Talk:White supremacy/Archive 2

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

White supremacism in the 18th century
David Hume

I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly. Of National Characters

Immanuel Kant

In On the Different Races of Man (1775) he said that the white race is the best race in Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798) he said that "Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites, The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people."

Linnaeus

For him, there were four races, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, and Europeanus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later skin color. Each race had certain characteristics that were endemic to individuals belonging to it.
 * Native Americans were reddish, stubborn, and angered easily.
 * Africans were black, relaxed and negligent.
 * Asians were sallow, avaricious, and easily distracted.
 * Europeans were white, gentle, and inventive. Linnaeus's races were clearly skewed in favour of Europeans.

Georges Buffon

In his Histoire naturelle de l’Homme, "De la dégénération des animaux" (1766), tome XIV, pp. 311-374. hHe said that the white man represent by excellence the human nature and that the other races are "Degenerative". Roger_Smith

i realize that certain philosophers and volumes have been cited, but can you provide more detail, as in page numbers or at least citations adhering to MLA standards. The undertow 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Identity
Manual_of_style:


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

Introduction
Some anonymous user added this new addition to the article;

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

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

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

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

Four Stages of White Supremacy (Racism)

1. Establishment

2. Maintenance

3. Expansion

4. Refinement

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


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


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

Symbols
I was just wondering if white supermists use any popular symbols?--Gbleem 02:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Cosmotheism
Can anyone explain why this link: which goes to the church founded by William Pierce, does not belong? Pierce was a well-known proponent of white suptremacism, and the website has significant white supremacist content. -Willmcw 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Cosmotheism Community Church
 * Exactly Will. This site also sponsors and has many links to other white supremacist organizations such as National Alliance (or maybe National Vanguard), and has a link to the Creativity Movement, the organization that is headed by Matt Hale. --Gramaic | Talk 03:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just keep reverting and don't say anything. Eventually that person will get bored and give up.--Gbleem 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

(This is just a thought, not a campaign.) I've always considered the distinctions between White-supremacists/separatists/nationalists to be obvious - and accuracy is important. Such distinctions are important to the people who hold those views. I'm inclined to think that moving “cosmotheism.net" from the "White supremacist" article to the "White separatist" article might settle things down and bring Wikipeace. I see that there's a nice set of similar links already lined up in the "nationalist" article. Why not add it over there? It seems silly to keep restoring the link time and again in "supremacist" if a slightly different designation will make everyone happy-ish. Cheers.-- &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.136.157 (talk • contribs) . 00:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism is a wiki-crime. -Willmcw 22:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

- Jmabel | Talk around 10 Feb 2006

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

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


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


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

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


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

Nationalities
Was it really a good idea to add various nationalities but then fail to move people to their relevant nationality? Hengest 12:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This was done!--tequendamia 23:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

rockwell
I know George Licoln Rockwell did speeches in Canada but I don't think he was Canadian??
 * He was American. I've moved him. Now, will someone tell me why he is listed as "contemporary"? - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish and Italians
I've noticed that "Irish" and "Italians" are constantly being deleted from the lists of people that white supremacists discriminated against. Can someone please explain why are they being deleted. Please don't say because "Irish" and "Italians" are white, or because there are Irish and Italian white supremacist organizations. Irish and Italians were once discriminated against by white supremacists, and many white supremacists do not consider Italians and other dark-skinned Europeans to be white. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 08:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are Irish dark-skinned Europeans? --Ezeu 08:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if Irish are dark skinned Europeans or not. Some are, Colin Farrell is a good example. Irish were once discriminated against by white supremacists, that's the main thing were talking about. --Gramaic | Talk 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They were once discriminated against for being Catholic(as were Germans). For example,the Know Nothings of the mid 19th century US were very racist themselves. They discriminated against non-whites as well as non-protestants. Since there was a huge wave of Irish and German immigrants during this time, and being that most Irish were Catholics as well as a large population of Germans, these groups were discriminated. Today,groups such as the KKK, hold the ideal that the White Protestant is the best race.--Ashmole 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Since when were Germans discriminated against? They spent the main part of the 1800s waging war against their neighbors and systematically discriminating against everyone who weren't "real" Germans/Pressuians. If anything, the entire German population should be considered white supremacists. In fact we should do an entire article on how Europe would still be a German dictatorship if the Germans hadn't been thoroughly defeated by the English! Especially since the Germans themselves did nothing of importance to stop their leaders right up to Hitler. let's face it... the German population had no problem with what happened during WWII and before that.


 * Please don't generalize and say "...the entire German population should be considered white supremacist." If you look at the Demographics of Germany they have over 83,000,000 people including 73,000 Moroccans, 71,000 Chinese and 39,000 Indians among many other non-white minority groups who I doubt are white supremacists.  Also remember that the discrimination against many groups by the Nazis began inside of Germany where I would assume there were plenty of Jewish German citizens trying to "stop their leaders."  Lets try to keep it cool and not make sweeping statements which might offend. Omishark 02:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Prussians" not "Pressuians"!


 * "...entire German population should be considered white supremacists...German population had no problem with what happened during WWII and before that..." ---> and you know that how? Did you interview the entire German population?  Let's see, that would be 82,400,996 interviews.  My, quite an accomplishment, 82,400,996 interviews; when did you have time to do all that?  I'd like some pointers on how you did that.  82,400,996 interviews -- wow.  No I'm not being facetious, I really would like to know how and I do believe you were able to accomplish all 82,400,996 interviews because you wouldn't make a statement like that in Wikipedia without scientifically based documentation.  Would you?


 * As a person of German ancestry -- which includes my Protestant, my Catholic and, yes, my Jewish heritage -- I can assure you that there has been a good deal of discrimination against Germans in North America. Have you not heard the term "kraut"?  Widespread anti-German (and anti-Irish) racism -- based on hatred of Catholics -- was common in mid-19th century America.  And as a kid shortly after WWII we faced constant bigotry, being called "kraut" and "nazi".  We German-American kids actually had a lot more in common with the Jewish kids on our block, because they and us both had Germanic surnames, and both felt discrimination from the "real Americans", ie, kids with last names like Jones and Smith.Atikokan 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

Re list of Contemporary White Supremacists
There were lots of problems with this section of the article: I have therefore WP:BOLDly started a subpage at Talk:White supremacy/Workspace-People to discuss (1) the criteria we use to add people to this list or remove them from it and (2) the individuals currently or recently listed there. Please check the subpage and WP:BOLDLY fix my errors, foolishnesses, etc.
 * People listed under the wrong nation.
 * People who died over 50 years ago are hardly "Contemporary".
 * People whose Wikipedia articles say they're White Separationists being listed as Supremacists.
 * Vandalism is too easy.

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

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

Nazis
Nazis were not white supremacists then.

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Thats very true, the Nazis even used muslims from Bosnia to fight against partisans in the Balkans, and they fought along side Italians and Japs in that war too. These days the jewish media has made sure that nazi is just a buzz word for evil 58.107.175.127 19:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can be a White Bosnian Muslim the same way you can be a black Nigerian christian. Recent archaeology is chipping away at the Romans/Civilised, Nordics/Barbarians thesis. Mind you, the original civilised Greeks were blond.

194.46.225.85 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Those Neo-Facists
A few days ago, user 58.169.55.43 (t·c) changed a heading from "Contemporary white supremacists" to "Contemporary white supremacists and neo-fascists". Since then, user 212.251.123.223 (t·c) has edited the list under "Greece" by Note that we do not have articles about Kostas Plevris and the other person listed under "Greece", Nikolaos Michaloliakos.
 * 1) adding the description "(Popular Orthodox Rally party member)" after Kostas Plevris, and
 * 2) Adding "Kyriakos Velopoulos (Popular Orthodox Rally party member)".

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


 * (When you leave a comment on a talk page, please type in ~ at the end. That's how the rest of us are "WP:SIGning" our comments. It makes "conversations" much easier to follow. Thanks.)
 * Adding "and neo-facists" was one way to make the heading agree with the content. I advocate the opposite approach: only list people who are known to be White Supremacists from their own statements or from Reliable Sources.
 * And indeed, the Roberto Fiore says nothing about White Supremacy. Unless someone objects, I'll remove his name from the list. Cheers, CWC (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Changes made 29-Jun-2006
I've done a partial rewrite of the "Ideology in contemporary white supremacy" section, mainly in an attempt to get rid of over-long sentences. Here's a list of the major changes in content:

First Paragraph
 * Deleted "relationships and" from "opposition to racial mixing, especially interracial relationships and marriages"
 * because I suspect that relationships between "white" women and non-"white" men are what the White Supremacists really hate.


 * Deleted "(See also: Race and intelligence, The Bell Curve.)"
 * because I don't see how articles on the realities of race and intelligence are relevant to what white supremacists believe.

Seventh Paragraph Final Paragraph
 * Tried to distinguish (Fundamentalist) Christianity from Christian Identity (which, AFAIK, is explicitly racist).
 * Deleted entire para "Many white supremacists still exist, yet congregate under alias groups of other names."
 * because it's unintelligible. I guess it's intended to mean that many contemporary White Supremacists have "gone underground" and pretend to be "just" White Separatists or White Nationalists, or anti-Zionists, etc. Should we say something to this effect? Do we have any citations for it?

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

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

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

Plus a lot of this article uses a Nordicist point of view, whereas there are white supremist groups originating in southern Europe now saying that northern Europeans are actually inferior due to their high non-European mixing with Asians. After all it is a proven fact that Asian/Mongol admixture is higher Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe and can reach frequencies of 50 percent. - Galati —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.157.203 (talk • contribs) 2 July 2006.

George Burdi not a current supporter of WS
I've removed George Burdi from the list of Contemporary White Supremacists, because our article on him says he is no longer a WS. I've also added a word to the first sentence of that section:
 * What follows is merely a list of contemporary figures who are primarily known for their current support of white supremacy.

Cheers, CWC (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible article rename?
I think theres alot of confusion in this article and the discussion pages. Many are talking about other white nations (ie Italy,portugal) but this talks about the glorification of the Nordic,ie Aryan,subsection of the white race and therefore the article's name should fall along those lines. There are similar hate groups in other white countries that glorify their own race. --Ashmole 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I see it, White Supremacy and White Supremacists are themselves very confusing. Every "white" country has its own version(s) of WS. In the U.S., the White Supremacists hate "blacks" and Jews, here in Australia they hate "asians" and Jews, in Britain they hate Pakistanis, Caribbeans and Jews, and so on. Also, the WS groups tend to splinter and feud, and every little group has its own racial theory, and often a different definition of the "superior race".
 * I suspect that the article as it stands is a reasonably good summary of White Supremacy in the English-speaking "white" countries other than South Africa. To go into more detail would require a much longer article (longer than I would want to read, let alone edit!).
 * User:Ashmole is quite correct about the racist hate groups in other "white" countries, and the article does not cover them well. My understanding is that these groups are quantitatively different from those in English-speaking nations, because they come from nations with much less ethnic/"racial" diversity and (often) much stronger identification with a particular Christian denomination.
 * One could argue that they are not really "White Supremacists" because they argue for Greek Supremacy/Superiority, Southern European Supremacy/Superiority, etc. On this argument, maybe Wikipedia should have a separate article about these groups? Alternatively, maybe we should add a section to this article, maybe something like "Supremacist groups in European nations"?
 * Nevertheless, I would argue against a rename. There is such as thing as White Supremacy, even if it is messy and ugly and hard to pin down, and I think we should have an article on it by that name.
 * CWC (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article needs a rename, but pages for white supremacy by country or region (unique characteristics, history etc.) would be a good addition to WP. Drett 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern League (Italy) supremacist?
Our article currently strongly suggests that this political party believes in White Supremacy. The Northern League (Italy) article reports that the league has often been accussed of racism, but I don't see anything which would justify the Supremacist label. Indeed, as I explained in the previous section, I doubt that White Supremacy, as distinct from all the other varieties of racism out there, would take much hold in Italy. (Just to confuse matters, there is also the Northern League (neo-Nazi), a defunct British group.) Does anyone have any reliable sources labelling the NL as Supremacist? (If not, we'd better remove them from this article.) Cheers, CWC (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the Northern League (Italy) article, they certainly seem to be far-right and racist + they have alliances with some fascist parties, but they don't appear to be white supremacists, per se. I certainly can't find anything to suggest it... An Italian may be in a better position to make a judgement, though. (Also, there is another racist group in Canada called the Northern Alliance) Drett 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked around for a Wikipedia editor who knows something about Italian politics, and found user . He says the Northern League is "definitely not" White Supremacist (as we expected), so I've removed them from the article. Cheers, CWC (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

the term white
This is really nit-picky, but is there any consensus about capitalizing white and about putting it into quotes? My opinion is no quotes and no caps... other opinions? --Natalie 02:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a real can of worms. It is hotly debated in some circles. No quotes and no caps is traditional, but this is being contested by both White Supremacists and those who study "Whiteness" as an identity category.--Cberlet 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IRANIAN IMAGE
Why the Image of Iranians? More so, why of exceptionally fair ones compared to the majority population? Of all the images that could have been used on this page, an image of Iranians was used?? This is ridiculous! For this reason I have deleted it and if you wish to use it, you should open up a page unto itself on Pan-Aryanism, a varierty of white supremacy shared by only a minority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.5.255 (talk • contribs) 28 July 2006.

Comparison to Jewish Supremacy
Hey kids, I noticed a link to Jewish Supremacy has been added to the Compare section. My understanding of the concept of Jewish Supremacy was that it referred to the white supremacist belief that there is a Jewish system of control, as opposed to any Jewish belief that they are superior. With that in mind, is it appropriate for it to be linked from the Compare section? Drett 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User recently created an article on Jewish supremacy which strikes me as badly written propaganda. This account has not edited any other articles. A few hours after that article was created, user  put a link to it into this article. (Wikipedia used to have an entry for Jewish Supremacy (capital "S"), but it was just a redirect to Jewish ethnocentrism. Both have since been deleted; see Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism.)
 * I'm removing the link. I expect that Wikipedia's normal review processes will lead to the Jewish supremacy article being deleted or heavily edited into something acceptable. Should the latter occur, we'll put the link back.
 * Update: since I started writing this, that article has been deleted.
 * Cheers, CWC (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank for clearing this up. I wondered why the article was removed, but it wasn't until after I did some digging that it was relayed that the previous article had been subject to deletion. Anyways, this is a conversation better had on the page regarding the actual topics (J. Sup/ethno cent.) than to try and debate semantics on the White Supremacy page. Once again, thank you for the clarification.--Saintlink 02:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A Link to White Imperialism?
I just wanted to know how much of a philosophical/ideological link there is between white supremacy and white imperialism? Just from a *purely logical and scientific point of view*, I feel that it cannot be denied that the white race has been quite geographically successful in comparison to all the others (perhaps even all the other *combined*?).

Anyhow - there really should be a link to white imperialism as a wikipedia article. Does anyone share my convictions on this point? I also feel that a link to a variety of genocides and ethnic cleansings that have been committed in world history that have had a racial element at the hands of whites would be a good idea - something like "white-induced genocides?" would be cool.

--Nukemason 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. There are lots of theories about European dominance, and we have lots of articles about them. Jared Diamond wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel to argue that geographical factors led to Eurasian dominance. Victor Davis Hanson argues (especially in Carnage and Culture) that certain aspects of Western culture give overwhelming military (and economic) advantages. See also The European miracle, and Climatic determinism. Is that what you were looking for? Cheers, CWC (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Schopenhauer quote
User recently added the words "whom were also white" to our quotation from Arthur Schopenhauer:
 * The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians whom were also white, are found exclusively among the white races; ...

I've left a note on User talk:86.127.30.89 asking whether those extra words really do come from Schopenhauer's book, and removed them pending confirmation. Could someone with access to a copy of that book please check the quotation? Thanks, CWC (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It turns out that Amazon.com allows anyone to "search in this book", and that the added words are not there. Cheers, CWC (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 62.195.145.130
Due to these edits by  I have added the totally disputed tag. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted back to the last edit by Potters House - the information that 62.195 was adding was complete nonsense. Drett 15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is possible...
It is possible to be an athiest white supremist who doesnt want to kill people of other races but merely make sure they dont get into positions of power... I am one of them and there is nothing wrong with it. 58.107.175.127 19:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure you don't want to kill anyone.

You and your ilk should be crucified, in broad daylight, in front of the Capitol building. 76.18.140.105 06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to believe in or be a white supremist and not be white. richard april 28 2007

Changes to Lede, Sep 2006
I've just made a substantial edit to the Lede section, mostly copyediting but with a two changes of content: (1) Included "Southern Europeans (Italians, Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples)" in list of peoples who have been discriminated against. (They were removed from the article a few edits back.) (2) Replaced
 * White supremacism was already at large in the 18th Century with some naturalists and philosophers like David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Linnaeus and Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon.
 * with my best guess at the intended meaning of that sentence:
 * In the 18th century, prominent naturalists and philosophers including David Hume, Linnaeus and Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon propounded white supremacy.
 * deleting Immanuel Kant, because there's nothing in our article about him or my (limited) knowledge of him that shows him to be a white supremacist.

Corrections, improvements and comments are very welcome. (Why do I feel this strong need to wash my hands just now?) Cheers, CWC (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [Re (1):] Italians, Greeks, Portuguese etc. have already been explained in the third paragraph in the beginning about how more exclusionist white groups like Nordicists, consider them inferior, but some white groups consider them to be superior, there having "Italian, Greeks, and other Mediterranean people" is unnecessary to say as it has already been clarified in the third paragraph in the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.36.67 (talk)

Lists of organizations and individuals
I've done a clean-up of the "Organizations" section. Please check my edits.

Here's a list of the changes I made: ("Dabbed" means linking to a real article instead of to a disambiguation page.) Cheers, CWC (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Dropped British National Party because article doesn't say they are White Supremacists
 * 2) "Dabbed" National Front to British National Front
 * 3) Dropped duplicate listing of Heritage Front
 * 4) Listed National Socialist Movement of Denmark, National Socialist Movement (United Kingdom) and National Socialist Movement (United States) instead of National Socialist Movement, which is a disambig page
 * 5) "Dabbed" Northern Alliance to Northern Alliance (White supremacist organization)
 * 6) Put abbreviations in quotation marks
 * 7) Labelled several groups with their country of origin: Blood and Honour, Heritage Front, Hrisi Avgi, Imperium Europa, Northern Alliance (White supremacist organization), Patriotic Youth League, Tri-City Skins.


 * Maybe the lists of white supremist individuals and group should be spun off into their own articles. That seems to be the norm when lists in articles get really big.Spylab 21:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * MIght want to add DECEASED next to some of the names. I agree that a list, if one is kept, could be spun off as that list is relevant to at least three main articles. Deceased goes next to (at least) Tyndall

Four 18th Century Intellectuals
We currently have a "citation needed" tag on the following sentence:
 * In the 18th century, some naturalists and philosophers — including David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Linnaeus and Georges-Louis Leclerc — promoted variations of white supremacy.

I did a little research and found some evidence validating that sentence:
 * {| class=wikitable

! Person		!! Supremacist?
 * David Hume	|| Yes, see David Hume
 * - valign=top
 * Immanuel Kant	|| Yes, see this recent version of our article plus related discussion
 * Linnaeus		|| Yes, see Linnaeus
 * Georges-Louis Leclerc	|| Probably, see below
 * }
 * Georges-Louis Leclerc	|| Probably, see below
 * }
 * }

For Count Buffon (Leclerc), I found a variety of sources suggesting that he espoused whites-are-superior views, but nothing completely satisfactory. Does anyone have better sources for Buffon's racism? Also, how do we work this stuff into the article? Cheers, CWC (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Race and the Enlightenment: A Reader by Emmanuel C. Eze (ISBN 0631201378) apparently suggests that Buffon held the all-too-typical attitudes of his era
 * This essay quotes him as describing the men of Guinea as "idle and inactive, lacking any sense of imagination or innovation. They were said to become debauched at an early age and also commonly died young due to exhaustion caused by too frequent sexual intercourse since youth".
 * I found some term papers and the like saying Buffon devised a heirarchy of races (with whites, of course, at the top).


 * Hume, taken within the historical period was not contributing a significant aspect of his work to description of racism. Arguably, the influence of his work acted against racism. To say 'various intelligent individuals mentioned racism at X point in time' is about as relevant as the area gets. Terming these individuals 'Supremacists' is making an assumption not supported in fact and even using their names in this article is probably seen by many as a soapbox. If an individual has expertise in one field, they are not experts in all realms. Regardless of the tone of the linked work, Hume was probably less of a racist than most people at that point in history.


 * Kant, on the other hand is badly cited in the linked article (citation needed) is all over that are. That will come back to hurt this article.


 * The Linnaeus link is this above this paragraph:

"In addition, in Amoenitates academicae (1763), he defined Homo anthropomorpha as a catch-all race for a variety of human-like mythological creatures, including the troglodyte, satyr, hydra, and phoenix. He claimed that not only did these creatures actually exist, but were in reality inaccurate descriptions of real-world ape-like creatures. He also, in Systema Naturæ, defined Homo ferus as "four-footed, mute, hairy." It included the subraces Juvenis lupinus hessensis (wolf-boys), whom he thought were raised by animals, and Juvenis hannoveranus (Peter of Hanover) and Puella campanica (Wild-girl of Champaigne). He likewise defined Homo monstrosous as agile and fainthearted, and included in this race the Patagonian giant, the dwarf of the Alps, and the monorchid Hottentot."


 * I REALLY don't think it helps the article along to claim anything from these individuals when they believe in satyrs, hyrdas, and phoenix. Anybody reading that would think 'these guys believed in fairies, why take them seriously'. So Linnaeus believed a lot of thing, but Supremacist?


 * It's not that history is lacking in brilliant minded individuals where their area of expertise was biology, philosophy, or sociology. the prevailing attitude was counter to their ideas, AND their major contribution to humanity was promotion or adoption of racism or Supremacist work.


 * Backtrace the cites or it's going to hurt later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.195.181.245 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Additions
I was wondering if David Irving(UK)and Kevin Alfred Strom should be added to the list? It seems like they belong there. Tina A. 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Tina A.

White racism
Someone can write an artikle about politic power (left and right) and laws and civil servants, officials... in the world, racists?(Australia white, Canada white, Sudafrica White etc etc)? 212.97.182.180 10:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indians and Caucasians
Indians have been considered Caucasian by anthropologists for a very long time. Indeed, generally the vast majority (95%+) are considered to retain enough Caucasian traits to be considered Caucasian by the intellectual community.

The point I'm trying to make is that the usage of the word Caucasian seems to vary throughout Wikipedia articles. North and South Indians, despite difference in skin color, are majority Caucasian groups. Most of the confusion stems from the usage of the word Caucasian as synonymous with 'White', in other words not as a strongly-genetically defined race but as a color or social-construct. The correlation between the two is only acceptable in North America and some parts of Europe, particularly the Western region.

The major difference between North and South Indians is apparent in the color of their skin, not in predominant Caucasian features.

So, I request that the change be made to the line under the subject heading “Pan Aryanism”, to include not just North Indians, but Indians in general. I will not be so arrogant as to change it without the consent of fellow wikipedians. Gulalo 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User is quite right about Indians, but that's probably irrelevant to what most Pan Aryanists believe. Our article has to report who the Pan Aryans do accept as "white" (or "Aryan" or whatever), not who they should. The situation is greatly complicated by the existence of lots of different Pan Aryan groups, each with a different list of who's in and who's out. If anyone has more information on Pan Aryanist beliefs, please add it to the article or to this page. Cheers, CWC (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Racist"?
User asks:
 * why is it that on the artle from black supremacy on wikipedia, it begins saying black supremacy is a racist ideaology and on the white supremacy it says, its an idea........ now whose racist.

Thinking about this, I slightly prefer explicitly spelling out that WS is racist, and I've edited the article accordingly. What do other contributors think? Edit away! Cheers, CWC (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

forks n stuff
Jesse Owens- hitler wanted to prove that whites were the superior race in the olympics, and he got so pissed off that jesse owens "owened" the special olympics.. idk the details, i came here looking for them and was suprised and pissed off to see that this article doesn't even mention anything about jesse owens. the moral is that whites are not the superior race, and that that is a bunch of racist garbage. why is there nazi propaganda within view without even scrolling down. Black supremacy is so negatively biased, and white supremacy is.. well it's like any other encyclopedia article. it's like an article on forks, with a picture of a fork on the first page, and a detailed description on how to use a fork.. the article needs to be written by non-white supremacists and people who aren't so zealous about structuring the pov to suit their beliefs imho. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.214.143 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

ABILITY AND ABLISM
I'd like to point out how this page has basically overlooked that White Supremacism is also based on Ablism. http://www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/uselesseaters/

The fact that the construct of "White," generally has meant: Caucasian Skin, of Upper Classes and Able Bodied/Minded/etc., seems to be lost on folks. Hello? Anyone who is a 'crip," who is "mentally ill," "intellectually disabled," anyone who is a person with disabilities is considered "impure," and "non-white," under the basic premise of White Supremacy.

If you look at current critiques of Liberal Ideology, such as critiques by marginalized Women towards Mainstream Feminism, you'll note that those critiques point out how "White," Feminism, as it's now referred to on the street, where I live, consistently ignores: Race, Class AND Ability in all of it's political theories/analyses of issues. In other words, the same three things that White "Superiority," is founded on.

White Power and White Privledge are rooted in White Supremacist Ideology, and simply because certain groups no longer openly identify or SAY White Supremacist beliefs out loud, it doesn't mean they aren't continuing to support the ideology, the power structures, etc. through actions, political analyses, etc. that are based, in assumptions of Superiority, and White Supremacist Ideology.

For a non-traditional example of how White Supremacism underpins even Liberal Political/Social analyses/philosophies:

White Liberal Feminism  has consistently been critiqued that they define "Women," in their political and theoretical femininist analyses as: Caucasian Skin (White) University Educated,(Class) 'Proper English,' Speaking (Class & Ability), Able-bodied/minded (Ability) people.

In other words, they might not SAY that they support the ideology of White Superiority, but their actions, who they define as "Women," in this case, clearly shows an acceptance of White Supremacist Ideology.

It can be argued that the stereotype of the "Stupid Immigrant," is not based on skin color, as many Able-Bodied People of Color perceive it to be, but rather on Language Skill Ability.  Immigrants with caucasian skin are positioned and treated as "stupid," as in "Inferior Intellectual Ability," simply because they do not possess the standard of Language Skills needed to be considered "truly white," and are viewed as 'Inferior,' by others with Caucasian Skin of the elite, privleged classes. Any discussion on White Supremacy that ignores the issue of Ability and Ablism is incomplete.

http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/bibliography/index.php?content=people_with_disabilities

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/disabilities_02/

PWD matter

New section
I think a new section called: "Criticism of White Supremacism" should be opened. It also addresses the issue of Abilism and Ability (real versus perceived) mentioned by the user above.

It could start with this contribution:

"A drawback for White Supremacism and Nordicism is the recent results of global IQ testing. Although most experts believe that IQ is environmentally influenced, the highest scores are to be found among East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), while the highest scores in Europe or any other white countries have been established for Italy in 2006. Moreover, Ashkenazic Jews demonstrate the highest IQ scores in the world.    "

This could be good to critique the intellectual superiority proclaimed by white supremacists and nordicists. An additional contribution could deal with the excellence of colored people in sports. Both aspect would be a good critique of the tenets of white supremacism (innate superiority due to intellectual and physical superiority of white peoples).

I think all these articles should contain a section dealing with criticism of these concepts. Otherwise, in spite of noble attempts, they look dangerously close to some type of propaganda.

Apart from those, other contributions could be added. This may also helpful to find out if this article is mainly written by White nationalists or at least by people with some sympathy towards the movement. We will see if they are interested in speaking of these facts or only of the propaganda. Bluemoonandsun 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be hard to do that without violating Wikipedia's rules about Original Research. On the other hand, surely there must be some good critiques of White supremacy by Reliable Sources, and it would be great to cite them, preferably with links and maybe even quotes. Cheers, CWC 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indo-aryans
The term "northern Indian" can be changed to "Indian" as indo-aryans are spread throughout and not just north indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul koneru (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, many/most White supremacists tend to care more about differences in skin color than genetics or cultural/linguistic similarities. This article has to document what they do believe, not what they should believe. CWC 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about deleting Violent Action subsection
The rationale for deleting this section appears to be that the section discusses only one group. However, there are numerous other relevant groups that have also exhibited violence. It seems to me that the solution here is not to delete the section, but rather to expand it to describe the additional violent groups.Verklempt 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The other problem was that the section didn't say a single thing about violent actions, so the title was totally inaccurate. I re-added some of the content about the group into the Religious movements section, because the group used to have the word "Church" in its name and considered itself a religion. The only way that a section entitled Violent actions would be valid would be if it actually discussed actions that were violent, and if the content was backed up by reliable references. Spylab 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the deleted section's failings, but it stil argues to improving the section instead of deleting it. Matt Hale's teachings did inspiure a follower to commit a racial murder, and Hale was clearly advocating racial violence. This should be included in the deleted section instead of simply deleting the section altogether.Verklempt 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. In the past, White Supremacist groups were very violent (often murderous), but these days, AFAIK, they generally avoid violence and (at least in public) advocacy of violence. See, for example, the first item of the New Orleans Protocol.
 * I can see at least three options for the article:
 * Have a sentence or two about violence but not a separate section.
 * Have a separate section but make it mostly about past racist violence.
 * Have a separate section about contemporary violence.
 * Does anyone have good examples of recent, relevant racist violence? Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's 1999 shooting spree certainly counts. I found a murder in Australia, which is briefly mentioned in the Jack van Tongeren article, but it's from 1989. CWC 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction problems
About parts of the introduction that don't make sense: Asians and Indigenous Australians people aren't "alleged non-white groups" - they are non-white. And why specifically mention "discrimination against ... Indigenous Australians" in addition to "anti-black racism" when Indigenous Australians are black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.105.231 (talk)
 * Yep. I see that our Black people article has a section on Non-African peoples.
 * I've edited accordingly, partly because it gave me a chance to trim down that ugly paragraph (my fault, IIRC). I also split it up. The result is:
 * White supremacy has often resulted in anti-black racism and anti-Semitism, although it has also involved prejudice and discrimination against a wide variety of "non-white" groups, including Arabs and the various Asian peoples.
 * Different forms of white supremacy have different definitions of "white". Pan-Europeanism regards all Europeans as white but Nordicism classifies southern Europeans (e.g. Italians, Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese) and eastern Europeans (e.g., Poles, Ukrainians, Slavic peoples) as inferior.
 * I think that makes the right points and is more readable. Cheers, CWC 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson
i removed Gibson from the list of white supremicists because there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he is one. He may be an antisemite, but on his page he is listed as an Anglophobe and I can't recall any statements by him that are WS in nature. Ticklemygrits 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jews aren't white?
Most I've seen are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.5.115 (talk)
 * Hey, to some people as recently as the 1950s, Catholics weren't "white". Racist belief systems contain lots of these surprising assertions. CWC 04:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

IN ORDER TO TRULY IMPROVE THIS SECTION AND ILLUSTRATE THE IDIOCY OF THE MOVEMENT WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO DISCUSS "RECENT" BIRTH OF THE ASHKENAZI JEW AND WHY IS IT THERE IS A DISTINCT LINE SEPERATING THE ASHKENAZI FROM THE JEWS OF ETHIOPIA. SUCH AS HOW SOME WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO LABEL THE ASHKENAZI AS FALSE JEWS OF GERMANIC / PHOENICIAN ORIGINS aND HOW THE CONSENSUS REGARDING WHAT IS "WHITE" OFTEN STANDS IN CONTRAST TO REALITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezpariah (talk • contribs) 07:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * European Jews are heavily mixed with the local white population. Compare a relatively unmixed Jewish person - say, Trotsky, - with the native population of the land where he lived, and you'll easily spot the difference. I suggest checking out an article by Sander L. Gilman, called "Are Jews white?", which explains how the mainstream perception of Jews as an ethnic group changed within the past 60 years. It's fairly short, comprehensive and neutral. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

List of white supremacists
I removed the living people from the list under our policy on biographies of living people. "if you have a problem with the inclusion of specific individuals, remove them" - while this is correct in most cases, with living people it goes the ohter way. If there are reliable sources that these people are white supremacists, they may be included when the sources are provided. Even then, unless there is near-universal agreement that they are white supremacists, or they describe themselves that way, it might be better to list them without comment under See also. Tom Harrison Talk 15:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That list is now completely gone, and I think the article is better without it. Cheers, CWC 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism
Okay, this is getting old. There is no way you can reasonably say white supremacism is not racist. Racism means discriminating against others due to their race, this makes White Supremacism racist by definition. Please do not use this article to redefine White Supremacism. Lurker (said · done) 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like any ideology of racial supremacy is racist. When we say "White supremacy is a racist ideology..." we are putting a specific thing in its more general category - not a bad way to start, even if unoriginal. Tom Harrison Talk 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It already says "contains varying degrees of racism". We dont need to instantly dub it "racist ideology". I am not arguing whether its racist, simply that there is no reason to use such a controversial term as the first description. But it seems you all want it to be that way, and I cannot fight it when you all want a biased and one-sided article. SenseOnes 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism is not controversial in this context. It is a term with a specific definition, and supremacism matches that definition. Lurker (said · done) 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to correct you. Nothing is racist by definition. Why? Because like you say, it requires a person to allege to feel "discriminated" which anyone can claim. Therefore, again, some might not feel that white supremacism is discriminative, while others might. SenseOnes 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No-one needs to feel discriminated against. The concept of discrimination is not subjective. Racial discrimination is treating someone differently from the way you treat others, based on their race. An ideology which advocates this is racist. Feelings do not come into it. Lurker (said · done) 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling things racist this way simply makes wikipedia more biased due to the fact that some forms of white & black supremacism are factual - like: white people have a a higher average cranical capacity and brain then africans. Thats a scientific fact, and its also a scientific fact that asians have a higher average cranial capacity then whites & blacks. And blacks are in average more resistant to sun-rays, and they have greater genetic variation and flexibillity then whites. So some forms of supremacism are not racist, they are simply true. Quoting wikipedia: "East Asians have a cranial capacity of 1,364 cm3, Whites 1,347 cm3 and Blacks 1,267 cm", Race_and_intelligence, U.S study: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf. Why dub EVERY kind of white supremacism equally racist? SenseOnes 11:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why dub EVERY kind of white supremacism equally racist? because they are all racist. The claim that somehow white people are smarter than blacks by vittue of science is just pure nonsense. Correlation does not mean causaton. Just because there is a correlation, that doesn't mean one event causes the other. This "so called" study would only shows correlation, so it is not accurate to say whites are smarter is a "scientific fact." Not to mention, this appears to be an error, as the source doesn't really say what wikipedia says it says. Someone made factual errors when reporting this racist study. Sef rin gle Talk 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge white power into white supremacy?
The white power article is not much more than a stub, has no references that are directly related to the main topic, and is essentially the same topic as white supremacy. I suggest that it be merged and redirected to the white supremacy article. Spylab (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. mattbuck (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes lots of sense to me. CWC 09:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done (as well as improving the order, structure and formatting of this article in general). Spylab (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazi image
I restored the image because the nazis are a very well known example of white supremacy.  Yahel  Guhan  07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted the image of the Nazi poster because it is explicitly about German supremacy, not white supremacy. Images in Wikipedia articles should be specifically about the topic of the article or section, and the caption should clearly explain why the image is relevant. This article is about white supremacy, not Nazism, which is a related topic, but not the same thing. Spylab (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What race was Hitler and the Nazis? They were white. Their message is of white supremacy (or specificly the aryan race.) Not to mention symbols and propaganda used by almost all white supremacists uses symbols originally used by the nazis. I know the topic of this article is nazism. I feel that a nazi image best illistrates an example of white supremacy. If you know of a better example...  Yahel  Guhan  01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can move the image down a bit, to the section on Nazism...BTW, why isn't there a section on Nazism?Bless sins (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nazis didn't believe in general white supremacy, since many of their enemies were white. That image belongs in an article or section that is specifically about Nazism, not at the top of an article about white supremacy, which is a much wider topic than the narrower topic of Nazi Germany. It is not mandatory that there be an image at the top of this article. Spylab (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, images are not mandatory, but they are prefered. I think the image illistrates an example of the concept well though. Even though many of their enemies were white, they were as well, and wanted a pure white race to rule. I suppose a section on nazism )or neo-nazism) needs to be created for this article, as it is one of the most recofnized examples of white supremacy.  Yahel  Guhan  05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The image does not represent the general topic of white supremacy; it represents the Nazi concept of German supremacy, which is a lot more specific. The Nazi idea of the master race only includes Germanic and Nordic peoples, not all white people. The concept of white supremacy started much earlier than the development of Nazism, and still exists today in various forms, long after the collapse of the German Nazi government. Spylab (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spylab: the phenomenon of White Supremacy is a lot older and broader than Naziism, and so that image is unintentionally somewhat misleading. Let's leave it out. Cheers, CWC 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremist
On the white supremacy page it says "the influx of non-white immigrants into various European nations has spurred a rise in membership in such extremist organizations" I think the words "such extremist" should be removed and replaced with the word these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckle hound (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Italians Dark-skinned ?
check the map :

http://www.vitalgraphics.net/ozone/graphics/jpg/04-Skin-color-map_cl.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.209.244 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was not trying to contend that ALL Italians are dark skinned. They are racially ambiguous. There are white looking Italians and some of them are dark compared to Nordics. look at this image for example.http://www.patmeup.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/P1010052.jpg The differences between the two are clearly distinct. Many Nordicists would probably not consider Pat Mastroianni (on the right) as being `white'.