Talk:White supremacy/Archive 3

3071:@DM, seriously guy, if you're gonna complain about "cuss words" in a comment, you proooobbbbaaaaaaaabbbbbllllyyyyyy shouldn't use terms like "butthurt SJWs" in your own comment. Also seriously, if you're gonna call something "childish", you prooooooobbbbaaaaaabbbbbblllllyyyyy shouldn't use expressions like "butthurt SJWs". I also like the weaseling that follows immediately after, about "I say this not to discredit those who disagree with me". Right. Because referring to editors who disagree with you as "butthurt SJWs" is not at all an attempt "to discredit". No, no, no. Not at all. This may come as a shocking surprise to you but most normal people, above a certain age, and not suffering from bouts of adolescent obnoxiousness, don't spend their time obsessing about the evil "SWJs" and looking for them under every rock. Most normal people, above a certain age, and not suffering from bouts of cluelessness do happen to think that "White Supremacy" is "racist". Perhaps some day you too can become one of these people. Good luck. 1636:

also wrong about "cat fight" but in a more subtle way. With "white supremacy" we seem to agree that there are people who might be considered white involved and the question is over supremacy. But I think we also agree that there's supremacy involved and differ over what kind, since that word has more than one meaning. A cat fight might have no cats in it and it might have no physical violence, or it might have physical violence. Your argument is parallel to one that claims without any support that in certain contexts "cat fights" must always involve physical violence. I don't know why you think that I'm arguing for an inverted meaning of supremacy. I'm just saying that sometimes "supremacy" in "white supremacy" means one thing, sometimes another. Finally, your definition, from the 3rd ed Oxford American Dictionary, says that "white supremacy" implies "should therefore dominate society". It doesn't actually say that it implies that whites should dominate non-white peoples, as my example of white separatists shows.

5564:: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states." 722:

written thousands of years ago to be anything more than "childish superstition" . This perfidious movement first terrorized then bought somebody else's land without their consent and continues to bribe and blackmail its way to stealing more of that land and massacring and dehumanising its people. It should be noted that the head of the privately-owned Federal Reserve and all its dozen directors are Zionists and that they continue to fund this bastard state, bribe and blackmail the venal politicians of the US with lavish gifts of money through their vicarious agents, charge usurious interest to print what will soon be worthless scraps of paper and fund wars wherever they be staged. Their members head all of the major media in the English-speaking world. To forestall any name-calling, these barbaric supremacists have nothing "Semitic" about them in any form; they are white supremacists

3006:? Just about everyone already believes that white supremacy is racist, and if they don't, they will learn of all the things that have come from white supremacy by reading the article. The only thing the word adds to this article an emotive, and slightly childish tone that would signal to readers the presence of butthurt SJWs. I say this not to discredit those who disagree with me, but merely to express what I feel the effect of this language will be on the article. Again, your continued attempts at outgrouping by saying "back to where you came from" and labeling certain users as "trolls," as well as using cuss words, further demonstrates that you have a very weak argument for the continued presence of the word in the article. For these reasons, I maintain that the word "racist" should be removed from the lead sentence of the article. 1808: 5629:. There is certainly valid information in your proposed edits, but this is a controversial page and the language and sourcing needs to be solid. I have three main issues with the proposed edits: (1) I think it's incorrect to say that white supremacy "is enshrined" in the U.S. Constitution, as all the language in the Constitution about slavery and 3/5 of a person has long since been amended; (2) the notion that the system of voting for U.S. senators does (or did?) increase the power of white supremacists definitely needs a reliable source; and (3) stating that the civil war was fought over white supremacy and black slavery really oversimplifies that conflict (see the article on 4066:- in this context using the word "racist" is neither "biased", nor "bloated" (one word?!??), nor "undue", nor "childish". It is appropriate. There is a set of things which can be described as "racist". "White supremacy" is an element of that set. It is no different to say that "White supremacy is a racist belief" than to say "The Orange is a fruit...". Yes, most readers probably know that "White Supremacy" is a kind of a "racism". But most readers probably also know that an "Orange" is a "fruit". Yet we still put that in there, in the lede, because it summarizes the article (which is exactly what the lede should do!) and because it categorizes it. 3922:

the definition. In general it is bad style to add superfluous adjectives in definition sentences, "intelligent design is the unscientific belief that", "numerology/psychoanalysis is the pseudoscientific discipline that", "ponzi schemes is the illegal practice that", "homosexuality is the controversial sexual orientation that", "collectivism is the counternatural", "mango is the sweet-tasting fruit" - in all those cases the adjective is superfluous and problematic in that it expresses a judgment and stance towards the topic in wikipedias voice (regardless of whether or not the judgment is objectively true or not).

1175:. Remember, Knowledge articles do have an underlying intent to be written such that they will inform a layperson who quite possibly may never have been introduced to the article's subject beforehand. That said, I do agree that the content in question is likely often associated with white supremacism, and therefore you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources published by notable authors that cast such descriptions of white supremacism. Common knowledge is the easiest kind of knowledge to find reliable sources for (after all, it's 169:

the motives here, the clear POV pushing agenda and I want a source review with that last addition. Either all supremacy articles have 'racist' in the lead or none, but no more of this anti-white sentiment shown by a user who adds "Secondly, Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise." I've warned you before that your edits are POV-pushing. Just because you have a source, doesn't necessarily mean it merits inclusion either. Please think long and hard about

5327:

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

1441:

other races is a supremacist, is he not? Your new (and unique in political context) meaning in this context (and this context only) blurs an important distinction and dysphemises a descriptive opinion by conflating it with a prescriptive one. Also, you will have to look far and wide to find an HBD person or anyone else who discusses racial differences in cognitive and temperamental characteristics who holds that White people have higher IQs than Ashkenazis or lower violent crime rates than Japanese.

1717:

use the propaganda re-definition that doesn't distinguish someone who holds that Germans have a more acute sense of what they call "Ort und Ordnung" than Africans from a guy that wants to blow up the Reichstag so that Germans can take their rightful place as a superior people and the supreme rulers of all of Africa. Carry on shunting aside the the original meaning of the term when it was coined (which is its sole dictionary definition to this day) so well as the absolute meaning of "supremacy".

1881:

supremacist" is not a tautological description of 20% Arab Israel. And if "White supremacy" were purely denotative, one could argue that what reigns in the US is that very subtype of White supremacy, Jewish supremacy, judging from Jews' enormously disproportionate represenatation to their population representation among the richest people in America lists, big finance, ivy league admissions, political representatives and Supreme Court justices and the enormous power of AIPAC.

2240:]. Due to statistics from German Government, between the reunification in 1990 and 2009 84 people were murdered by fascists, neo-nazis and other people who believe in white supremacy. German newspapers name higher numbers between 100 and 187 victims. In 2013, German minister of the Interior announced that 746 cases of killings or attempted killings were to be re-examined because they could be overlooked hate crimes by white supremacists. Results are expected im summer 2014. 4221:

examples, it is inevitably shown that white supremacy is racist, not the other way around. "Racism" is a term referring to the belief that certain traits are inherent to certain races. By this definition, white supremacy is almost always racist. The lead sentence is not a place to list all the ways of thinking that the subject fits into, it is a place to describe what the subject is, using only the most basic information about the subject. So sorry to disagree.

1800: 1350: 31: 4185:

article an emotive, childish tone right from the beginning, which should not be the case in a Knowledge article. The only thing that should be in the lead sentence is the most important and basic information, that being the definition of white supremacy (the belief that white people are superior to people of other races, or that white culture is superior to that of other races). I am therefore in favor of omitting the word.

5289: 4020: 1590:

explain the fact that white separatists, who at least claim that they don't want to rule over anyone but that all races should live apart, are commonly called white supremacists in reliable sources, not to mention common parlance? Leaving it as it is allows for this common usage of the phrase and explains yours in the very next sentence, calling it another sense of the phrase, which is what it is. —

5194: 1545:

Secondly, your Oxford definition of "white supremacy" says that it is the "belief that white people are superior," so it supports the lead as it stands. The part about the implication being that white people should be in charge is covered in the second sentence of the lead. If we were to make the change you propose we would lose information that is contained in the definition you quote.—

927:

a belife in Bobs time period and in Fred's time period regardless of of their adherence to reality. There are people, today, who believe the earth is flat it is not anachronistic to say John believes the earth is flat. You can say not many people believe that now, that is something people used to think but not today, etc, but you would be wrong sine John believes it now.

1645:) should reflect the well-sourced information in the body of the article. If you go randomly changing it to a quote from the OED then that's not the case. First rewrite the article, with sources, then rewrite the lead. Second, don't be in such a hurry. We're discussing it here, and there are only two of us, and it's only been a day. That's not consensus (see 1128:"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Knowledge contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." 2217:, especially the Deutsche Burschenschaft with 15,000 Members. There may be white supremacists being members of both a Burschenschaft and a far-right party, but political activism in elections etc. might not appeal to every member of a Burschenschaft, et vice versa. In the aftermath of 9/11 and financial crisis, politicians and writers like Thilo Sarrazin 4866:

co-ordination on 8chan trying to circumvent the system and have the word "racist" removed all together, I feel it should have some mention of racism in the lede as it is obviously important to the neo-nazi's that it shouldn't be there, and their view certainly does not represent the mainstream or "accepted" view of white supremacy.

2798:

argue on the talk page as to why it shouldn't be there. Our edits no more "came from 8chan" than your's did from whatever sites you like to browse (or, should I say, Knowledge). The fact that you are now attempting to out group those who disagree with you would imply that you don't have much of a real argument regarding this issue.

2379:

superior or inferior. But most importantly, I find that it is unnecessary to denote a group before describing WHAT that group is. It does not look objective. And please stop referring to every edit you do not approve as vandalism. We are all here to make wikipedia better, and even if you don't approve of others edits you should

2223:, published in 2010 and sold over 1,5 million times) Sarrazin uses biological "arguments" in his images of misfit, violent and religionally mislead foreigners or citizens of foreign descent and speaks out for eugenics. Following Sarrazin's books and his foreign predecessors like Geert Wilders and Pim Fortuijn, new NGO's (like 907:. And I see no discussion anywhere here, including the 2 archives, of the word as it is used in this context. How can a consensus exist if there was no discussion about it in the first place? The word should be removed. I'll give it a week. At the end of that time, I'll remove the word as a clear violation of 3068:"labeling a belief". More precisely, this article is about a particular kind of a belief (racism in favor of whites and against non-whites) which is an element of a class of beliefs (racism in general). And if you think that having that word in there is somehow "seemingly biased", then you've got a problem. 3940:- I don't think labeling something as 'racist' is a value judgement. While it's not very popular in many cultures nowadays, it's an adjective like any other, and it means a certain thing (it is not a direct synonym for 'bad'.) As such, I support using it in the lead paragraph to summarise the article (per 1288:"nations" to live their own lives. So rather than being a political ideology based on a sense of permanent and inherent white superiority, apartheid was more a theory designed to treat, in principal if not in practise, all races as "separate but equal". That may be racist, but is it Whtie supremacy? 5660:

Acording to history books there are large differences between white supremacy and nazism. While white supremacy is the belife that white people are superior to others and should rule over them, nazism is very different. They belived germanians were superior, in to an extent western Europeans, but not

4318:

That would be redundant no? And I am not invoking Goodwin's Law, it is a wikipedia guideline stating that we should avoid just these kinds of word, even when they are absolutely true, they still have a negative connotation, and should be used with care, not just thrown in. And I don't even take issue

3067:

No, I responded to your argument. Let me respond to it again, since you somehow missed it the first time. Specifically, the argument that a single, seven letter, word, which is relevant, summarizes article content, and is notable, somehow "bloats" the lede is ridiculous. "Racism" *is* the belief, not

2618:

it says "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." I could make the intro "White supremacism is the racist, hateful, ice-chilling

2442:

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

2089:

Can you discuss it here? If what you want to include is true, you ought to be able to find a source for it. I have my doubts about its truth and its relevancy, but if you come up with something naturally I'll accept it. However, what's really not OK is to stick the statement in front of a footnote

1874:

Groupuscle: "White supremacy" is the state of affairs in societies where white people disproportionately control resources and make laws. It is not disputed that Slavery in the United States reflected a period of white supremacy. Whether the United States remains a white supremacist nation—or whether

1815:

about a "white supremacist" makes clear that "he devoted his often violent life in vain to defending white supremacy". They don't mean he made typed angry posts on message boards "promoting the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds"—they mean he took paramilitary

1675:

You're not telling me that sources in the rest of the article do not deal at all with people who believe that whites should rule over others, are you? My edit is not inconsistent with the sources that use as example of people who deny a desire to rule over others, as it retains the original statement

1608:

Jared Taylor's position is often dysphemised and straw-manned (even if one accepts the re-definition) as such by some of the same "relibale" (according to whom?) sources, even though he has stated repeatedly that Oriental peoples have higher IQs and lower crime rates than whites. If Oxford dictionary

1287:

Pre-1948 South Africa had, for historical reasons, a franchise largely limited to white citizens. Rather like the American Deep South, New Zealand or Australia at the time. The Nationalist Party knew that this was indefensible, so thought up the idea of separate states or territitories for different

956:

or something. My opinion is that white supremacy is a silly concept, but I believe the WP article doesn't even need to be biased in order for readers to reach that conclusion. It's like saying "breatharians are stupid people who think they can get nutrients from the air", whereas a NPOV version would

926:

I only looked at the history of this page becuase of the word "anachronistic." I am not sure how this could be used. It is referring to a belief. Beliefs are neither right nor wrong, they are facts. Bob believes X, Fred believes Y. It doesn't matter when they believe these things. They exist as

5333:

As this definition has existed for decades and as it defines the expression systematically without changing it to another word, I recommend the "white supremacism" definition either be (a) moved to another article (as it defines another word), (b) removed entirely, or (c) appear below the definition

4958:

Historical and sociological narratives, described in the article and certainly in any sources one might find, both define white supremacy by classifying it as a form of the more general concept of racial prejudice. We have an obligation to note the broader category of racial prejudice, because it is

4880:

I am not disagreeing with you that white supremacy is racist, nor that option 3 is a good option, but why does it matter if there is "outside coordination" to get the word removed? Are 8chan users not people who should also have a fair say in what the lede says? Would you say the same thing if there

3780:

Oh yes, lets go one step further, let's just replace every word in the introduction with the word "racist", it is the only thing the reader needs to know about the subject, and since its referenced a bunch of times it is okay! We dont even need a description of what the belief is or anything, a word

2878:

I believe that 'racist' in the lead paragraph is important for summarising the article, and as such I have reverted a recent attempt to remove this adjective from the lead. If I'm mistaken (white supremacy is not described as racist by the article) do feel free to revert me and let me know why at my

2797:

The recent edits came only from a few individuals who believe that "racist" should not be in the beginning sentence. 8chan is not a person, but rather a place where one individual shared his frustration with a SJW Knowledge editor and asked like minded individuals to help remove the word, and now to

2459:

Both these examples have an explanation after the lead sentence explaining that EvergreenFir edits articles, thus it is redundant to add the "article-editing" adjective in the beginning. Forgive me if this idea seems absurd, but I believe it is one of common grammatical sense; the adjective "racist"

2378:

White supremacy can definitely be classified as racist in most cases, but it does not HAVE to be racist. First and foremost, it can be referring to white culture and not the race. Secondly, it can be referring to an evolutionary need to put "your own group" first, and not actually classify groups as

1664:

That both "fight" and "image" have either literal and metaphorical meanings in the respective phrases that you cite is irrelevant. The meanings of the words do not differ from standard meanings in isolation when they are taken as the heads of the phases. Orwell could have as well said, with the same

1635:

It's the extended use thing that describes the phenomenon whereby a mirror image can have neither a mirror nor an image involved. One of the examples they give is from Orwell: "Fascism..is a sort of mirror-image..of a plausible travesty of Socialism." Where's the mirror, where's the image? You're

1378:

The first sentence of the entry was incorrect. Holding that one's group is "superior" is neither necessary nor sufficient to supremacism. Indispensable is that the supremacist members of the group in question hold that their group should rule over the other groups. This example should make it clear:

1147:

I still don't see how these are peacock terms. If your problem is with the lack of citations, we don't need citations because it is so well-known that these are the essential foundations of White supremacist belief. If you really want some citations I could cite some White supremacist literature.

827:

Jews in Israel are roughly split 50/50 amongst European Jews and Middle East Jews, the two groups have and are mixing pretty steadily in Israel...Its a distortion of reality to call Zionists "White" OR racist. Give it another 30 years and Israeli Jews will be thoroughly mixed and still 100% Jewish.

603:

Well, just because article X does it does not mean this article can do it. Did you even read WTA? It says even if a term such as 'racist' is technically accurate (as in this case), we shouldn't use it because it implies a negative viewpoint. Besides, those are two massive straw men - AoIA is a known

267:

then you are deeply going against consensus when you say that racial superiority does not imply racism. But then again, it's really a moot point, considering your comments about race in general. That's why I'm building the Request for comment because anyone who feels it necessary to add the category

168:

racist from the Black supremacy article. User also insists on "You can call it white nationalism, white suprematism, white pride, or anything else. It is all the same, in that it is all the same racist dogma designed to say white people are dominant to black people." So pretty much, I'm questioning

4865:

Normally, I would have voted option1 as I feel the term racist is redundant as it is implied, the only people who wouldn't imply it are people who are themselves White Supremacists and who won't change their view just because that word is added. HOWEVER, simply due to the fact that there is outside

4444:

I think the word "racist" is inessential to the definition of "White supremacism". The concept can be defined without noting that it is "racist". In theory there can be non-racist White supremacism. Racism is an opinion of White supremacism. It just so happens that it is a universally-held opinion.

4249:

I'm truely sorry if you disagree with me (actually I'm not), but "white supremacy" being racist is not the most basic information about he subject. The most basic information, as I have said many times before, is that white supremacy means believing that white people are superior to people of other

3906:

I would dispute that it's a "value judgement". A value judgement would be whether "racism" (or "White supremacy") are "bad" or not. Now, most people would probably make that value judgement in a particular way. But that doesn't make the word itself a "value judgement". I mean, if you can't describe

3403:

To me, it reads slightly more clearly to focus specifically on the content of the set of beliefs of white supremacy before decribing reaction to it. On the other hand, my support is only weak: I doubt many sources, if any, would claim white supremacy is not racist, so that its description as racist

2964:

Seconding what Amlaera said. Additionally, white supremacy being racist is not the most important aspect to bring up. The most important aspect is what "white supremacy" actually means, that being either that white people are superior to people of other races, or that "white culture" is superior to

2067:

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

1827:

their usage (as they do every decade or so with "terrorist") does not mean Knowledge should uncritically reflect these changes. We should prefer instead the widespread academic usage of "white supremacy" to refer to a system of control—a usage which probably does "express" the historical continuity

1716:

I've changed my mind on this. It is better for my propaganda purposes to be able to point to this entry as yet another example of most controversial topics on Knowledge being hopelessly partisan propagandistic to the point of Knowledge becoming a grotesque parody of itself. Feel free to continue to

1671:

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

1461:

One definition of a word should not be preferred over another. But defining the word "supremacy" in an unique way when every other use in political/ideological context has a different meaning is unjustified (by anything other than ideological extremism) semantic abuse. That a person can possibly be

1416:

The sources cited in the article explain the use of the term. Your argument is based on the etymological fallacy. The roots of the words and how they're used in other contexts, e.g. "air supremacy," are irrelevant. Words have more than one meaning and this article is overloaded with sources that

1215:

and see that they believe it to be more or less a "revolution of values through religion" or "straightening out the White man's thinking" as they put it. So, to sum it up: Rahowa is not going to "occur," it is happening right now in their eyes, and it is not in the sense that some may thing it is,

990:

To group White Nationalist Separatism together under "White Supremacy" is highly misleading. Both terms can even be consider mutually exclusive, if one considers that "White Supremacy" requires the presence of non-Whites that the White group can dominate or be "supreme" to. White Separatism is just

221:

Is there a source for this? Are you being serious that white supremacy is always racist and that black supremacy is noy in fact 'racist' per se? 'Supremacy' implies racial superiority, no matter how YOU feel about it. An standardization in the lead is a must. We will never reach consensus until you

193:

We are never going to reach a consensus as long as you continue making personal attacks and uncivil ranting about how much you think I am a racist. Your only justification for removing the racist link is you want standardization. Standardization is not necessary when the concepts are different, and

5330:"White Supremacy is an historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations, and peoples of color by white peoples and nations of the European continent, for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power, and privilege." 4523:

non-white). Furthermore across reliable sources (we use secondary rather than tertiary), the by far most frequent context it is written about, if not explicitly defined as such, is that of racism. In popular culture, press, literature, etc. that it is racist is absolutely essential to its meaning.

3921:

I dont think I would describe anything as racist in the definition sentence of a wikipedia article. I dont think being racist is part of the definition of white supremacy, racist is a a description of the implications and consequences of white supremacy. It may be justified in the lead, but not in

3365:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Knowledge's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where

2072:

First of all, SA and Zimbabwe are enough to make it factually incorrect. Second, it really needs a source. You stuck it in front of a footnote, making it seem as if the source supports it, which it actually doesn't. If it's true in its qualified form (i.e. excluding SA, Zimbabwe, and, for all I

1544:

First of all, "white supremacy" is a noun phrase, and as such its meaning is not determinable definitively by the words that make it up, just as a "people's republic" is very rarely a "republic." Secondly, your Oxford definition of "supremacy" has "status" on the list, which is the meaning here.

615:

What viewpoint does a definition give? If something is defined as a synnomym for racist, that does not mean it is implying a POV to say it is racist. And although evolution is a scientific fact, some people (creationists) may disagree with that, so technically, is that a POV? Maybe, but that would

555:

Even if it's technically accurate, it carries an implied viewpoint. Per NPOV, we cannot definitively state viewpoints as fact. We don't make the page sympathetic to white supremacists by excluding the word "racist", because a reader would easily figure that out by the words "based on the assertion

218:

I think the white supremacy is generally more associated with racism than black supremacy, as there are no forms of white supremacy (as far as I am aware) which cannot be termed "racist." Most forms of black supremacy are "racsit," but not all forms are. Many things associated with black supremacy

4965:

is defined on Knowledge as "prejudice plus power", among other things. There was some dispute over white supremacism is only the theoretical bit, or whether it also includes practice, thereby perfectly fitting the definition of racism. The content of the page currently seems to support that white

4737:

Is a neutral statement. Knowledge is not for advocating a viewpoint. Most people will be able to work out for themselves that it is racist and the few that don't will not change their view because of a biased lede. Furthermore, a biased lede would be an insult to the intelligence of those who can

4295:

This is like invoking Goodwin's Law on the talk page for Adolf Hitler. Yes, generally you shouldn't call somebody a Nazi... unless they really were a Nazi. Likewise, the guideline you link to above applies only to cases where the usage of the word - "racist" in this case - would be contentious. I

3121:

4. Insulting me by claiming I am a certain age is an extremely immature way to argue a point, especially considering this is on Knowledge. As I have said now twice before, your outgrouping and ad hominems only demonstrate that your argument is a weak one. Rather than resorting to such methods, it

2983:

Putting in "racist" in the first sentence is not "overloading" the first sentence. Putting in "racist" in the first sentence is not "everything notable about the subject" it is THE notable thing about the subject. Putting in "racist" in the first sentence does NOT "bloat" the first sentence. That

1589:

If you don't like the "people's republic" example, try any of a zillion other noun phrases. Is there always a mirror involved when someone's the mirror image of someone else? Are there always cats when there's a cat fight? This is how noun phrases work in English. Anyway, how are you going to

1484:

You consider it a misnomer because of your idiosyncratic theories. Find sources to support your position and I will happily agree to change it. While you're at it, you might find sources to support your assertion that "every other use in a political/ideological context has a different meaning."

1382:

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

721:

Zionism must be included as a white supremacist group. Its founders were white Europeans, its backers were and are white Euopreans, and it claims to represent "God's chosen people" - which can only be viewed as a claim to be the "master race" since no rational person takes any bloodthirsty tracts

4973:

Choice 1, while cleaner-looking, is also poorly worded, because it does not recognize that all of the subheadings on the page explain how white supremacism overlaps with various categories of racism -- scientific racism, structural racism, Nazi racial ideology, apartheid, and Nordicism. The word

1440:

I'm not talking about the "roots" of the words" but the meaning the head of the phrase. You didn't bother looking at the first definition of supreme, "highest in rank or authority". A white person who doesn't believe that white people are superior but holds nonetheless that they should rule over

1235:

Why doesn't this article elaborate upon white-supremacist beliefs and reasoning, like the articles about other belief systems do? It should at least reference, for example, average IQ differences between groups and disparities in historical achievements between races. I believe these and similar

5411:

is a form of racism ", without acknowledging the article title, which was infelicitous at best and rather quite confusing for the reader, who was led to think that there is some mistake, or that there is no difference between "white supremacy" or "white supremacism", since the intro effectively

4184:

Using "racist" to describe white supremacy is unnecessary and redundant. It is already clearly noted many times later in the article that white supremacy is racist, thus there is no reason it needs to be in the lead sentence. As the word is currently used in the lead sentence, "racist" give the

2212:

Note that, in it's annual report, German Verfassungsschutz defines a Neo-Nazi as a person who was sentenced to imprisonment or monetary fine for right wing crimes and misdemeanors (such as negating shoa or inciting ethnical hate). Thus, there are more than 6,000 Neo-Nazis in Germany. The number

5326:

The title of this article is "White supremacy," but the definition immediately changes the word being defined to "white supremacism." This change subverts the meaning of the word. The change to "ism" is defined as a form of racism, which is essentially an *attitude* or *approach* or *bias.* By

647:

PLEASE Remove "Rasist" from the lead. Allow me to quote the current (7 NOV 2008, 11:46 PM) Black Supremacy Lead "Black supremacy is an ideology based on the assertion that black people are superior to other racial groups." Contrast that with "White supremacy is the belief that white people are

3990:

In other words, replace "the racist belief" with "a form of racism centered upon the belief". An alternative phrasing rather than simply keeping or removing the word from its present context. I think this addresses some of the concerns expressed by those who consider this a matter of clarity,

1880:

The problem I have with that is that the phrase "White supremacy" in its common usage is a pejorative. "Whites" make laws and control resourses in 96% White Iceland. Does it follow that "White supremacy" reigns in Iceland? Or Korean supremacy in Korea? A better case might be made that "Jewish

1205:

I removed the text where it states that the World Church of the Creator (now known as "The Creativity Movement") believes in a certain day that a "Racial Holy War" is to kick off. It is clear from their writings that they believe that all races are natural enemies and in a "war" for their own

4220:

When white supremacy is shown to be racist later in the article, it is not for the sole purpose of showing that it is racist. The entire rest of the article focuses on examples of white supremacy, and how the belief has manifested its self in different countries / societies. By showing these

4149:

Another issue is the fact that another usage of "white supremacy" is to describe the social fact of systemic racism and dominance by whites over people of color. Here it does not describe a belief, but a set of social processes, relations and institutions the outcome of which is structural

3892:

The belief is racist to be sure, but there is no reason to introduce this value judgement in the definition. It comes across as not too subtle editorializing similar to the way that skepticist editors prefix "pseudoscientific" to the definitions of all belief systems that doesnt conform to

3299:

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text

1560:

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

4390:. "White supremacism" is "racist". But it would be ever so slightly gratuitous on our part to utilize the first sentence of the lead to both define "White supremacism" and to characterize it as "racist". The second sentence would be fine for characterizing "White supremacism" as "racist". 1784:. However I disagree with the implication that "white supremacy" primarily refers to a belief and only secondarily or academically refers to a system, condition or state of affairs. This distinction lurks within the above discussion and would be confirmed by a use of the OED definition. 1609:

is an authoritative source, then its sole definition of the word (they don't list an alternative definition) should be "supreme" over the dysphemistic, propagandising, semantically (and often factually) incorrect common usage and the first and second sentences in the entry inverted.

1445:

I looked at both definitions. The order in which definitions appear in a dictionary doesn't privilege one over the other. Your arguments are interesting but not germane. Find sources which support your preferred meaning of "supremacy" in this context or leave the lead as it is. —

2894:

It is not necessary to summarize the article by naming one mode of thinking "white supremacy" falls in to. As I have already pointed out, it is noted in detail in the rest of the article how white supremacy is racist, thus there is no need to include the word in the first sentence.

1668:"Supremacy" (and white supremacy as well), according to Oxford dictionary, has only one meaning. Miriam is ambigious about a possible second meaning. In any event, it is an absolute concept. Would you agree on that? Or can something (or a race of people) be "relatively suprmeme"? 1068:

That sounds purposefully misleading. It's lead to violence for all non-white's and Jewish people. There isn't even a reference that proves that it leads to violence for those two races alone. I changed it before and I'll change it again because it takes away from the truth of the

4925:

definition of "racism". Its definition is essentially a general statement that it is the belief that some races are superior to others. It seems pretty evident that White Supremacy is simply that definition but made specific for White people. This seems like a simple one to me.

701:

in this article. The entire "history" section, for example is without citations or verifiable sources. The article should read as encyclopedic, though many statements throughout are subjective. Perhaps it should be sourced or reworked. Or perhaps remove the entire section?

349:

I cited our own article, so there is no OR here. In addition, you defined racial discrimination, which is an active principle. Racism, is passive or active. We are defining 'racism,' the word you are trying to add, not 'racial discrimination.' You are not staying on topic.

5576:: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition." 5101:

This article begins with the words in question followed by "...centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate

4121:

Will you please stop with the goofy analogy? As explained above, it's a false analogy. Whether or not an orange is "non-lethal" is not one of the key characteristics of an orange. The fact that "white supremacy" is "racist" is. Already explained. Now stop it with the

5412:

implied that the terms are exactly synonymous, so exactly, completely and obviously that there isn't even a need to mention the other term. I have now added the article title to the intro and explained that the term can also refer to a form of systemic inequality. --

670:

Everyone on here needs to get a life and just put up the correct information the first time and we wont have these problems. you people get ignorent people all confused with your false "facts" you put up here for fun, it's not funny but annoying. and its not right.

1390:

2. explain in your revert definition how someone who holds that his group is inferior in every way to other groups but thinks that his group nonetheless should rule over others (an opinion with an incoherent rationale, perhaps but not impossible to have) is NOT

5438:. A possible alternative solution would be to add a hatnote and direct the reader looking for the academic meaning to some other article where it is covered (if the material about the academic meaning were to be removed and, if necessary, moved elsewhere). -- 3424:

showing up, trying to "help", especially given the obvious canvassing on outside pages of dubious status. Now, you obviously know how to start an RfC. So I tell you what - you file this RfC under your regular user account and then I might consider taking it

2987:

Yes, white supremacy being racist IS the most important aspect to bring up. And it also IS what "white supremacy" actually means. Now, please, stop being silly. And the rest of us are gonna ignore the obvious trolling. So bye-bye, go back to where you came

1887:

Unsigned above seems to be reaching for a conclusion that is supported by neither the text of this article nor the common use of either term. Simple demographic numbers have nothing to do with the political/philosophical cnoncept known as white supremacy.

1795:

a white supremacist nation—or whether "white supremacy" is merely the aspiration of rogue "white supremacists"—is disputed. That this dispute exists in the United States, at this moment in history, is not a good reason to mis-define the term on Knowledge.

2161:

When typing the term into the wikipedia search box, it gets redirected to the article on David Duke. It seems rather odd, since jews regard themselves as "God's Chosen People". So shouldn't there be a relevant article of this nature on that subject? Just

1649:). Take your time, make your arguments, propose sentences and I'll make counterproposals and we'll figure something out. If we end up not being able to agree there are ways to invite uninvolved and disinterested other people to join the discussion. — 930:

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

2326:

Omitting the word "racist" isn't suggesting that White supremacy isn't racist. I'm somewhat undecided but ultimately I favor omitting the word. I think its inclusion is ultimately gratuitous. The two versions of the first sentence of the lead are as

4557:: It would not, because that wording is incorrect. Racism is used as a description of an action. White supremacy is a belief. I could be for a rewriting of the lead sentence, but not with that wording. And honestly, the lead looks fine in choice 1. 3810:- I think that including the term 'racist' would be unhelpful. It is true that white supremacist are generally racist, however the very concept of 'racism' often boils down to individualistic value judgements which is not needed here at Knowledge. 2219:] (SPD, Social Democratic Party) and Udo Ulfkotte spoke out for euroscepticism and an end of multiculturalism, which, in their eyes, failed in Germany and Europe, and against "islamification" of Germany. In his Book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" ( 1024:

But I understand the word "supremacy" to mean not just superiority, but rather that one group actually dominates another—makes the rules, gives orders, etc. It implies something enforceable. Superiority, on the other hand, merely means being

4106:

describing it exactly how we would want it. How you want it would make it "orange is a round non-lethal type of fruit", which is simply unnecessary. Its true, but such details can be left for the rest of the article, not the leading sentence.

3691:

That right there shows that you only have a surface understanding of what a strawman or false analogy is. What you don't seem to understand is that you can't just spout fallacies. They also have to apply to my argument for it to be credible.

3320:

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as

3198:

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

854:

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

1210:

in 1973 by Ben Klassen. Incidentally, that very day is referred to them as "Rahowa Day" and it is observed as a holiday by them on March 20th. It is also the day in which their first world center was built. Also, one can look at their book

3382:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable

4254:

comments. You already stated in your comment what option you wish for and why, as have I. If you could stop with the persistant last-wording, that would be great. I have already read your comment, thus I know what option you prefer.

4969:

Choice 2 is poorly worded and makes "racist" look like a superfluous insult rather than the reality, which is that racism is a defining category under which white supremacism might be placed. There was not a lot of support for this

3089:

claiming that white supremacy is not racist, we are simply taking issue with the formatting of the lead. Also, it seems like you are just insulting us, not really discussing the issue at hand, and it is detrimental to your case.

3210:

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

1206:

survival and expansion on planet earth, and Rahowa is the White Race's war for survival, expansion and advancement under the Creativity religion which started with the formation of their religion by the publishing of the book

3020:

It is simply astounding how you can ignore every argument (or not understand them at all I guess..) and end the debate with a cry of "trolls!". We should not label a belief before describing what it is. If you look at the

3206:

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

1048:

I wouldn't doubt it if someone (probably without an edit summary) tried to sneak the word "racialism" into this article. This is not synonymous with the word "racism". Can the lead editors of this article beware of this

1521:

If what you call supremacy/supremacism is not misnamed, then kindly point me to the Knowledge entry or other reference for the word that refers to the ideology where one holds that one's group should rule over others.

434:

where consensus was reached to include racist in the lead. I agree that there should be a standardization because contrary to what Yahel states, both are racist ideologies. We should be consistent through our articles.

268:'racism' to the Michael Richards article, while removing the same category from The Black Panthers article has a skewed view and cannot remain neutral. You are far too biased to be editing race-related articles, Yahel. 1875:"white supremacy" is merely the aspiration of rogue "white supremacists"—is disputed. That this dispute exists in the United States, at this moment in history, is not a good reason to mis-define the term on Knowledge." 957:

be "breatharians believe they can get nutrients from the air". In both cases, the breatharians are called out on their bullshit. But in the first case, the breatharians can claim WP is biased and therefore unreliable.

1379:

whether Supreme Court justices think they are "superior" to judges sitting on other courts is irrelevant to the meaning of "Supreme" in the phrase. The word denotes that the Supreme Court rules over the other courts.

1132:

isn't saying white supremacists think themselves superior to other races enough without adding they think they are "culturally, intellectually, and morally" superior? This isn't supposed to be written like a racist

4354:- I would like to point out that, so far, this RFC has been very respectful considering the controversial nature of the topic, congratulations really must go to everyone. Certainly it has been much better than the 3366:

justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

2944:"Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." 2700:"Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." 1775:

The lead as is now written mostly describes "white supremacism", the belief in white superiority, with overtones of political domination as discussed above. I greatly appreciate the action that Carwil has taken in

934:

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

298: 4235:

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. We are NOT listing "all the ways of thinking that the subject fits into". We're just calling a DUCK a duck. This *is* "the most basic information about the subject".

3447:. I do not have a standard user account: I just edit anonymously. I cannot say I take a particular side particularly strongly at all and I am certainly not a member of 8chan or any related messaging boards. 3324:

Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire

811:

But Jews aren't European~ They might be described as white, but if Jews are white, then so are Arabs - who are also Semites. Of course traditionally Arabs regarded themselves as whites, especially in north

3550:

It is concise and not overloaded. One (uno! 1! 2-1!) single word will not make it "not concise" or "overload it". Please be serious. Your strawman about "liberalism" has been already addressed and debunked

2858:

Way to go, not even responding to his arguments and stopping all discussion claiming its "trolls". No one is even edit warring, we are discussing our views on the talk page and trying to reach consensus.

1386:

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

888:

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

3443:

Sorry for any confusion. This is my current IP address (which changes over time, as do many home IP addresses), not a single purpose account. I came across the matter because of a post made at ArbCom

1605:

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

1425:"supreme" as (def 2) "highest in degree or quality". That's obviously what's being referred to here. Find a source that supports what you say, because your theorizing about it is worthless here. — 1633:

Something that resembles the image produced by a mirror, in having left and right interchanged or its constituent parts arranged in reverse order but being otherwise identical. Also in extended use.

4250:

races, or the same for culture. If you take a look at the other comments on this page, you may notice that no one arguing for the omission of the word is putting up this stubborn of an argument on

2009:

Couple of problems. Definition in first sentence is unsourced and seems too much of a generalization given the various strands in existence. Secondly, I don't believe it is appropriate to redirect

5257:

until 1967", which already has a link, although not to that specific page - is the request to make it more specific? If so, how about making the preceding link more specific as well, as in "Many

1462:

of the opinion White people should rule over other races and at the same time be the opposite of a "White Supremacist" should give one pause to wonder if we're not dealing with a misnomer here.

3111:

2. I have no problem with a cuss word in a comment. It's when they appear on Knowledge, a place that is supposed to be at least somewhat formal, that they indicate a certain lever of immaturity.

2073:

know, any number of other former colonies) you really need a source which says so explicitly. I'm going to copy this to the article talk page because that's a better place for the discussion.—

4467:

That is a very interesting theory. I dont personally see how that would be even theoretically possible. And it is also irrelevant since all sources about White Supremacy describes it as racist.

2364:

I think the time to comment on the subject of the article is not in the first sentence. The first sentence should be spare. It should define the essence of the subject, not pass comment on it.

1262:

White supremacists are still in effect today. Facts, but especially recent pictures portraying white supremacists, their views, and their actions could be very enlightening for this article. --

991:

requiring a society and social order that would be exclusively for Whites, something like a White state were non-Whites would only have access as guests meeting the requirements of the host. --

828:

A racist ideology would not allow white skinned folks to breed with different folk, I will agree that Zionism is pro-Jew however it is pro-Jew regardless if the Jew is white, arab or black..

3499:

Thank you for participating. Please may you summarise your arguments here? A closer will have to look through this and it will be helpful to keep the reasons together and nicely structured.

1852:

and other words which academics have borrowed from ordinary usage in order to impart a specialized meaning. Contemporary academic use of the term "white supremacy" is distinct because it

2619:

and totally worthless belief, or promotion of the belief, .. etc" but it would not make the intro more descriptive, it would just make it bloated and seem very nonobjective. It would be

2213:

26,000 vaguely corresponds to the members of far-right political parties, like NPD and DVU. The ideas of white supremacy are much more widespread in German society, e.g. in some of the

4819: 4815: 4800:

is clear. So the result is either going to be the status quo(option 2) or the compromise option 3. We cannot ignore reliable sources and the body of the article within the lede.

3085:"this article is about a particular kind of a belief" exactly, and we should describe it before we classify it as racist belief. What you don't seem to understand it that we are 3659:

Both "round" and "non-lethal" perfectly describes an orange, and they are verifiably true. And just throwing in the word "strawman" will not win you an argument automatically.

648:

superior to other racial groups. The term is sometimes used specifically to describe a racist political ideology that advocates the social and political dominance of whites."

3788:

clearly states that the opening sentence should be concise and not overloaded. It is not unreasonable to want a description of the subject before it is categorized as racist.

4904:

That white supremacy is racist is self-evident and is, therefore, redundant. Option 3 seems to be the clearest and most direct definition, so I would prefer that definition.

971:

Anachronism suggests either that white supremacy was once right but is now wrong, or that it is no longer a term in use. The only anachronism is the use of that term at all.

1564:

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

2761: 5107:

So this article's first sentence describes both prejudice (the belief that non-whites are inferior) and discrimination (that whites should dominate in politics, etc.). —

3345:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

1823:

It is true that as we approach the present day, the term becomes more and more blurred with "white supremacism". ( But I would suggest that just because the mass media

1567:

If you leave the entry as it is, you imply that the information contained in the Oxford definition's second clause is not essential to supremacism when it clearly is.

535:

White supremacy, by definition, according to the source is racist. I don't see how it is POV to say so, nor do I see how it "implies" any viewpoint that isn't correct.

5528: 750:

I agree. Also the sentence: "White supremacy has often resulted in anti-black racism and antisemitism." seems completely biased. To start with, Jewish is not a race.

2231:) protested against the construction of mosques and multicultural social centers, and chapters of Ku Klux Klan were founded. Their members were police officers (see: 2013:

to this article (as it currently does) given that many of these groups that promote so-called "white power" are not necessarily promoting white supremacy, but rather

2708:

if you think we have to clarify what kind of belief it is in the lead. It is better to describe WHAT that belief is and then write how it is denoted in the article.

4974:"racism" appears quite often on the page and this should be reflected all the way up to the first sentence of the lede, which functions as a lede within the lede. 4319:

with calling them racist. I take issue with the formulation of the lead sentence. What I am saying is: Don't throw in racist before we even have a description of

3002:

How exactly is something being racist the most important aspect to bring up? Why is it such a big deal whether or not something fits into the definition of being

2401:; no such thing is mentioned in the article. We don't write about what could be. Again, the term is 100% warranted and is an accurate reflection of the article. 1485:

Have you actually checked all of them, did you read that somewhere, or are you just asserting it because it makes sense to you so you figure it must be true? —

1804: 1665:

meaning of 'image', "Fascism..is a sort of reversed image..of a plausible travesty of Socialism". Or a yet better example, "you are the image of your father".

5657:

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

5266: 5226: 5161:, in his/her close, suggested that whether racism is more/less accurate than "racial prejudice" would be a good topic for discussion. I say stick to racism. 1799:

Although the Google News archive does not go way way back, it does provide a clear indication of how the term has been used after approximately WW2. Look at

583:

Now there is a new theory. From what I have seen so far, I doubt it. It has been disputed whether that means racism by some, so it is not obvious from that.

1948:

as per comments in previous section. And in the longer run: create another article about "white supremacy" as an institution or characteristic of society.

4009:

I think maybe that is the best. Provided we have sources that describes it as a form of racism rather than a belief. This shouldnt be too hard to come by.

4986:

article. I close this RfC by leaning for the general wording suggested by Choice 3, and suggest a bit of follow-up discussion over specific terminology.

4507:

My own problem with the option #2 formulation is that "racist" there is just bad writing. It's adjectival form looks unnecessary and indeed reads like a

4204:

It is already clearly noted many times later in the article that white supremacy is racist, thus there is no reason it needs to be in the lead sentence.

5519:

regardless of population had the effect of increasing the power of white supremacists, who were mostly from sparsely-populated states. According to the

3991:

definition, and/or good writing (though it certainly won't be an improvement for anyone who wishes to argue for some non-racist white supremacism). --—

2112:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.

5262: 1787:"White supremacy" is the state of affairs in societies where white people disproportionately control resources and make laws. It is not disputed that 4594:

it's about beliefs as well (being the cause of the actions). So again, according to that definition, the choice #3 should assuage your concerns. --—

1310:

Doesn't really matter much, since its an incorrect description of the apartheid ideology which was in no way based on a principle of racial equality.

4621:. Definitely oppose choice 1. The body of the article has instance after instance of reliable sources describing White supremism as 'racist', it is 903:

I have to agree. No matter how repugnant I find the subject of the article to be, putting the word "anachronistic" in the lead obviously violates

5547: 4701:

Yes, the lead definitely has to mention the racist assumptions and implications of white supremacy, but it need not be in the definition sentence.

1807:, from 1965, concerns the legal regime of white-dominated Rhodesia. And many more results from that era use the term in this way. Also check out 4797: 4666: 4586:

and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices

1029:. "White superiority" would mean white people are better than other people; "white supremacy" should mean white people give orders to others. 1900:

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

2623:

if we didn't mention racism AT ALL in the article, but what we are arguing for is that racist in the intro is both unnecessary and bloating.

889: 829: 307: 1836:", for example seems to be a neo-logism used by detractors to emphasize certain elements of Southern culture. Or, in an unrelated example, " 3850: 3448: 3405: 3275: 3216: 3153: 2273: 2250: 2163: 1724: 1683: 1616: 1574: 1529: 1469: 1407: 1330: 1295: 1243: 733: 1515:

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

952:

Good thing I checked the talk page before just removing that word; it obviously has nothing do to here, it's completely POV. Furthermore,

5668: 5335: 4978:"White supremacy is a form of racial prejudice which holds that..." is an entirely accurate lede. "White supremacy is a form of racism" 1512:

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

1217: 1070: 992: 958: 939: 869:

Please can you provide a reference for such a consensus view? Alternatively, should the word "anachronistic" be added to pages such as

800: 678: 5538:. The outbreak of the Civil War saw the desire to uphold white supremacy cited as a cause for state secession and the formation of the 4511:. ...But that it is a "form of racism" rather than "the racist belief" fits perfectly with the consensus among reliable sources (it is 2090:

to a specific page of a specific book which does not say anything about what you are asserting. Don't you see the problem with that?—

4415:" rather than "the racist belief" (removing the adjective/label and instead explaining it as, well, a particular kind of racism)? --— 5084:

begins: "Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

4656: 4372: 3874: 3824: 3274:

Collate relevant policies below for ease of reference. To avoid creating any kind of bias, please place these in alphabetical order.

5594: 1092:

has said that they rank low in ethnocentrism. I think it is not the result of chauvinism, but rather based on objective analysis.

766: 655: 2397:

An account that hasn't edited since 6 months ago suddenly revives to edit this page only... call me suspicious. Also your logic is

581:

a reader would easily figure that out by the words "based on the assertion that white people are superior to other racial groups."

579:) But unlike those issues, this article tells facts. It is not an opinion that white supremacy is a racist ideology, it is a fact. 3104:

1. When I used the term "butthurt SJWs," I was making note of who the article sounded like it was written by, not saying that you

318:

origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of

5371:

That meaning is covered in the article as well. I know that "White supremacy" has different meaning in academic circles, but the

1361: 1357: 1016:

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

572: 2285:

Even after the page has been protected, there continues vandalism of the lead removing the word "racist". The word is there per

5098:

begins: "Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice."

4844:

To clarify, though, those Storm Front threads are many years old while the 8chan links relate to this thread specifically. --—

4528:

central (or "essential") to the definition of white supremacism seems to be explained only by statements such as your own that

3677:, then yes, it does. If you're having trouble understanding the difference, then there's not much that can be done to help you. 1167:

as a rationale for adding unsourced content. Writing things off-the-cuff because they are deemed common knowledge by some, is

245:" So what?. That does not mean it is racist. And standardization is not necessary, unless two topics are the same or similar. 5574:

The "Cornerstone Speech", Alexander H. Stephens (Vice President of the Confederate States), March 21, 1861, Savannah, Georgia

4796:

It's impossible to implement 'option 1', despite the number of !votes it receives. It's a violation of Knowledge guidelines.

2119: 2095: 2078: 2061: 2042: 1760: 1744: 1707: 1654: 1595: 1550: 1490: 1451: 1430: 507: 86: 81: 76: 64: 59: 3251:

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

3118:, however, think "racist" should be in the first sentence of the article, because it is redundant, emotive, and unnecessary. 2405:

single section mentions racism. The effort to remove it under a guise of NPOV are disingenuous (and that's being generous).

3193:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1236:

facts form the foundation for this line of thinking, and excluding them constitutes a severe anti-white-supremacist bias.

5539: 4945:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4653: 4361: 3871: 3813: 3484: 2203:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

780:

Just because Jewish isn't a race doesn't mean that white supremacy doesn't lead to antisemitism. Anyway, according to the

5664:

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

5504: 1788: 2380: 2358: 2339: 5006:

Thank you for closing that RfC and explaining your decision so thoroughly. I have edited the lead per your closure.

3988:"White supremacism is a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people...". 2984:

idea is ridiculous - a single, relevant word, composed of seven letters "bloats the lead". Gimme. A. Fucking. Break.

5443: 5417: 4387: 1054: 38: 1281:

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

5234: 4890: 4519:

therefore an "opinion". It is, after all, implicit in (white in this case) + (which necessarily means superior

4301: 4260: 4240: 4226: 4211: 4190: 4168: 4131: 4093: 4071: 3912: 3682: 3556: 3430: 3127: 3076: 3011: 2993: 2974: 2900: 2849: 2803: 2734: 2465: 2241: 2115: 2091: 2074: 2057: 2038: 1756: 1740: 1703: 1650: 1591: 1546: 1486: 1447: 1426: 1358:

Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?

893: 833: 5091:

begins: "Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case."

4206:- no, that is *exactly* why it should be in the lede, because the job of the lede is to *summarize* the article. 3727:- Per everything I said already. To recap: (1) Literally every paragraph references racism, (2) to remove it is 1509:

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

5512: 4274: 4123: 3970: 3949: 3854: 3452: 3409: 3279: 3220: 3157: 2884: 2277: 2167: 1932: 1728: 1702:

So why don't you propose a sentence that's consistent with the style of other leads and we'll talk about it. —

1687: 1620: 1578: 1533: 1473: 1403: 1334: 1299: 1247: 500: 4710:

Yes, it should not be in the first sentence of the lead, but it should be in the second sentence of the lead.

2254: 737: 5672: 5339: 2527:

They were utterly unconvincing. You offer mental gymnastics. I offer guidelines and Knowledge policy (namely

1191: 996: 962: 682: 5254: 5200: 4770: 1422: 1221: 1074: 1034: 943: 796: 443: 5407:

That does not, however, change the problem that the article was titled "White supremacy" but started with "

5360: 4676:, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published 1284:

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

306:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on

5535: 5392: 5142: 5061: 5023: 4931: 4871: 4445:

But if there was an opinion in some quarters, or all quarters, that White supremacism was not racist, the

4042: 3760: 3644: 3586: 3311: 2829: 2781: 2679: 2592: 2548: 2498: 2422: 2310: 2189: 407: 358: 276: 230: 181: 1995:

which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —

1399: 5573: 5439: 5413: 4909: 2921: 1953: 1861: 1832:

continuity with historical usage. Academics investing a definition for shock value would be one thing. "

1417:

use the word in the way it's used here. Furthermore, you're wrong about the meaning of the word, which

1050: 916: 792: 762: 659: 625: 592: 544: 384: 337: 322:

and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

265:

members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups

252: 201: 148: 3033:

It is redundant, bloating and seemingly biased styling that makes it look like a child had written it.

4449:

definition of White supremacism would remain the same. That "essential" definition is our "Choice 1".

3627:

Same thing. Non-lethality is not a defining characteristic of it. I'm done with these silly strawmen.

3609:

Both are true and verifiable, yet it is redundant. Such details should be in the rest of the article,

954:

this is the kind of bias that will drive some users away from Knowledge and turn towards Conservapedia

343: 187: 5427: 5372: 5250: 5231: 4886: 4297: 4256: 4236: 4222: 4207: 4186: 4164: 4127: 4089: 4067: 3908: 3678: 3552: 3472: 3426: 3123: 3072: 3007: 2989: 2970: 2896: 2845: 2799: 2730: 2615: 2564: 2461: 2246: 1992: 1966: 1811:

focused on South Africa, where white supremacy was more recently an explicit legal arrangement. Even

1720: 1679: 1612: 1570: 1525: 1465: 1395: 1291: 1239: 839: 788: 754: 729: 707: 703: 674: 651: 431: 47: 17: 5523:

decision, African Americans were not citizens even if born in the U.S.; this was remedied after the

4682:

If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy

3569:

does it say that it's "freedom loving". Literally every paragraph of this article says it's racist.

1329:

I'm adding Russia, Afghanistan and Iran to article lead as they have more whites than South Africa.

5661:

slavic peoples. They were one of the lowest, even thought they are European and look like whites.

5640: 5311: 5277: 5167: 5109: 4846: 4596: 4554: 4538: 4477: 4439: 4417: 3993: 3966: 3945: 3235: 2880: 1928: 1646: 866:

reinstated it on the basis that it was the "consensus view" that anachronistic should be in there.

216:

Really. Show me the source that backs up your wonderful neutrality as displayed with this comment:

1904:

Sorry, I thought you were Groupuscle. Can you sign your posts, please? This is getting confusing.

5630: 5611: 5524: 4763: 4756: 4715: 4485: 4454: 4395: 3336: 2746: 2369: 2177: 2151: 1974: 1180: 1138: 1089: 1030: 449: 2925: 1561:

ideologically tone-deaf to its intended meaning -- the same as most who use "white supremacy".

104: 4739: 4316:"The nazi Adolf hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party" 5591: 5542:. However, though slavery was prohibited everywhere by 1865, whites continued dominant in the 5500: 5469: 5376: 5126: 5045: 5007: 4927: 4867: 4786: 4562: 4332: 4286: 4112: 4026: 3793: 3779: 3744: 3697: 3664: 3628: 3618: 3570: 3541: 3480: 3095: 3038: 2955: 2864: 2813: 2765: 2738: 2726: 2713: 2663: 2628: 2576: 2532: 2518: 2482: 2406: 2388: 2294: 2185: 698: 400: 351: 269: 223: 174: 138: 124: 4755:

The fact it's a racist belief is self-evident. We don't need to shove it down their throats.

2914:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects

1383:

over the enemy" (we dominated their airspace.) I ask that anyone reverting do the following:

5477: 5296: 4905: 4702: 4533: 4468: 4151: 4010: 3923: 3894: 3356: 2361:

and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites.

2342:

and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially dominate non-whites.

2107: 2014: 1949: 1857: 1315: 1153: 1118: 1097: 912: 870: 758: 617: 584: 536: 379: 332: 247: 196: 143: 5562:

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

4275:

Knowledge:Words to avoid#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint

3739:

says it should be there as it describes the subject to a novice reader accurately, and (5)

501:

Knowledge:Words to avoid#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint

5465: 5453: 5204: 4648: 4626: 4508: 3785: 3736: 3728: 3533: 3373: 3289: 2939: 2929: 2917: 2695: 2659: 2620: 2572: 2022: 1833: 1267: 976: 874: 817: 5561: 5534:

The Civil War was fought over the question of white supremacy, and black slavery, in the

5635: 5508: 5304: 5303:. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- 5270: 5095: 4990: 4835: 4805: 4743: 4692: 4651:

to not have the term 'racist' in the lede? Because your logic does not make any sense.

4634: 3941: 3740: 3732: 3601:

Okay, you do not seem to understand analogies. Lets take a simpler example from below.

3352: 3332: 3307: 3178: 2910: 2705: 2655: 2651: 2643: 2478: 2286: 1905: 1889: 1837: 1642: 908: 904: 295: 119:

organizations and activists to the public. This entry needs a NPOV tag and a cleanup.--

5676: 5646: 5615: 5481: 5447: 5421: 5402: 5343: 5315: 5281: 5174: 5152: 5116: 5071: 5033: 4993: 4935: 4913: 4894: 4875: 4853: 4839: 4809: 4791: 4777: 4747: 4719: 4705: 4696: 4660: 4638: 4603: 4566: 4545: 4489: 4471: 4458: 4424: 4399: 4378: 4336: 4305: 4290: 4264: 4244: 4230: 4215: 4194: 4172: 4154: 4135: 4116: 4097: 4075: 4052: 4013: 4000: 3974: 3953: 3926: 3916: 3897: 3878: 3858: 3830: 3797: 3770: 3701: 3686: 3668: 3654: 3622: 3596: 3560: 3545: 3488: 3456: 3434: 3413: 3283: 3242: 3224: 3181: 3161: 3131: 3099: 3080: 3042: 3015: 2997: 2978: 2959: 2933: 2904: 2888: 2868: 2853: 2839: 2807: 2791: 2750: 2717: 2689: 2632: 2602: 2558: 2522: 2508: 2469: 2432: 2392: 2373: 2320: 2281: 2258: 2193: 2171: 2123: 2099: 2082: 2046: 2026: 1999: 1978: 1957: 1936: 1908: 1892: 1865: 1764: 1748: 1732: 1711: 1691: 1658: 1624: 1599: 1582: 1554: 1537: 1494: 1477: 1455: 1434: 1418: 1368: 1338: 1318: 1303: 1271: 1251: 1225: 1194: 1179:

right?), so it's perhaps the single weakest argument for not citing reliable sources.

1157: 1142: 1122: 1101: 1078: 1058: 1038: 1000: 980: 966: 947: 920: 897: 843: 821: 804: 770: 741: 711: 686: 663: 631: 610: 598: 562: 550: 527: 455: 413: 390: 364: 282: 258: 236: 207: 154: 128: 5626: 5622: 5607: 5543: 4711: 4673: 4622: 4481: 4450: 4406: 4391: 3674: 3421: 2742: 2528: 2460:

is redundant, emotive, and unnecessary, and should thus be omitted from the article.

2365: 1996: 1970: 1134: 437: 2447:"EvergreenFir is an article-editing Knowledge editor. She edits Knowledge articles." 1812: 5300: 4982:

also be entirely accurate, depending on how we interpret both this article and the

4677: 4573: 4558: 4328: 4311: 4282: 4108: 4019: 3789: 3693: 3660: 3614: 3537: 3476: 3091: 3034: 2951: 2860: 2709: 2624: 2514: 2398: 2384: 2354: 2335: 2232: 2181: 1840:" seems to be an academic term used to marginalize non-canon literature. Also see: 606: 558: 523: 319: 120: 116: 1216:

at least not to them, as they have no genocidal plans set, or anything like that.

164:

Yahel Guhan insists on placing 'racist' in the lead of this article. Incidentally

3849:

Note: I have moved this here from the top of the discussion (before the survey).

2111: 5516: 5473: 5461: 5397: 5147: 5066: 5028: 4047: 3765: 3649: 3591: 2916:. So yes it belongs in the lead as white supremacy is the definition of racism. 2834: 2786: 2684: 2597: 2553: 2503: 2427: 2315: 2010: 1924: 1311: 1172: 1149: 1114: 1093: 396: 263:

Black supremacy and white supremacy are similar. If Knowledge defines racism as

170: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3122:

would be better if you gave legitimate refutations of your opposing arguments.

5520: 5515:(though the slaves could not vote), and even the fact that each state has two 5457: 5258: 5246: 4959:

so key to understanding the phrase "white supremacism" as employed in sources.

4411:

Would it not address these concerns to instead say that "white supremacism is

3566: 3518: 3022: 2289:. Nowhere in the entire article is it remotely suggested that White supremacy 2018: 1781: 1263: 972: 813: 480:

UN International Convention on the Elimination of All of Racial Discrimination

4296:

really really really hope that is not the case here. Hence, it doesn't apply.

2242:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/german-police-killings-far-right

5452:

It seems like the current article is conflating two different concepts: (1)

5158: 5088: 5001: 4987: 4831: 4827: 4823: 4801: 4688: 4630: 3175: 1845: 1817: 576: 503:, we should avoid words like "racist" even if they are technically accurate. 315: 108: 100: 3743:

is not a concern as the statement is repeatedly sourced... over and over.

3215:

The first choice omits the description of racist; the second includes it.

517:

alarm towards neutrality - you don't make something less POV by citing it.

5044:

Opening this section to discuss any issues with the wording in Option 3.

1672:

the way Knowledge usually deals with defining any non-propaganda term.

1365: 141:, you reverted my edit which included sourcing all of your claims of OR. 112: 5361:

http://soaw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=482

5225:

Please link "anti-miscegenation laws" in the section "United States" to

3907:"White Supremacy" as "racist", what exactly can you describe as racist? 3420:

You know what, the last thing we need here, is a bunch of newly created

4922: 2513:

It doesn't sound like you've listen to the arguments presented at all.

2293:

racist. It is well sourced over and over that it is a racist ideology.

2235:) as well as Beate Zschäpe, member of far-right terrorist organization 1064:

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

479: 311: 5299:

have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to

4814:

Also, this has had some off-site coordination from Neo-Nazis at 8chan(

5081: 4983: 4962: 4579: 4476:

Many sources fail to mention racism in their first sentence. Here is

2350: 1849: 1631:

See, you're wrong about "mirror image." Even your precious OED says

882: 878: 2017:. I don't believe it is NPOV to conflate supremacy with separatism. 5163:(Some nice out of context soundbites here if we were in public :) ) 5077:

I disagree that "racial prejudice" is more accurate than "racism."

3536:, we should keep the opening sentence concise and not overload it. 2455:"EvergreenFir is a Knowledge editor. She edits Knowledge articles." 2443:

sounds better in terms of how efficiently information is conveyed?

2178:

Talk pages are solely for discussing the improvement of the article

1641:

Most importantly for our present purposes, the lead paragraph (see

1501: 299:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

4881:

was a thread on Reddit or Tumblr asking for help keeping the word

3869:- Change my vote to the new option per reasoning below by others. 1841: 5157:

Right, but it's my understanding this sub-section exists because

4785:

The description shows its racist, adding the word is not needed.

3965:

is even better- still a good summary, much more clearly written.

1820:

regime and the culture of racial oppression that accompanied it.

1791:

reflected a period of white supremacy. Whether the United States

571:" Since when? I see editors do it all the time. (See for example 5245:

The sentence that I presume you refer to currently begins "Many

4088:

suggested by Rhodododo-dendrites. Actually, I think I prefer it.

2214: 1771:

White Supremacy involves but is not limited to White Supremacism

2272:

Consequent to this, I have begun a request for comments below.

395:

Either find consensus to add 'racism' to the lead, or refrain.

5188: 4680:. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. 2946:. It just bloats the first sentence. Also, we should describe 1088:

I dispute that "White supremacy" is rooted in ethnocentrism.

781: 330:

Nothing about supremacy here. That is your original research.

25: 1755:

I changed my mind too. You're right. I changed the lead. —

3527:"Liberalism is a freedom-loving political philosophy ...etc" 3031:"Liberalism is a freedom-loving political philosophy ...etc" 3152:

I have begun a request for comments below to address this.

2638:

It's neither and ridiculous to suggest it is. When you say

604:

POV cesspit, and evolution is a scientific accepted fact.

569:

Per NPOV, we cannot definitively state viewpoints as fact.

4578:

That's not what racism means according to our article on

3267:

Relevant policies collected and linked here for reference

2180:. That said, there is no such page because there are no 495:

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

99:'White supremacy' is often used as a pejorative label by 5625:, and thank you taking these issue to the talk page per 3529:

It is redundant, bloating and looks like biased styling.

3202:

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

784:

article it is an ethnicity, nationality, and religion.

556:

that white people are superior to other racial groups."

294:

The sourced definition in the article; according to the

5590:. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. p. 162. 4590:" (emphasis mine). Racism can describe actions, but of 3444: 2053: 1777: 1111: 863: 859: 173:

and how it does not represent each race with equality.

165: 4954:

The arguments that struck me the most are as follows:

3513:

We should not label a belief before we have described

3233:: a Choice 3 was added below after the RfC began: --— 2110:

before you put it back in, please. As it says there,

1923:

indicates an ideology. The parent article is also at "

1780:

on academic coverage and bringing in the much-beloved

4530:"In theory there can be non-racist White supremacism" 2662:

as it describes the topic of the article succinctly.

2571:, this information cannot be taken for granted. See 2144:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1374:

Edited to reflect accurate definition of "supremacy"

4966:

supremacism is chiefly theoretical and ideological.

1506:Or Oxford dictionary Definition of supremacy noun 5492:Deleted paragraphs on White Supremacy in the U.S. 1277:Apartheid not based on White Supremicist beliefs? 5496:The following was deleted today as "unsourced": 5464:. Perhaps the first would be best discussed at 5040:Subsequent discussion on closure and new wording 2334:is the belief, or promotion of the belief, that 2969:analogy if you have not already (it is above). 885:, in fact, any page concerning discrimination? 4515:, as you say). That it is a form of racism is 4163:I believe the "Choice 3" above addresses that. 3523:"Liberalism is a political philosophy ... etc" 3114:3. I do think white supremacy is racist. I do 3027:"Liberalism is a political philosophy ... etc" 5434:(terms to use as article titles), not common 2147:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 5667:So the part about nazism should not be here. 5227:Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States 3607:"Orange is a round non-lethal type of fruit" 3167:Request for comments: first sentence of lead 2130:Why is there no article on jewish supremacy? 4665:Well actually, it makes perfect sense, per 2950:the belief actually is before denoting it. 2481:. Literally every section mentions racism. 1421:as meaning "a state of being supreme," and 877:? Should it also be added to the pages on 5507:was legal for 20 years; slaves counted as 3262: 1991:There is a move discussion in progress on 2646:. The inclusion of this word is actually 2353:belief, or promotion of the belief, that 862:. It was subsequently removed; however, 513:Finally, "X is a POV-word" is normally a 510:, we attribute opinions, not assert them. 377:" is OR. Still, this method is WP:SYNTH. 5295:The page's protection level and/or your 5185:Protected edit request on 3 January 2015 4582:, which begins "Racism consists of both 2965:that of other races. And again, read my 1856:the term's historical and global usage. 1502:http://en.wikipedia.org/Supremacy_clause 5554: 5353: 3265: 616:not warrent any change in the article. 472: 4629:for us to not include it in the lede. 4529: 4512: 2913: 2639: 2568: 1816:actions in an attempt to maintain the 726:and the gravest threat to the world. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4355: 3984:Choice 3 (an alternative formulation) 2737:) 05:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) What 1362:Southern Poverty Law Center talk page 7: 5499:White supremacy is enshrined in the 5322:White supremacy vs White supremacism 4617:, second option would be compromise 3673:When it is an obvious strawman or a 3517:that belief is. If you look at the 3189:The following discussion is closed. 2694:It is actually EXPLICITLY stated in 2531:; it would be UNDUE to exclude it). 2138:The following discussion is closed. 1963:Rename to "White Supremacy Movement" 1364:. Your participation is welcomed. – 697:There appears to be a great deal of 430:IIRC, there is a long discussion on 399:at this point, is too questionable. 243:Supremacy implies racial superiority 5546:, though with an interruption, the 2642:I think you are trying to refer to 115:organizations to misconstrue white 5375:is primarily what's covered here. 2967:EvergreenFir is a Knowledge editor 911:if no objections are raised here. 858:This word has been in there since 222:treat all race articles the same. 24: 2032:Query regarding comment deletion. 986:Misleading amalgamation of terms. 567:Implied viewpoint? It does not. " 5287: 5192: 4941:The discussion above is closed. 4588:or beliefs, or political systems 4018: 2844:Thanks. I thought of it myself. 2812:I just got your username. Cute. 2756:Oh hai dar! 2k monies and fgsfds 2357:are superior to people of other 2338:are superior to people of other 2199:The discussion above is closed. 2037:Copied here from my talk page.— 1348: 1213:Rahowa! This Planet is All Ours! 573:Israel and the apartheid analogy 301:, of the racism article reads: 194:sources say they are different. 29: 3029:with your logic that should be 2920:. You are not helping yourself 2068:S.A)), white Supremacy exists? 1967:Black Supremacy move discussion 5430:is, predictably, about common 2237:National Socialist Underground 1369:17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC) 1010:This article now begins thus: 508:Knowledge:A simple formulation 219:are not in fact racist per se. 1: 5540:Confederate States of America 5448:13:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 5422:13:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 5121:Agree. And current lead uses 4400:12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4379:04:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4337:15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4306:06:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4291:04:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4265:15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4245:06:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4231:04:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4216:04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4195:04:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4173:06:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4155:03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4136:19:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4117:03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4098:03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4076:03:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4053:03:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4014:03:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 4001:03:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3975:04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3954:03:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3927:03:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3917:03:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3898:02:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3859:03:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3831:02:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3798:02:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3771:02:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3702:15:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3687:06:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3669:04:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3655:04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3623:04:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3597:02:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3561:03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3546:02:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3489:02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3457:02:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3435:01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3414:01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3284:02:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3243:19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3225:01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3162:02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3132:03:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3100:02:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3081:01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3043:01:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 3016:00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 2998:23:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2979:21:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2960:19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2934:19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2905:17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2889:09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2869:06:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2854:06:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2840:06:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2808:06:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2792:06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2751:07:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2718:06:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2690:06:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2633:05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2603:05:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2559:05:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2523:05:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2509:05:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2470:05:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2433:05:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2393:04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2374:04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2321:03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2282:02:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 1319:20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 1304:20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 1252:00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 1113:How is this a peacock term? 1079:21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1059:17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 1039:02:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 844:00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 159: 5586:Fredrickson, George (1981). 5511:in determining seats in the 5403:04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) 5344:04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) 5240:17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC). 5175:07:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 5153:04:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 5117:00:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 5072:23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 5034:23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 4994:11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 4936:23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC) 4914:22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC) 4895:18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 4876:05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) 4854:17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 4840:16:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 4810:15:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 4792:14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 4738:work it out for themselves. 3525:with that logic it would be 3182:11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 2698:that, as I mentioned above: 2233:Ku_klux_klan#Other_countries 2221:Germany is abolishing itself 2124:20:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 2100:20:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 2083:20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 2047:20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 1789:Slavery in the United States 1272:15:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 1006:supremacy versus superiority 742:23:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 664:05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 5677:20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 5334:supplied in this comment. 5316:23:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 5282:21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 5219:to reactivate your request. 5207:has been answered. Set the 4778:14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 4748:16:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4720:02:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4706:02:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4703:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 4697:01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4672:According to the policy on 4661:01:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4639:23:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 4604:21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 4567:21:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 4546:20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4490:20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4472:19:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4469:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 4459:19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 4425:22:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 4152:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 4011:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 3924:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 3895:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 3879:18:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 3468:as per my arguments above 2879:talk page or here. Cheers! 2027:15:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 1987:Move discussion in progress 1148:I could even cite Hitler. 687:19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 5692: 5653:White supremacy and nazism 3521:article's first sentence: 1965:as per my comments on the 1555:22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1538:21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1495:18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1478:17:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1456:17:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1435:14:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 981:09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 822:09:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 456:11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 414:08:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 391:06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 365:05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 344:05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 283:05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 259:05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 237:05:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 208:04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 188:04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 155:03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 5482:19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 4923:Oxford English Dictionary 4314:page does not start with 3944:), as it does so nicely. 3401:Weak support for choice 1 3025:articles first sentence: 2704:You are misunderstanding 2194:01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 2172:20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC) 2000:04:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 1979:02:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 1958:19:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 1937:02:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 1909:09:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1893:08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 1866:03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 1339:20:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 1208:Nature's Eternal Religion 1195:21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 1171:and violates Knowledge's 805:23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 771:18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 632:06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 611:20:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 599:04:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 563:10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 551:07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 528:22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 129:14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 5647:20:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 5616:17:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 5513:House of Representatives 4943:Please do not modify it. 4647:How exactly would it be 4524:The view that racism is 4102:But "Orange is a fruit" 3893:positivistic scientism. 3191:Please do not modify it. 2201:Please do not modify it. 2141:Please do not modify it. 1813:this very recent article 1676:covering such beliefs. 1226:02:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 1158:12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 1143:18:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 1123:14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 1102:14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 1001:10:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 967:11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 948:21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 921:13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 898:13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 712:02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 482:, NEW YORK 7 March 1966 5267:anti-miscegenation laws 5255:anti-miscegenation laws 3422:single purpose accounts 3174:Decision posted below. 2563:Also not redundant per 2259:02:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) 1765:14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 1749:13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 1733:11:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 1712:15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1692:15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1659:13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1625:09:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1600:07:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1583:07:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1419:Merriam Webster defines 1360:has been posted at the 1173:policy on verifiability 1163:It is erroneous to use 5301:edit the page yourself 4686: 3613:in the lead sentence. 2741:said. Not much to add. 2729:said. Not much to add. 2184:that claim it exists. 1739:OK, carry on, then! — 328: 5548:Reconstruction period 4670: 4386:. We are not here to 3565:Strawman. Nowhere in 3510:Summary of arguments: 2760:The recent edits are 2652:that Knowledge policy 2644:neutral point of view 2106:Also, take a look at 1165:"it is so well-known" 303: 42:of past discussions. 5468:, and the latter at 5263:interracial marriage 5251:interracial marriage 4615:Support for choice 2 4384:Support for choice 1 3466:Support for choice 1 3404:is rather standard. 2569:nonspecialist reader 2116:alf laylah wa laylah 2092:alf laylah wa laylah 2075:alf laylah wa laylah 2058:alf laylah wa laylah 2039:alf laylah wa laylah 1993:Talk:Black supremacy 1757:alf laylah wa laylah 1741:alf laylah wa laylah 1704:alf laylah wa laylah 1651:alf laylah wa laylah 1592:alf laylah wa laylah 1547:alf laylah wa laylah 1487:alf laylah wa laylah 1448:alf laylah wa laylah 1427:alf laylah wa laylah 432:Talk:Black supremacy 18:Talk:White supremacy 5460:-style ideological 4388:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 4356:previous discussion 3781:repeated is enough! 3603:"Orange is a fruit" 5631:American Civil War 4822:) and Stormfront ( 4513:"universally-held" 4365:Arfæst Ealdwrítere 4086:fine with Choice 3 3817:Arfæst Ealdwrítere 3192: 2359:racial backgrounds 2347:White supremacism' 2340:racial backgrounds 2332:White supremacism' 1778:creating a section 1090:Kevin B. MacDonald 5503:: importation of 5501:U.S. Constitution 5470:White supremacism 5409:White supremacism 5401: 5241: 5223: 5222: 5164: 5151: 5070: 5032: 4798:Relative emphasis 4667:Relative emphasis 4124:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 4051: 3769: 3653: 3595: 3492: 3475:comment added by 3391: 3390: 3258:Relevant policies 3190: 2838: 2790: 2762:coming from 8chan 2739:User:EvergreenFir 2727:User:EvergreenFir 2688: 2601: 2557: 2507: 2431: 2381:assume good faith 2319: 2249:comment added by 2049: 1723:comment added by 1682:comment added by 1615:comment added by 1573:comment added by 1528:comment added by 1468:comment added by 1412: 1398:comment added by 1294:comment added by 1242:comment added by 1201:"Racial Holy War" 808: 791:comment added by 774: 757:comment added by 732:comment added by 699:Original Research 677:comment added by 654:comment added by 622: 589: 541: 410: 361: 314:, or national or 279: 233: 184: 139:User:The Undertow 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5683: 5645: 5601: 5600: 5583: 5577: 5571: 5565: 5559: 5440:Florian Blaschke 5414:Florian Blaschke 5395: 5389: 5386: 5383: 5380: 5363: 5358: 5307: 5291: 5290: 5273: 5239: 5229:. All the best: 5214: 5210: 5196: 5195: 5189: 5172: 5170: 5162: 5145: 5139: 5136: 5133: 5130: 5114: 5112: 5064: 5058: 5055: 5052: 5049: 5026: 5020: 5017: 5014: 5011: 5005: 4851: 4849: 4789: 4775: 4768: 4761: 4678:reliable sources 4659: 4601: 4599: 4577: 4543: 4541: 4443: 4422: 4420: 4413:a form of racism 4410: 4377: 4375: 4369: 4358:on this topic. 4323:white supremacy 4281:include racist. 4277:the lead should 4045: 4039: 4036: 4033: 4030: 4022: 3998: 3996: 3877: 3829: 3827: 3821: 3763: 3757: 3754: 3751: 3748: 3731:and (3) against 3647: 3641: 3638: 3635: 3632: 3589: 3583: 3580: 3577: 3574: 3491: 3469: 3263: 3240: 3238: 2832: 2826: 2823: 2820: 2817: 2784: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2682: 2676: 2673: 2670: 2667: 2595: 2589: 2586: 2583: 2580: 2551: 2545: 2542: 2539: 2536: 2501: 2495: 2492: 2489: 2486: 2425: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2410: 2313: 2307: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2265:"Racist" in lead 2261: 2215:Burschenschaften 2182:reliable sources 2143: 2113: 2036: 2015:white separatism 1735: 1694: 1627: 1585: 1540: 1480: 1411: 1392: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1306: 1254: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1051:Malleus Felonius 871:Racial supremacy 846: 807: 785: 773: 751: 744: 693:Reliable Sources 689: 666: 628: 621: 618: 595: 588: 585: 547: 540: 537: 483: 477: 452: 446: 440: 411: 409: 405: 387: 382: 362: 360: 356: 340: 335: 280: 278: 274: 255: 250: 234: 232: 228: 204: 199: 185: 183: 179: 160:'Racist' in Lead 151: 146: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5691: 5690: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5655: 5634: 5605: 5604: 5597: 5588:White Supremacy 5585: 5584: 5580: 5572: 5568: 5560: 5556: 5494: 5466:White supremacy 5454:societal racism 5426:Also note that 5387: 5384: 5381: 5378: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5359: 5355: 5324: 5305: 5288: 5286:Oh, I forgot - 5271: 5269:until 1967"? -- 5212: 5208: 5205:White supremacy 5193: 5187: 5168: 5166: 5137: 5134: 5131: 5128: 5110: 5108: 5094:Our article on 5087:Our article on 5080:Our article on 5056: 5053: 5050: 5047: 5042: 5018: 5015: 5012: 5009: 4999: 4952: 4947: 4946: 4887:Deciduous Maple 4847: 4845: 4787: 4771: 4764: 4757: 4687:Emphasis mine. 4652: 4597: 4595: 4571: 4539: 4537: 4437: 4418: 4416: 4404: 4373: 4362: 4359: 4298:Volunteer Marek 4257:Deciduous Maple 4237:Volunteer Marek 4223:Deciduous Maple 4208:Volunteer Marek 4187:Deciduous Maple 4165:Volunteer Marek 4128:Volunteer Marek 4090:Volunteer Marek 4068:Volunteer Marek 4037: 4034: 4031: 4028: 3994: 3992: 3909:Volunteer Marek 3870: 3825: 3814: 3811: 3755: 3752: 3749: 3746: 3679:Volunteer Marek 3639: 3636: 3633: 3630: 3581: 3578: 3575: 3572: 3553:Volunteer Marek 3470: 3427:Volunteer Marek 3397: 3392: 3312:WP:LEADSENTENCE 3268: 3260: 3236: 3234: 3195: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3169: 3124:Deciduous Maple 3108:a butthurt SJW. 3073:Volunteer Marek 3008:Deciduous Maple 2990:Volunteer Marek 2971:Deciduous Maple 2897:Deciduous Maple 2846:Deciduous Maple 2824: 2821: 2818: 2815: 2800:Deciduous Maple 2776: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2758: 2731:Volunteer Marek 2674: 2671: 2668: 2665: 2587: 2584: 2581: 2578: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2484: 2462:Deciduous Maple 2417: 2414: 2411: 2408: 2305: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2270:Subsequent note 2267: 2244: 2225:Pro Deutschland 2210: 2205: 2204: 2159: 2139: 2132: 2034: 2007: 1989: 1917: 1834:Neo-Confederate 1773: 1718: 1700: 1698:Arbitrary break 1677: 1610: 1568: 1523: 1516: 1510: 1463: 1393: 1376: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1327: 1289: 1279: 1260: 1237: 1233: 1203: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1109: 1086: 1066: 1046: 1008: 988: 890:155.198.108.162 875:Black Supremacy 852: 837: 830:107.222.205.242 786: 752: 727: 719: 695: 672: 649: 626: 619: 593: 586: 545: 538: 493: 488: 487: 486: 478: 474: 450: 444: 438: 408: 401: 385: 380: 375:our own article 359: 352: 338: 333: 277: 270: 253: 248: 231: 224: 202: 197: 182: 175: 162: 149: 144: 136: 97: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5689: 5687: 5654: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5603: 5602: 5595: 5578: 5566: 5553: 5552: 5529:14th Amendment 5493: 5490: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5484: 5424: 5365: 5364: 5352: 5351: 5347: 5323: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5284: 5221: 5220: 5197: 5186: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5169:Rhododendrites 5111:Rhododendrites 5105: 5104: 5103: 5099: 5096:discrimination 5092: 5085: 5041: 5038: 5037: 5036: 4976: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4960: 4951: 4948: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4916: 4902:Option 1 or 3. 4899: 4898: 4897: 4885:the sentence? 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4848:Rhododendrites 4812: 4780: 4750: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4642: 4641: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4598:Rhododendrites 4555:Rhododendrites 4540:Rhododendrites 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4440:Rhododendrites 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4419:Rhododendrites 4381: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4198: 4197: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4158: 4157: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4100: 4079: 4078: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4004: 4003: 3995:Rhododendrites 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3967:PeterTheFourth 3957: 3956: 3946:PeterTheFourth 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3901: 3900: 3882: 3881: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3851:86.170.130.156 3835: 3834: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3783: 3774: 3773: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3563: 3530: 3511: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3494: 3493: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3449:86.170.130.156 3438: 3437: 3417: 3416: 3406:86.170.130.156 3396: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3377: 3376: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3360: 3359: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3340: 3339: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3315: 3314: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3294: 3293: 3276:86.170.130.156 3270: 3269: 3266: 3261: 3259: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3246: 3245: 3237:Rhododendrites 3217:86.170.130.156 3213: 3212: 3208: 3196: 3187: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3168: 3165: 3154:86.170.130.156 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3119: 3112: 3109: 3102: 3069: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3018: 2985: 2962: 2881:PeterTheFourth 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2856: 2757: 2754: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2702: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2561: 2457: 2456: 2449: 2448: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2362: 2343: 2328: 2284: 2274:86.170.130.156 2266: 2263: 2251:81.210.145.108 2209: 2206: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2164:64.134.242.219 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2134: 2133: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2103: 2102: 2086: 2085: 2052:This is about 2033: 2030: 2006: 2003: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1960: 1940: 1939: 1929:Article editor 1916: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1879: 1877: 1876: 1870: 1838:Paraliterature 1772: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1752: 1751: 1725:83.183.102.137 1699: 1696: 1684:83.183.102.137 1662: 1661: 1638: 1637: 1617:83.183.102.137 1603: 1602: 1575:83.183.102.137 1558: 1557: 1530:83.183.102.137 1518: 1514: 1508: 1500:Try this one, 1498: 1497: 1470:83.183.102.137 1459: 1458: 1438: 1437: 1400:83.183.102.137 1375: 1372: 1345: 1342: 1331:182.185.62.104 1326: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1296:124.197.15.138 1278: 1275: 1259: 1256: 1244:214.13.220.147 1232: 1229: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1169:unencyclopedic 1130: 1129: 1108: 1105: 1085: 1082: 1065: 1062: 1045: 1042: 1022: 1021: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1007: 1004: 987: 984: 924: 923: 851: 850:Anachronistic? 848: 842:comment added 826: 778: 777: 776: 775: 734:86.101.109.156 724:par excellence 718: 715: 694: 691: 669: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 519: 518: 511: 504: 492: 489: 485: 484: 471: 470: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 368: 367: 296:United Nations 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 211: 210: 161: 158: 135: 132: 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5688: 5679: 5678: 5674: 5670: 5669:77.18.161.207 5665: 5662: 5658: 5652: 5648: 5644: 5642: 5637: 5632: 5628: 5624: 5620: 5619: 5618: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5598: 5596:0-19-503042-7 5593: 5589: 5582: 5579: 5575: 5570: 5567: 5563: 5558: 5555: 5551: 5549: 5545: 5544:United States 5541: 5537: 5532: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5518: 5514: 5510: 5506: 5502: 5497: 5491: 5483: 5479: 5475: 5471: 5467: 5463: 5459: 5455: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5445: 5441: 5437: 5433: 5429: 5428:WP:COMMONNAME 5425: 5423: 5419: 5415: 5410: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5399: 5394: 5391: 5390: 5374: 5373:WP:COMMONNAME 5370: 5369: 5362: 5357: 5354: 5350: 5346: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5336:104.57.64.153 5331: 5328: 5321: 5317: 5313: 5309: 5302: 5298: 5294: 5285: 5283: 5279: 5275: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5256: 5252: 5248: 5244: 5243: 5242: 5237: 5236: 5233: 5228: 5218: 5215:parameter to 5206: 5202: 5198: 5191: 5190: 5184: 5176: 5171: 5160: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5149: 5144: 5141: 5140: 5124: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5113: 5106: 5100: 5097: 5093: 5090: 5086: 5083: 5079: 5078: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5068: 5063: 5060: 5059: 5039: 5035: 5030: 5025: 5022: 5021: 5003: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4992: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4961: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4949: 4944: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4924: 4920: 4919:Choice 1 or 3 4917: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4873: 4869: 4864: 4861: 4855: 4850: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4790: 4784: 4781: 4779: 4776: 4774: 4769: 4767: 4762: 4760: 4754: 4751: 4749: 4745: 4741: 4736: 4733: 4732: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4704: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4685: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4668: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4658: 4655: 4650: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4613: 4612: 4605: 4600: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4575: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4542: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4522: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4470: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4441: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4426: 4421: 4414: 4408: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4382: 4380: 4376: 4371: 4370: 4367: 4366: 4357: 4353: 4350: 4349: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4317: 4313: 4310:And yet, the 4309: 4308: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4253: 4252:other users' 4248: 4247: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4183: 4180: 4179: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4156: 4153: 4148: 4145: 4144: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4105: 4101: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4062: 4061: 4054: 4049: 4044: 4041: 4040: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4012: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4002: 3997: 3989: 3985: 3982: 3981: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3928: 3925: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3891: 3887: 3884: 3883: 3880: 3876: 3873: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3847: 3846: 3844: 3843: 3841: 3840: 3838: 3837: 3833: 3832: 3828: 3823: 3822: 3819: 3818: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3784: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3767: 3762: 3759: 3758: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3723: 3722: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3675:false analogy 3672: 3671: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3651: 3646: 3643: 3642: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3593: 3588: 3585: 3584: 3568: 3564: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3467: 3464: 3463: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3423: 3419: 3418: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3375: 3372: 3371: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3338: 3334: 3331: 3330: 3323: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3313: 3309: 3306: 3305: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3291: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3272: 3271: 3264: 3257: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3239: 3232: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3209: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3200: 3194: 3183: 3180: 3177: 3166: 3164: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3120: 3117: 3113: 3110: 3107: 3103: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2986: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2912: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2857: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2836: 2831: 2828: 2827: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2788: 2783: 2780: 2779: 2763: 2755: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2686: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2617: 2616:WP:Redundancy 2604: 2599: 2594: 2591: 2590: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565:WP:Redundancy 2562: 2560: 2555: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2505: 2500: 2497: 2496: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2434: 2429: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2309: 2308: 2292: 2288: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2264: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2216: 2207: 2202: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2136: 2135: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2087: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2050: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2031: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2004: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1986: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1961: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1894: 1891: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1821: 1819: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1797: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1783: 1779: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1697: 1695: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1673: 1669: 1666: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1606: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1565: 1562: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1519: 1513: 1507: 1504: 1503: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1373: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1343: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1324: 1320: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1285: 1282: 1276: 1274: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1258:Recent Events 1257: 1255: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1231:Why no facts? 1230: 1228: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218:98.250.41.169 1214: 1209: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1107:Peacock terms 1106: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1084:Ethnocentrism 1083: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071:174.3.167.186 1063: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1044:Word to avoid 1043: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031:Michael Hardy 1028: 1020: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1005: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 993:41.17.186.128 985: 983: 982: 978: 974: 969: 968: 964: 960: 959:151.65.77.149 955: 950: 949: 945: 941: 940:75.177.47.137 938:Which is it. 936: 932: 928: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 886: 884: 880: 876: 872: 867: 865: 861: 860:April 21 2009 856: 849: 847: 845: 841: 835: 831: 824: 823: 819: 815: 809: 806: 802: 798: 794: 793:Totallygayusa 790: 783: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 743: 739: 735: 731: 725: 716: 714: 713: 709: 705: 700: 692: 690: 688: 684: 680: 679:163.150.23.55 676: 667: 665: 661: 657: 653: 633: 629: 623: 614: 613: 612: 609: 608: 602: 601: 600: 596: 590: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 565: 564: 561: 560: 554: 553: 552: 548: 542: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 526: 525: 516: 512: 509: 505: 502: 498: 497: 496: 490: 481: 476: 473: 469: 457: 454: 453: 447: 442: 441: 433: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 415: 412: 406: 404: 398: 397:your behavior 394: 393: 392: 389: 388: 383: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 366: 363: 357: 355: 348: 347: 346: 345: 342: 341: 336: 327: 324: 323: 321: 317: 313: 309: 302: 300: 297: 284: 281: 275: 273: 266: 262: 261: 260: 257: 256: 251: 244: 240: 239: 238: 235: 229: 227: 220: 215: 214: 213: 212: 209: 206: 205: 200: 192: 191: 190: 189: 186: 180: 178: 172: 171:your behavior 167: 157: 156: 153: 152: 147: 140: 133: 131: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 106: 102: 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5666: 5663: 5659: 5656: 5638: 5606: 5587: 5581: 5569: 5557: 5533: 5498: 5495: 5435: 5431: 5408: 5377: 5356: 5348: 5332: 5329: 5325: 5292: 5230: 5224: 5216: 5201:edit request 5127: 5122: 5102:non-whites." 5046: 5043: 5008: 4979: 4977: 4953: 4942: 4928:SamWilson989 4918: 4901: 4882: 4868:War wizard90 4862: 4788:AlbinoFerret 4782: 4772: 4765: 4758: 4752: 4734: 4681: 4671: 4618: 4614: 4591: 4587: 4583: 4525: 4520: 4516: 4506: 4446: 4412: 4383: 4364: 4363: 4360: 4351: 4324: 4320: 4315: 4312:Adolf Hitler 4278: 4251: 4203: 4181: 4146: 4103: 4085: 4063: 4027: 4024:Works for me 4023: 3987: 3983: 3962: 3937: 3889: 3885: 3866: 3848: 3845: 3842: 3839: 3836: 3816: 3815: 3812: 3807: 3806: 3745: 3724: 3629: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3571: 3526: 3522: 3514: 3471:— Preceding 3465: 3400: 3300:attribution. 3273: 3230: 3214: 3201: 3197: 3188: 3149: 3148: 3115: 3105: 3086: 3030: 3026: 3003: 2966: 2947: 2943: 2877: 2814: 2766: 2759: 2724: 2699: 2664: 2647: 2640:nonobjective 2614:If you read 2613: 2577: 2533: 2483: 2458: 2450: 2441: 2407: 2402: 2355:white people 2346: 2336:white people 2331: 2295: 2290: 2269: 2268: 2245:— Preceding 2236: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2211: 2200: 2186:EvergreenFir 2160: 2146: 2140: 2137: 2066: 2051: 2035: 2008: 1990: 1962: 1945: 1920: 1899: 1878: 1869: 1853: 1829: 1828:of but also 1824: 1822: 1805:first result 1798: 1792: 1786: 1774: 1719:— Preceding 1715: 1701: 1678:— Preceding 1674: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1647:WP:CONSENSUS 1632: 1611:— Preceding 1607: 1604: 1569:— Preceding 1566: 1563: 1559: 1524:— Preceding 1520: 1517: 1511: 1505: 1499: 1464:— Preceding 1460: 1439: 1394:— Preceding 1391:supremacist. 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1347: 1328: 1290:— Preceding 1286: 1283: 1280: 1261: 1238:— Preceding 1234: 1212: 1207: 1204: 1176: 1168: 1164: 1146: 1131: 1110: 1087: 1067: 1047: 1026: 1023: 1009: 989: 970: 953: 951: 937: 933: 929: 925: 887: 868: 857: 853: 838:— Preceding 825: 810: 779: 723: 720: 696: 668: 646: 605: 580: 568: 557: 522: 520: 514: 494: 475: 467: 448: 436: 403:the_undertow 402: 378: 374: 354:the_undertow 353: 331: 329: 325: 320:human rights 305: 304: 293: 272:the_undertow 271: 264: 246: 242: 226:the_undertow 225: 217: 195: 177:the_undertow 176: 163: 142: 137: 134:Whitewashing 117:ethnocentric 98: 70: 43: 37: 5462:supremacism 5297:user rights 5259:U.S. states 5247:U.S. states 4921:- See this 4906:Dmrwikiprof 3337:WP:MOSINTRO 3211:non-whites. 3207:non-whites. 2918:Drop it now 2477:See above. 2152:WP:NOTFORUM 2056:material.— 2011:White power 1950:groupuscule 1925:Supremacism 1858:groupuscule 1809:this search 1801:this search 913:Age Happens 787:—Preceding 759:Echofloripa 753:—Preceding 728:—Preceding 673:—Preceding 656:164.58.89.3 650:—Preceding 36:This is an 5521:Dred Scott 5458:hate group 5349:References 5235:Farmbrough 5209:|answered= 4674:due weight 4273:Also, per 3567:liberalism 3519:Liberalism 3425:seriously. 3023:Liberalism 2648:encouraged 1830:represents 1782:bell hooks 1423:it defines 704:EyePhoenix 620:YahelGuhan 587:YahelGuhan 539:YahelGuhan 468:References 310:, colour, 105:anti-white 5636:Mojo Hand 5525:Civil War 5396:Please {{ 5293:Not done: 5146:Please {{ 5089:prejudice 5065:Please {{ 5027:Please {{ 4832:Dave Dial 4802:Dave Dial 4689:Dave Dial 4631:Dave Dial 4584:prejudice 4534:WP:FRINGE 4447:essential 4084:I'm also 4046:Please {{ 3764:Please {{ 3648:Please {{ 3590:Please {{ 3357:WP:ASSERT 3321:possible. 2833:Please {{ 2785:Please {{ 2683:Please {{ 2658:, and by 2596:Please {{ 2552:Please {{ 2502:Please {{ 2426:Please {{ 2314:Please {{ 2108:WP:BURDEN 1906:Evanh2008 1890:Evanh2008 1846:Modernity 1818:Apartheid 1049:please?-- 864:Dawn Bard 577:Evolution 109:communist 101:non-white 95:Criticism 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5623:Deisenbe 5608:deisenbe 5517:senators 5456:and (2) 5436:meanings 5265:through 5253:through 4970:wording. 4950:Decision 4759:DOCUMENT 4712:Bus stop 4649:WP:UNDUE 4627:WP:UNDUE 4619:Choice 3 4509:WP:LABEL 4482:Bus stop 4451:Bus stop 4407:Bus stop 4392:Bus stop 4182:Choice 1 4064:Choice 2 3963:Choice 3 3938:Choice 2 3890:Choice 3 3886:Choice 1 3867:Choice 3 3808:Choice 1 3786:WP:BEGIN 3737:WP:BEGIN 3729:WP:UNDUE 3725:Choice 2 3534:WP:BEGIN 3532:And Per 3485:contribs 3473:unsigned 3383:sources. 3374:WP:UNDUE 3290:WP:LABEL 2940:WP:BEGIN 2743:Haminoon 2696:WP:BEGIN 2660:WP:BEGIN 2621:WP:UNDUE 2573:WP:BEGIN 2366:Bus stop 2327:follows: 2247:unsigned 2229:Pro Köln 2005:Problems 1997:RMCD bot 1971:Xiaphias 1854:reflects 1721:unsigned 1680:unsigned 1613:unsigned 1571:unsigned 1526:unsigned 1466:unsigned 1408:contribs 1396:unsigned 1356:An RfC: 1292:unsigned 1240:unsigned 1135:Ramdrake 1133:tract.-- 1069:article. 801:contribs 789:unsigned 767:contribs 755:unsigned 730:unsigned 675:unsigned 652:unsigned 521:Thanks, 113:advocacy 5527:in the 5261:banned 5249:banned 4863:Option3 4783:Option1 4753:Option1 4735:Option1 4574:Amlaera 4559:Amlaera 4536:). --— 4352:Comment 4329:Amlaera 4283:Amlaera 4150:racism. 4147:Comment 4109:Amlaera 3942:WP:LEAD 3790:Amlaera 3741:WP:NPOV 3733:WP:LEAD 3694:Amlaera 3661:Amlaera 3615:Amlaera 3605:versus 3538:Amlaera 3477:Amlaera 3353:WP:NPOV 3333:WP:LEAD 3308:WP:LEAD 3092:Amlaera 3035:Amlaera 2952:Amlaera 2938:As per 2911:WP:LEAD 2861:Amlaera 2710:Amlaera 2706:WP:NPOV 2656:WP:LEAD 2625:Amlaera 2567:. To a 2515:Amlaera 2479:WP:LEAD 2385:Amlaera 2349:is the 2287:WP:LEAD 2208:Germany 2162:asking. 1793:remains 1643:WP:LEAD 1316:snunɐw· 1312:·ʍaunus 1186:Shandy` 909:WP:NPOV 905:WP:NPOV 840:undated 812:africa. 717:Zionism 607:Sceptre 559:Sceptre 524:Sceptre 491:July 08 312:descent 166:removes 121:Wittsun 39:archive 5627:WP:BRD 5621:Hello 5505:slaves 5474:Pharos 5393:(talk) 5308:rose64 5274:rose64 5143:(talk) 5123:racism 5082:racism 5062:(talk) 5024:(talk) 4991:(tock) 4984:Racism 4963:Racism 4654:Arfæst 4623:WP:POV 4592:course 4580:racism 4532:(i.e. 4043:(talk) 3872:Arfæst 3761:(talk) 3735:, (4) 3645:(talk) 3587:(talk) 3551:above. 3395:Survey 3179:(tock) 3004:racist 2830:(talk) 2782:(talk) 2680:(talk) 2593:(talk) 2549:(talk) 2529:WP:DUE 2499:(talk) 2423:(talk) 2351:racist 2311:(talk) 1850:Object 1825:change 1803:. The 1177:common 1150:Rrrrr5 1115:Rrrrr5 1094:Rrrrr5 1027:better 883:Ageism 879:Sexism 373:Well " 316:ethnic 5536:South 5432:names 5213:|ans= 5199:This 4773:ERROR 4374:talk! 3826:talk! 3325:lead. 2988:from. 2926:Avono 2725:What 2654:, by 2403:Every 2399:WP:OR 2291:isn't 2019:Laval 1946:Agree 1915:Move? 1842:Other 1264:afa86 973:JohnC 814:JohnC 515:major 386:Guhan 381:Yahel 339:Guhan 334:Yahel 254:Guhan 249:Yahel 203:Guhan 198:Yahel 150:Guhan 145:Yahel 16:< 5673:talk 5641:talk 5612:talk 5592:ISBN 5478:talk 5444:talk 5418:talk 5340:talk 5312:talk 5278:talk 5232:Rich 5165:. — 5159:Shii 5002:Shii 4988:Shii 4932:talk 4910:talk 4891:talk 4872:talk 4836:talk 4806:talk 4744:talk 4740:Op47 4716:talk 4693:talk 4635:talk 4625:and 4563:talk 4486:talk 4455:talk 4396:talk 4333:talk 4321:what 4302:talk 4287:talk 4261:talk 4241:talk 4227:talk 4212:talk 4191:talk 4169:talk 4132:talk 4113:talk 4094:talk 4072:talk 3971:talk 3950:talk 3913:talk 3855:talk 3794:talk 3698:talk 3683:talk 3665:talk 3619:talk 3557:talk 3542:talk 3515:what 3481:talk 3453:talk 3445:here 3431:talk 3410:talk 3280:talk 3231:Note 3221:talk 3176:Shii 3158:talk 3150:Note 3128:talk 3096:talk 3077:talk 3039:talk 3012:talk 2994:talk 2975:talk 2956:talk 2948:what 2930:talk 2922:here 2909:per 2901:talk 2885:talk 2865:talk 2850:talk 2804:talk 2747:talk 2735:talk 2714:talk 2629:talk 2519:talk 2466:talk 2451:Or, 2389:talk 2370:talk 2278:talk 2255:talk 2227:and 2190:talk 2168:talk 2120:talk 2096:talk 2079:talk 2062:talk 2054:this 2043:talk 2023:talk 1975:talk 1954:talk 1933:talk 1921:-ism 1862:talk 1761:talk 1745:talk 1729:talk 1708:talk 1688:talk 1655:talk 1621:talk 1596:talk 1579:talk 1551:talk 1534:talk 1491:talk 1474:talk 1452:talk 1431:talk 1404:talk 1335:talk 1325:Lead 1300:talk 1268:talk 1248:talk 1222:talk 1192:talk 1183:John 1154:talk 1139:talk 1119:talk 1098:talk 1075:talk 1055:talk 1035:talk 997:talk 977:talk 963:talk 944:talk 917:talk 894:talk 873:and 834:talk 818:talk 797:talk 763:talk 738:talk 708:talk 683:talk 660:talk 627:talk 594:talk 546:talk 506:Per 499:Per 451:Love 439:Lara 308:race 125:talk 111:and 5633:)-- 5509:3/5 5472:.-- 5388:Fir 5385:een 5382:rgr 5379:Eve 5306:Red 5272:Red 5211:or 5203:to 5173:\\ 5138:Fir 5135:een 5132:rgr 5129:Eve 5115:\\ 5057:Fir 5054:een 5051:rgr 5048:Eve 5019:Fir 5016:een 5013:rgr 5010:Eve 4980:may 4852:\\ 4830:). 4602:\\ 4544:\\ 4526:not 4517:not 4478:one 4423:\\ 4279:not 4038:Fir 4035:een 4032:rgr 4029:Eve 3999:\\ 3888:or 3756:Fir 3753:een 3750:rgr 3747:Eve 3640:Fir 3637:een 3634:rgr 3631:Eve 3611:not 3582:Fir 3579:een 3576:rgr 3573:Eve 3241:\\ 3116:not 3106:are 3087:not 2825:Fir 2822:een 2819:rgr 2816:Eve 2777:Fir 2774:een 2771:rgr 2768:Eve 2675:Fir 2672:een 2669:rgr 2666:Eve 2650:by 2588:Fir 2585:een 2582:rgr 2579:Eve 2544:Fir 2541:een 2538:rgr 2535:Eve 2494:Fir 2491:een 2488:rgr 2485:Eve 2418:Fir 2415:een 2412:rgr 2409:Eve 2306:Fir 2303:een 2300:rgr 2297:Eve 2114:.— 1969:.-- 1927:". 1366:MrX 1344:RfC 836:) 782:Jew 575:or 5675:) 5614:) 5550:. 5531:. 5480:) 5446:) 5420:) 5400:}} 5398:re 5342:) 5314:) 5280:) 5238:, 5217:no 5150:}} 5148:re 5125:. 5069:}} 5067:re 5031:}} 5029:re 4934:) 4912:) 4893:) 4883:in 4874:) 4838:) 4826:, 4808:) 4746:) 4718:) 4695:) 4657:! 4637:) 4565:) 4521:to 4488:) 4480:. 4457:) 4398:) 4335:) 4327:. 4325:is 4304:) 4289:) 4263:) 4243:) 4229:) 4214:) 4193:) 4171:) 4134:) 4115:) 4104:is 4096:) 4074:) 4050:}} 4048:re 3986:: 3973:) 3952:) 3915:) 3875:! 3857:) 3796:) 3768:}} 3766:re 3700:) 3685:) 3667:) 3652:}} 3650:re 3621:) 3594:}} 3592:re 3559:) 3544:) 3487:) 3483:• 3455:) 3433:) 3412:) 3355:: 3335:: 3310:: 3282:) 3223:) 3160:) 3130:) 3098:) 3079:) 3041:) 3014:) 2996:) 2977:) 2958:) 2942:: 2932:) 2924:. 2903:) 2887:) 2867:) 2852:) 2837:}} 2835:re 2806:) 2789:}} 2787:re 2764:. 2749:) 2716:) 2687:}} 2685:re 2631:) 2600:}} 2598:re 2575:. 2556:}} 2554:re 2521:) 2506:}} 2504:re 2468:) 2430:}} 2428:re 2391:) 2383:. 2372:) 2345:B 2330:A 2318:}} 2316:re 2280:) 2257:) 2192:) 2170:) 2122:) 2098:) 2081:) 2064:) 2045:) 2025:) 1977:) 1956:) 1935:) 1864:) 1848:, 1844:, 1763:) 1747:) 1731:) 1710:) 1690:) 1657:) 1623:) 1598:) 1581:) 1553:) 1536:) 1493:) 1476:) 1454:) 1433:) 1410:) 1406:• 1337:) 1302:) 1270:) 1250:) 1224:) 1190:• 1156:) 1141:) 1121:) 1100:) 1077:) 1057:) 1037:) 999:) 979:) 965:) 946:) 919:) 896:) 881:, 820:) 803:) 799:• 769:) 765:• 740:) 710:) 685:) 662:) 630:) 597:) 549:) 326:' 127:) 107:, 103:, 5671:( 5643:) 5639:( 5610:( 5599:. 5476:( 5442:( 5416:( 5338:( 5310:( 5276:( 5004:: 5000:@ 4930:( 4908:( 4889:( 4870:( 4834:( 4828:2 4824:1 4820:2 4818:, 4816:1 4804:( 4766:★ 4742:( 4714:( 4691:( 4684:. 4669:: 4633:( 4576:: 4572:@ 4561:( 4553:@ 4484:( 4453:( 4442:: 4438:@ 4409:: 4405:@ 4394:( 4368:– 4331:( 4300:( 4285:( 4259:( 4239:( 4225:( 4210:( 4189:( 4167:( 4130:( 4126:. 4111:( 4092:( 4070:( 3969:( 3948:( 3911:( 3853:( 3820:– 3792:( 3696:( 3681:( 3663:( 3617:( 3555:( 3540:( 3479:( 3451:( 3429:( 3408:( 3292:: 3278:( 3219:( 3156:( 3126:( 3094:( 3075:( 3037:( 3010:( 2992:( 2973:( 2954:( 2928:( 2899:( 2883:( 2863:( 2848:( 2802:( 2745:( 2733:( 2712:( 2627:( 2517:( 2464:( 2387:( 2368:( 2276:( 2253:( 2188:( 2166:( 2118:( 2094:( 2077:( 2060:( 2041:( 2021:( 1973:( 1952:( 1931:( 1860:( 1759:( 1743:( 1727:( 1706:( 1686:( 1653:( 1619:( 1594:( 1577:( 1549:( 1532:( 1489:( 1472:( 1450:( 1429:( 1402:( 1354:B 1333:( 1314:· 1298:( 1266:( 1246:( 1220:( 1152:( 1137:( 1117:( 1096:( 1073:( 1053:( 1033:( 995:( 975:( 961:( 942:( 915:( 892:( 832:( 816:( 795:( 761:( 736:( 706:( 681:( 658:( 624:( 591:( 543:( 445:❤ 241:" 123:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index