Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of White supremacists

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The vote was 15 for keep, 21 for delete and several for rename. Woohookitty 23:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of White supremacists

Reason why the page should be deleted NoahB 18:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherently POV. Before, at the earliest, 1920, most notable public figures in the U.S. and many other countries expressed white supremacist ideas. The number of white supremacists is so large that any list is going to be limited, which means that we're going to be unfairly singleing out certain people as racist. A related problem is that almost no one these days (not even David Duke) consider themselves white supremacist, so labeling them as such is POV. Finally, it has been suggested that the article be restricted to people notable for their white supremacist beliefs or who are leaders in the white supremacist movement. The problem here is, who decides who is notable for white supremacist beliefs and who isn't? Again, I don't see any way to put the list together that isn't inherently POV.

  • Keep if you look at this very VfD page, you'll find a lot of people deciding what is and isn't notable. There is nothing inherently POV about judging someone to be notable or not. --malathion talk 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simply a list of people who express a certain belief. It shouldn't matter that "almost no one these days" calls themselves that, as a list can encompass historical figures as well. -- BD2412 talk 19:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As repulsive (or not, depending on one's POV) as this list might be, as BD2412 said, it's a list of people who express a particular belief. We have lists of other things just as potentially problematic here, but it's an encyclopedic matter (if only for the historical figures alone) and should be retained.--Mitsukai 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of Historically Notable White Supremacists and leave out anyone who fails to meet the double-criterion of historic and notable. Alternatively, make it a category. The Literate Engineer 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, why does Wikipedia need a list of white people who think they were/are better than everyone else? When is someone going to want to look at a collection of these people? Phoenix2 22:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we are not here for censorship but freedom of information Yuckfoo 22:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of modern white supremacists. It seems from this discussion like the historical change in attitudes that the nominator mentioned is going to be an issue; I see a lot of people here using slippery slope arguments, and if there's technically nothing preventing, e.g. Abe Lincoln from being listed due to his many pro-slavery statements, the slippery slope would get ridiculous and the article would just become a free-for-all. However, I think the definition of this list can be pinned down, if limited to a certain timeframe. Dcarrano 23:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep For the reasons stated above.--Gramaic | Talk 00:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's an unmaintainable list. If one believes, as many do, that white supremacy was systematic and inherent in western society before the Civil Rights movement, then practically anybody can go on the list if you can pull up a quote that would justify their inclusion. Yet, to do so would be to apply modern moral standards to historical people, a practice which presents POV problems. There are already problems with, for example, Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson appearing on the list, and conceivably it could go on forever: Shakespeare, Jack London, H.L. Mencken, FDR, Lincoln, George Washington, Mark Twain...??? It might be possible to exclude historical figures, which would keep the list limited to people like David Duke who clearly belong. But in practice, is that really going to happen or is the list going to be cluttered up with edit wars by people who insist that their own POV be represented by the inclusion of one historical figure or another that they don't like? Alternatively I would support a name change to "List of notable modern white supremacists". Kaibabsquirrel 02:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a list of contemporary white supremacists in the White supremacy article (which is also controversial). My understanding was that this new article was created in order to have a more comprehensive list. (Whoops! Forgot to sign earlier -- this is by me. NoahB 18:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Weird mixture of people. It doesn't make sense to mix contemporary Ku-Klux-Clan leaders with Nazis, revisionist "historians" and others. Martg76 06:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is detrimental to the Wikipedia project as it's potentially the opening of pandora's box. With a white supremacist list, there will be lists of all other things popping up, furthermore, there is no segregation between 'white supremacist' and 'white seperatist' or 'white nationalist', many of the people on the list at the moment express anti-white supremacist views. It's flawed and a waste of space, next we'll have other fanatics listing black supremacists and every other ethnic group which will all fall down to a mamoth name calling and labelling tantrum, something we don't need! Jachin 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in its current form. Jachin is pretty much right, and its already happening w lists like List of fascists and so forth. ¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸ 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is stupid, obviously an attempt to slander people. There is a distinct difference between a supremacist and a nationalist and there are several nationalists on this list. This only serves to de-legitimize wikipedia.
  • Comment, Wikipedia has been good in regards to promoting diversity. We don't need to pander to hatemongers on this balanced site. How many more must be oppressed and gassed until we learn that we can only allow 'Free Speech' as long as we all agree to stay free. If this list dies,so does our future. You say that every ethnic group will have a list like this? Who have the Jewish people EVER oppressed? NO ONE. - JDL Rep. "Never Again!"
  • Comment:Ought to be verified.--81.134.102.240 17:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't about jews, blacks or other ethnic groups. This is about whether the article should be deleted. Try and stay on topic and not let your hatred of White's blind you too much. (User:211.31.9.5)
  • Keep, but possibly rename. Also are all white supremacists? I'm not sure Ray Hill is (read the article.--MacRusgail 17:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I believe this is inappropriate for the Wikipedia project.
  • Keep, Maybe convert to table & include a specific reason for including their name. pamri 18:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Who determined that these individuals are "White Supremacists"? I think listing individuals borders on slander. Wikipedia should not become a "hit list" for individuals with an axe to grind. I'm Jewish and I denounce what the JDL person said in his above statemnt. Robert Rosenberg. (UTC)
  • Delete, it's inappropriate and racist for white people to be singled out as "supremacists". Afterall, the "Jewish" state of Israel makes the former apartheid state of South Africa look like a bastion of civil rights and equality. I'm tired of the double standard...perhaps we should start a "List of Jewsh supremacist" page?(UTC)
  • Delete, Whites should not be singled out and labelled as "supremacists". This is inappropriate for Wikipedia, not to mention unnecessary.
  • Comment Um, I thought Jews were White? (Sorry if that offends someone) Why isn't Ariel Sharon on there? He is anti-Arab. Do the Jews see themselves as nonwhite? Oh wait, they aren't Caucasian, they are Semitic like the Arabs, but jews DO think they are superior to everybody so aren't they the real supremacists? Master Cylinder 19:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First of all, the name is spelled wrong, move it and make that w lowercase if kept. Anyway, we should not single out whites for being supremists, but, if they are well known to be white supremists, what's it going to hurt to keep a list on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not censored. --Phroziac (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find the notion of "white supremacy" alone to be, more often than not, a laughable mirespresentation of any semblance of racial awareness or interest expressed by any White. Let's face it: supremacists don't really exist anymore, and if they do, Sharon or the powers that be behind the oddly named "Aztlan" movement should be named in similar manner. This list is useless and, what's more, ignorant. The term alone sounds comical, much like the overused term "racism," today a meaningless moniker used to smear any opponent of the prevailing religion of egalitarianism, much like "heretic" was once employed. Some simply do not share the views of the lumbering majority, and the voices of the dissenters amount to just a bit more than "supremacist" ideas, but very valid concerns which should be presented in a fair light.
  • Delete This article does not contribute anything to the Wikipedia project and opens pandora's box. I agree with Jachin and other users statements on the matter, it's downright stupid and racially vilifying potentially non-white-supremacists by listing them there.

At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is actually very racist that Wikipedia calls these people, "White Supremacists". I guess that Jews cannot be "Supremacists", only "Zionists"? What is someone called who acknowledges races are different but doesn't feel "supreme"? Does that definition take on a more sinister tone if you are a European?

At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to List of white supremacists. "White supremacist" is a designation that really is applied to people. We didn't make it up. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's been a lot of modifying of other people's comments. I'm trying to clear some of it up, but unless it's done as it happens, it's probably hopeless. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mean to bash other Wikipedians, but the only contributions Izmorrow, Kinej, Tizokman have made were to this page, and Exil2, has only made five edits here in Wikipedia; three of the edits to Hilton twins and the two other edits were to this page.--Gramaic | Talk 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonymous (i.e. unregistered) and newly registered users actually are allowed to vote according to official policy. However, in a contentious vote or if there is evidence of sockpuppetry, there's a good chance that they will be ignored. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All these lists make no sense. They are hard to maintain and add no value. --Zappaz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. We have all kinds of lists of people, List of conservatives, List of Libertarian Politicians and Media Personalities, List of Los Angeles natives, List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers, List of gangsta rappers, and so on. I think that "List of white nationalists" may be a more accurate name for this article, and uses a term that most people on the list would use to describe themselves.-Willmcw 08:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just invites POV, if not outright abuse. Perhaps rewrite per The Literate Engineer. A verifiable list of leaders or theorists of white supremacist movements might be encyclopedic, but the current list is simply too broad to be meaningful. (Unless someone wants to add a mini-bio on each and every entry to justify their inclusion.) Peter Grey 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as it stays verifiable and accurate of course -max rspct 15:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Some of the keep arguments presented here disgust me as a human being. Especially that by JDL_Rep, hostile, dispicable and a shame to our people. ADL488 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of racist fuckwits. (count this as a keep vote)  Grue  18:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a category. It is despicable but these people do exist. Include only the self-professed and definitely verified supremacists - Skysmith 08:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guettarda 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definately delete. This is hideously inappropriate content for the Wikipedia project. Adam249 08:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV. Radiant_>|< 17:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure how long this vote goes, but since there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus, I'm going to go ask a few other editors who have contributed to articles on race-related articles to comment. I hoped we could leave the vote open at least a couple more days to see if any of them wish to vote. NoahB 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this list were to be kept, it would have to include nearly every white person before 1900. And many blacks as well - most black people in the United States would have said publicly (if asked to do so) that white people were fit to rule over black people - to say otherwise would be suicide. So who's a white supremecist and who's not? This category is problematic beyond repair. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, though not necessarily under this name. Probably should be moved to List of modern White supremacists. And there should be clear criteria for the list. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Change the name per above, but then again I could see some heated arguements over whether or not a person should be on the list. MicahMN | Talk 21:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The votes thusfar are as follows.
    • Delete 19
    • Keep 12
    • Move 2
    • Weak keep 2
    • Rename 1
  • Delete. I agree w/the originator of this VfD that any proper list of white supremacists would be endless and that any list we could come up with would, necessarily, be POV. I recently added the names of several dead U.S. presidents, along with a few others, to the list to make a point: white supremacy is a pervasive ideology -- and has been, for centuries. We might just as well undertake to make a list of people who are not white supremacists. A fairly convincing argument could be made that such a list would be shorter. deeceevoice 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: While a holocaust denier can be totally wrong and crazy, does that automatically qualify him as a white supremacist? nobs 04:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list already appears to be going along the lines of 'almost anyone who's white can be labelled a white supremacist', which is why it's a stupid concept and detrimental to the Wikipedia project, it's all opinionated drivel Jachin 03:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could easily be libellous. Who's going to check to make sure all these people really are white supremacists? Moreover some of them (like Sen. Byrd) are apparently on the list for things they did in the distant past; I don't think it's fair to put him on a page whose title implies he's a white supremacist now. --Trovatore 06:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, I added Harry Flood Byrd (D-VA) to the list. He was a racist, old fart who croaked in 1966. You're probably thinking of Robert Byrd (D-WVA). deeceevoice 06:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, right you are. Doesn't change my larger point though. The page is libel bait and unmaintainable. --Trovatore 04:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarification: "right you are" that I was thinking of Robert Byrd. I know almost nothing about H. F. Byrd and have no comment to offer on your characterization of him. --

Trovatore 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think your entry of Harry Flood Byrd, whomever he happens to be, is a substantial example of why this list is a moot concept. He was a 'racist' and an 'old fart'. I'm not quite sure which applies to declaration of white supremacy out of those two? On one hand, almost all white 'old farts' (pre-1930's) are white supremacists, yet almost all 'racists' would be, by capita, not white as whites are not a majority and racism is a proven facet of the human psyche. So in theory, how can we list 'racists' in a 'white supremacist' list when most racists aren't white?
The fact ultimately remains, there is not enough underlying definitive quality of product provided by this article, the concept is a loose name-calling / labelling project similar to a nazi death-camp, except in this modern era of 'enlightenment' where we forego our forefathers who worked to put us in a position with so much leasure time that we can damn the entire history of human development as an evil empire, we are instead handing out more than just stars of david to people.
We had the 'communist' badge of the post-WWII era, dozens more between, and now we have our current 'terrorist' badge. The question is, where do we draw the line at generic stupidity of attempting to label or catagorise everything into big broad sweeping statements? It all smacks of witch-hunt mentality that I, as a human, have always wished we'd have gotten over by 2005. Jachin 10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trippin' a bit, Jachin, though we essentially agree, I think, on this list. No. Racism isn't a come-with kinda thing; it's not, ipso facto, automatically part of being human. That's far too facile; it reads like somone was looking for an excuse. Your argument may pretty much be correct in the case of whites, given the pervasiveness of the ideology of white supremacy -- which has been my experience. It certainly has not been my experience with regard to many peoples of color (though, it seems to me, Asians (of the Far East) rank pretty high on the list of folks with racist tendencies). Be that as it may, there is absolultely no question of Harry Byrd's racism or white spremacist beliefs and policies. And, yes, white supremacy was pervasive in a particular time period -- but it is pervasive, still; it simply has been sublimated to political correctness, its prominence among those in the news pretty much relegated to backroom/backwoods/boardroom/country club conversations, instead of front-page media quotes and explicit public policy agendas. But then -- oops -- there're always the public slips/foot-in-mouth gaffs; the atrocities, like the lynching of James Byrd, that surface from time to time. Again, white supremacy is so pervasive, it might be easier to make a list of who isn't one than who is. deeceevoice 10:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and rename to List of white supremacy theorists and List of white supremacist politicians. To merit inclusion, white supremacism should be a major and essential (and I mean "essential" here literally, as in "constituting the essence of") part of the person's ideology/policies. Junes 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as with some other lists, inclusion should be on quite strict criteria, not (of course) to include smears, slurs and so on. Charles Matthews 10:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe problem with restricting to strict criteria, or with trying to keep it to people for whom white supremacism was essential or major or some such is that this is also POV. If you are going to keep people off the list who were clearly, by word and action, white supremacist (like Woodrow Wilson, for example, or Jefferson Davis, or Thomas Jefferson or Christopher Columbus or even Abraham Lincoln) then you are going to hugely minimize the extent and power of white supremacy as an ideology. You could make a pretty good case that white supremacism was a central part of the ideology of America for the first couple hundred years of its existence -- it's enshrined in the Constitution, no? The problem isn't that there's a threat of the list being too large and therefore libellous -- the problem is that for the list to be inclusive is impossible, and that a non-inclusive list is hopelessly POV -- both unfair to the people on the list (since their white supremacism is not properly contextualized) and unfair to people of color (since it downplays the power of racism in our culture.) NoahB 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You got a point there, but I don't think it's enough reason to give up on what could be a potentially useful list. I think the list should be designed with this usefulness in mind. I don't think anyone interested in the history of white supremacism would be helped much with a link to Christopher Columbus or Abraham Lincoln. Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, may be a useful addition - that's for the editors of this list to decide. If, after a few months or so, this article turns out be nothing but a bait for edit wars, I'd have no problem with deleting it. For now, I have faith in the Wikipedia process of establishing criteria for inclusion (this is what we do constantly, not just for this list). To prevent people from thinking that these were the only white supremacists in their days, some sort of introduction text could be provided. (By the way, we have a List of anti-Semites that would arguably have a similar problem). Junes 09:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_White_supremacists&oldid=1081090797"