

"White supremacy has roots in scientific racism and often relies on pseudoscientific arguments for portray white superiority."

"White supremacy has ideological foundations that at least date back to 17th-century scientific racism, the predominant paradigm of human variation that helped shape international and intra-national relations from the latter part of the Age of Enlightenment (in European history) through the late 20th century (marked by the abolition of apartheid in South Africa in 1991, followed by that country's first multiracial elections in 1994)."-Pengortm (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with this for a couple of reasons. While citations are very important, the number of potential sources supporting this routine point is very large. White supremacy is so closely intertwined with scientific racism that not mentioning it would be jarring. By tagging it, and tagging it very specifically, it's implying (without actually saying) that this point is controversial or contentious, or should be considered for removal, which is false. While I know that CN tags aren't always intended that way (I don't always use them that way, at least), that's definitely the message being sent when applied to such fundamental perspective. Using tags to cast doubt on academically accepted aspects of a controversial topic undermines the neutrality of the article. This is worse because the template:citation needed span tag alters formatting in a jarring and noticeable way. This draws a lot og attention to what otherwise would be a minor issue. This template is used less often in part because it's so distracting. Including this in the lead is even worse. Since leads summarize the body (and leads of subsections can summarize the body of the subsection) this doesn't appear to be a neutral or appropriate action, and the issue should be discussed first so as not to damage the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If material cannot be substantiated it should be removed. I suggest that if there is unsubstantiated language which someone thinks should be included but can't be sourced, it should be removed from the article and brought to the talk page until it can be adequate sourced. I don't think this material that I have tagged is highly controversial and that a tag is the best way forward. Your concerns about implications are simply not how wikipedia works as far as I can tell (please correct me if I am wrong). If there are a vast number of sources for a statement, than the job of finding references for it should be very easy. According to WP:CITENEED "A "citation needed" tag is never, in itself, an "improvement" to an article: it is nothing more or less than a request for another editor to verify a statement: a form of communication between members of a collaborative editing team." I think your reaction to remove CN tags runs contrary to the normal working of Wikipedia and makes the collaborative work we are trying to do together more difficult. Please point me to precedent for your deletions of my tags, put the tags back in, find sources for these statements, or remove the statements.-Pengortm (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The tags damage the article by implying a controversy where none exists. I trust your intentions, but the history of this and related articles means that such tags can introduce difficulties and lead to less neutral "compromise" language when none is necessary. This isn't just a slippery slope issue, this is from past experience. Both tagged sections were leads, and the content is discussed (somewhat obliquely) in the body of the article. The article mentions Arthur de Gobineau, Mendelian inheritance, Eugenics, Nordicism, and other concepts which are fundamentally connected with scientific racism. Summarizing sourced content is perfectly acceptable, although I agree that this could be handled better. Did you look for sources yourself? If you're specifically looking for sources supporting this point, it's not hard to find. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, you seem to be inventing new ways to edit on wikipedia based on your own personal experience and putting the burden on other editors. I've gone here to avoid an edit war, but resent the new hoops your making me jump through and the waste of my time when I am following normal wikipedia procedure and editing in good faith. To the substance of the discussion and setting aside the procedural issues, I don't know which sources you are referring to which of the tagged passages.-Pengortm (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to explain where I'm coming from and why I think it's a problem based on context and experience. If you want to label that an invention, sure, whatever. But yes, the burden is on you when challenging consensus on an otherwise relatively stable page. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, specifically WP:LEADCITE: Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. and The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. We "get" to use consensus for this, lucky us.

I'm not sure what the point of confusion is regarding sources. I don't understand your last sentence. That indirectly supports my point, actually. If your intention with tagging the article was not obvious, then it's better that we're discussing this on the talk page anyway. Here are some references, for discussion, that I found after a quick search:

• An introductory textbook from South Africa discussing The Enlightenment and white supremacy.
• One from Oxford University Press about the contrast between North America and South Africa which discusses the Enlightenment in depth
• Another academic book which covers the contradiction more generally from a modern POV

Was this more about the significance of Apartheid? Tell me what I'm missing, here, and we can figure out how to fix it, but the tags are premature in this case. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Racist Ideology" in lede

Having "racist ideology" in the lede makes the article sound childish, and as such I will remove it. Post here if you disagree. Please don't revert edits that shouldn't be reverted. Deciduous Maple (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You've already been reverted, with ample reason. "Childish" is not a valid reason for altering long-standing consensus. The burden in on you to make your case, per WP:BRD and common sense. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It is very obvious that "white supremacy" is racist from the rest of the article. Having the word "racist" in the lede make the article very unprofessional. This was discussed at length in December of 2014, when the consensus was to leave the article in the form "W.S. is a form of racism." Now it seems someone is displeased with that outcome and changed it back to their way. If that is so, I will change it back to our way. In the mean time, I will change the article back to the compromised version. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What's childish is actually having this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Volunteer Marek, long time no see. It appears you still haven't developed a mature style of debate and must still resort to low-effort put-downs in place of actual debate. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh lord, give me a break. It's pretty ironic to see someone try and gloat about being mature. Articles evolve over time, and edit warring is not appropriate. The claim that "Racism" is a made-up, artificial word used as a silencing tactic is so ridiculous that it undermines neutrality and credibility, and suggests that this discussion is a dead end. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying something is "ridiculous" is not an argument, mate. Explaining why something is not true would be more appropriate; why don't you try that instead? P.S. If you had seen Volunteer Marek's behavior in dec 2014, you'd understand why I am quick to call him immature - because he is. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Again with the irony! Oh, you're killing me! All words are "artificial" and Wikipedia uses words to define concepts. Playing pedantic games to try and downplay the connection to racism is against the overwhelming consensus of both Wikipedia editors, and of reliable, academic sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Grayfell and Volunteer Marek on this one. Current wording seems good and I think a more convincing argument needs to be made on the talk page before we consider changing it. As of now, I see now convincing argument and User:Deciduous Maple wasting other editors time. -Pengortm (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The other editors are wasting their own time. Since no one wants to have an honest discussion, I am going to change the article back to the compromised form. Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• It is hard to imagine an ideology that is more inherently racist than White Supremacy, having this as part of the definition seems inevitable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but there's no reason to put that in the lede. It's a waste of words and makes the article sound emotive and childish. I never said it wasn't racist. Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I also think "form of racism" is more appropriate than "Racist ideology" —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 22:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is now. This whole thing started as a big troll organized off wiki. Even 'Deciduous Maple' is a trollish name, making fun of User:EvergreenFir who was the first one to disagree with this stupidity. DFTT folks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing "trollish" about it, m8. The word "racist" does not belong in the lede. You only call it a troll because you have no real argument - same tactics you used 2 years ago.

If no one "feeds the troll," as Volunteer Meek likes to put it, by providing legitimate arguments, then I will just change the lede back to the compromised version. That's because I'm here out of genuine care for the article and not just for a fun time. Deciduous Maple (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Having the word "racist ideology" in the lede is not an emotionally charged decision. It needs to stay there as "racism" (to which the word links) is the parent subject of WS. Having the word there gives an opportunity to link to the parent subject and therefore improves navigation. It also makes the article more explicitly clear to users who may not be familiar with the concept or term "white supremacy". Not everyone who reads English Wikipedia is English and therefore the lede section needs to make it clear what WS is and to what it belongs. I find absolutely no hint of childishness or emotionally charged tone in it's being there and see it as an appropriate choice in terms of clarity and navigational ease. You have already stated that WS is inherently racist, and therefore it only remains to convince you that an encyclopedia ought to be easily navigable and clear. Against this there are not many cogent arguments.Edaham (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"Form of racism" and "racist ideology" mean the same thing, but most will agree (not that that matters) that "racist ideology," and by extension, all "-ist" words sound childish, emotive, and generally less aesthetic and natural than their alternatives. For that reason, the lede should remain in the "form of racism" version, if it includes "racism" at all. A compromise was made two years ago to have it this way. Why did someone change it from that? Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• BURDEN, STATUSQUO, and SPADE. There seems to be general agreement here that the term is appropriate. Calling childish is not grounds for its removal. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Then what were the grounds for changing it to the compromised version? Pleasure seeing you again, BTW (not really). Deciduous Maple (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

English Wikipedia contains about 3.24 billion words. Your account seems to be dedicated to editing two of them. If everyone took your approach to editing English wikipedia, it would take a little under a quarter of the world's population. This is infeasible. Given the length of this discussion (not including this reply) regarding the two words, your approach to editing here, if widely employed, would also increase the size of wikipedia by about 2.4tb, which is also a pointless increase in data volume. That's why people who only want to edit two words and not contribute to the considerably more challenging task of improving and creating articles are considered not to be here to build an encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as this is not response to the question I asked, I suppose I'll repeat it. What was the purpose of changing the two words from the compromised version in the first place? I am trying to change it back to the version that was agreed upon in Jan. 2015, but others here absolutely must have it their way. Why them, and not the people in the talk page / RfC two years ago? If there is not adequate argument (not ad-hominems) made here in a reasonable amount of time, I'll be changing it back again. Deciduous Maple (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you and your attempt to recruit people to edit this page have now been put up for administrative review. This has been a long time coming. The pattern you have observed of people not replying directly to your "arguments" should be quite apparent. The purpose of my previous reply was to encourage you as much as possible to see wikipedia as a broad ranging collection of topics and for you to find another area in which you might provide constructive input. Wikipedia has more than one topic. It would probably do you some good at this point to quickly make a note on your talk page on how you intend to be constructive in other areas of the encyclopedia as well as mention that your attempts to turn this talk page into a discussion forum have ceased.Edaham (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as this is not response to the question I asked, I suppose I'll repeat it. What was the purpose of changing the two words from the compromised version in the first place? Deciduous Maple (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Edham said it better than I can. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

white supremacy today

This article is well written and very complete, it focus a lot on a literal deffinition of what why suppremacy is. It will make the article more complete if it includes more information about the effects of white supremacy today.Yivi29 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Yivi29

Good idea, but I'd also urge caution. Such additions need to keep in mind that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and other Wiki rules and norms. -Pengortm (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Identitarian movement

Mostly poor sources, a subset of white supremacy. Most of the article should be scrapped. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Oppose, sources are available and not clear that it is only subset of white supremacy. Sources[1][2][3][4].--Jahaza (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, it is certainly not a subset of white supremacy. First of all, it is a mainly European movement; it started in France and then spread to other European countries. There sure is an intersection with white nationalism -- but white nationalism is more like the ideological umbrella and not an organization -- and many different organizations can very roughly be considered to be close to that ideology.
  It is a registered association in Germany. And in France the organization has -- according to political scientist Stéphane François -- between 1.500 and 2.000 members. 93.224.110.163 (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) PS The statement about the allegedly "poor sources" is in no way substantiated. PPS Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs could be merged with Identitarian movement.

History in the US

This book] has some interesting comments not included in any way in the article:

"In the two decades after the Civil War, notions of white supremacy began to coalesce, based initially on British-Israelism. Although British-lsraelism peaked in England in the 1920s with only 5,000 members (Barkun 1997:13), figures such as C. A. I.. Totten found a much wider audience in the United States. Though not a promoter of British-lsraelism as such, Totten used it as the basis of his own version of white supremacy. This belief had great impact on a young evangelist, Charles Fox Parham, who on January 1, 1901, would claim that people in his congregation began speaking in tongues at several revivals, and this was a direct communication from God. He shortly thereafter founded the Pentecostal movement (Barkun 1997:20). Pentecostalism grew rapidly in the South and the Midwest, and gained another influential supporter in the form of J. H. Allen, who transferred the key belief of white supremacy into Midwestern Methodism (Barkun 1997:21). At this point, however, white supremacy was primarily a belief that Anglo-American whites would fulfill crucial sections of biblical prophesy. It had not yet acquired the persecutionary virulence of later versions, especially in the 1920s when the Klan reached the height of its national prominence, and again in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, the fact that white supremacy became a central organizing theme in the early days of two major evangelical groups is important. The issue of segregation after the Civil War, and slavery before the war, created divisions among evangelicals, and eventually disempowered evangelicalism during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and only recently are evangelicals in general drawing together against racist beliefs. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention, the single largest evangelical organization, did not renounce slavery or segregation until 1995 (Newman 2001). Prior to the 1990s, evangelicals would often travel in other, less tolerant directions. With the appearance of Reuben F. Sawyer in 1921, American evangelicalism in the South and the Southwest moved closer to the Ku Klux Klan. Klan rhetoric at this time emphasized both hatred of blacks, the focus of the first wave of Klan activity immediately after the Civil War, which Sawyer and others now joined with strong anti-Semitism and the need to preserve white culture in addition to what they saw as the genetic purity of the white race." Doug Weller talk 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts

Although grammatically correct, the first sentence emphasizes the superiority aspect, to such an extent that it could be mistaken as the definition. It's not white superiority, it's white supremacy. The statement, "centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief", is the main culprit which makes the first part of the sentence outweigh the second part, which is the more important part. It seems that some people want to overemphasize this. This page doesn't have enough about the origin of this term, which was a term for the Nazi racial program, in turn a type of populism. Otherwise, racist ideologies were a response to rapid urbanization and migrations of the 20th century (like the 20th century KKK, for example). Trying to push it back much before this, you will have to prove ideologies existed, and racist science was created with a racist intent. The last thing I propose is to change the "Southern Africa" section to "Zimbabwe" and "South Africa". The reason is because Rhodesia is possibly the best example of white nationalism. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Is the first part of your post an edit request? If so can you restate it in a "change x to y format"? Also please provide a source for the second part of your request. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also you are right that this section requires a citation.Edaham (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I edited my comment. You mean Rhodesia? I'll work on expanding it a bit and putting it in it's own category. It definitely deserves it's own category. I'm unable to work with words AT ALL right now, but I will say that it's unneccesary to say that an ideology is based on the promotion of a belief.

In case you all think I'm fighting something imaginary here is Brittanica's definition, completely incorrect:

White supremacy, beliefs and ideas purporting natural superiority of the lighter-skinned, or “white,” human races over other racial groups.