Racism, On Wikipedia Options

[Emperor]

Racism

They seem to have some idea what the definition is but not in the first lines of the article.

Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e. which harms particular groups of people), and which is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science. Racism is popularly associated with various activities that are illegal or commonly considered harmful, such as extremism, hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc.

Chock full of garbled English and debatable definitions (that differ from Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com).

Also note the gigantic Bank of America banner in the middle of the article.

[Selina]

Oh, somehow the racists managed to get a separate article for "racial separation" as somehow 'not part of the racist article and so not racist at all' too wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nation_of_Islam#Sources -.-

[Mister Die]

It's very obvious sometimes that certain articles were written by the subjects being covered, who do their best to make racism and even neo-nazism seem totally rational by hiding it behind euphemisms or less "offensive" words ("white nationalist" as opposed to racist.)

[Emperor]

It's very obvious sometimes that certain articles were written by the subjects being covered, who do their best to make racism and even neo-nazism seem totally rational by hiding it behind euphemisms or less "offensive" words ("white nationalist" as opposed to racist.)

True. Look at how they pull off the World War II article. Nazism is reduced to "a radical, racially motivated revision of the world order" and the few German war crimes mentioned are briefly crammed in near the end of the article, along with a few Allied crimes to give the appearance, "hey it's war so what?". If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

It's been a target for so many years, and the kids in charge of it really are so impressionable it's basically all they know.

[Mister Die]

If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

Nah, it isn't conspiratorial enough. It needs info on the "Jewish Declaration of War," how Poland just might have been a threat to Germany, how the USSR wanted to launch an invasion of Europe from Poland to Spain which Hitler stopped dead in its tracks, how [insert random high-ranking Nazi officials] were bastardizing Hitler's brilliant policies on the war effort and thus bringing harm to it, and so on.

Finally it'd need to claim that either Hitler actually wanted to save the Jews and that [insert Nazi officials] subverted this process (followed by citing D. Irving), or simply have a quasi-weasel way of getting out of this like "[insert Jewish academics] claim that the German Reich murdered millions of Jews and [insert], but these claims are disputed by [insert some Holocaust deniers and/or Neo-Nazi websites.]"

Then it'd look like a Neo-Nazi article, whereas as it stands it's just lame.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Wed 22nd February 2012, 4:01pm

[Emperor]

If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

Nah, it isn't conspiratorial enough. It needs info on the "Jewish Declaration of War," how Poland just might have been a threat to Germany, how the USSR wanted to launch an invasion of Europe from Poland to Spain which Hitler stopped dead in its tracks, how [insert random high-ranking Nazi officials] were bastardizing Hitler's brilliant policies on the war effort and thus bringing harm to it, and so on.

Finally it'd need to claim that either Hitler actually wanted to save the Jews and that [insert Nazi officials] subverted this process (followed by citing D. Irving), or simply have a quasi-weasel way of getting out of this like "[insert Jewish academics] claim that the German Reich murdered millions of Jews and [insert], but these claims are disputed by [insert some Holocaust deniers and/or Neo-Nazi websites.]"

Then it'd look like a Neo-Nazi article, whereas as it stands it's just lame.

That's what they're thinking, yes, but it would be spotted a mile away. The guys working on the article are subtle, and they know what they're doing and are good at it. Their plan is: baffle them with bullshit, hide the human stuff in nondescript one-liners here and there and deemphasize it.

You really have to look no further than the picture of Wilhelm Keitel at the top of the article to know they're hiding something.

[radek]

If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

Nah, it isn't conspiratorial enough. It needs info on the "Jewish Declaration of War," how Poland just might have been a threat to Germany, how the USSR wanted to launch an invasion of Europe from Poland to Spain which Hitler stopped dead in its tracks, how [insert random high-ranking Nazi officials] were bastardizing Hitler's brilliant policies on the war effort and thus bringing harm to it, and so on.

Finally it'd need to claim that either Hitler actually wanted to save the Jews and that [insert Nazi officials] subverted this process (followed by citing D. Irving), or simply have a quasi-weasel way of getting out of this like "[insert Jewish academics] claim that the German Reich murdered millions of Jews and [insert], but these claims are disputed by [insert some Holocaust deniers and/or Neo-Nazi websites.]"

Then it'd look like a Neo-Nazi article, whereas as it stands it's just lame.

Most of the neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers on Wikipedia - at least those who aren't American - are a bit more wily than that. Basically, it's rare that you come across a stereotypical "caricature" of a neo-Nazi (and usually these get ban hammered pretty quickly). I think I even read something about how Stormfront was instructing its members in how to edit Wikipedia without giving one self away as a neo-Nazi.

The two common ways they do the POV pushing is the "the Germans were the real victims of World War II" trope and the "the Allies were just as guilty of war crimes as the Nazis" trope. Of course each one of these has a very small grain of truth to it - in the last phase of the war and right afterward German civilians did suffer at the hands of the Soviet army and/or new communist governments installed in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and the Allies did commit *some* war crimes. Of course in both instances it's a question of scale - you can't ethically compare the war crimes committed by the Allies or the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe to the Holocaust, or even the genocide/ethnic cleansing carried out by the Nazis on the non-Jewish populations of Poland, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia etc. But "scale" is precisely the kind of thing that a skillful POV pusher can stretch as much as they want to.

So you have folks like Stor stark7 (I don't know if that guy is a Nazi, but at least a fellow traveler - also see this "innocent question" about the viability of the 6 million number he made early on in his Wikipedia career - he got a lot smarter shortly there after, once he realized that stuff like that was gonna get him banned) writing endlessly about the suffering of German civilians "under Allied occupation" or the "atrocities committed by Allied troops". Etc.

Lots of this tactic actually comes from the development of the extreme right in Germany itself and other countries where Holocaust denial is illegal. Basically, in those countries, the early far-right neo-nazis got arrested, so subsequent generations developed a lot of "wink-wink, know what I mean" methods and double talk. And you can find writings by them explicitly calling on their supporters to avoid explicit Holocaust denial (since that would get them into trouble) and instead focusing on the "Germans were the main victims of World War II" and the "the Allies were just as bad as the Nazis" approaches to "dilute" the significance of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes in general.

[Mister Die]

Yeah, I'm aware that only inept types just go out and be like "Hitler was a genius and the Jews got what was coming to them[1] (source: HITLERWASRIGHT DOT COM)," I was just being humorous.

This does remind me, though, of a criticism all the way back in 2005 that still holds just as much today: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo2.htm#Massacres

This is the big problem with purely volunteer activities. You only get people working on things they care deeply about. In this case, we've had Polish nationalist contributors wanting to show how badly their country has suffered at everybody's hands. (Not just Germans, but Lithuanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Soviets have kicked the Poles around on this list.) We've had neo-Nazi contributors trying to prove that Germany was surrounded by big bad enemies, so of course the Nazis were justified in invading them. We've had anti-American contributors wanting to show that the USA is (and always has been) worse than almost everyone else in history, even worse than the Soviets (7 massacres by Americans versus 1 by the Soviets.). Meanwhile, no one really cares what the Japanese did in Singapore, or what the Italians did in Yugoslavia. ("Whatever. It was a long time ago.")

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Wed 22nd February 2012, 5:45pm

[Malik Shabazz]

Oh, somehow the racists managed to get a separate article for "racial separation" as somehow 'not part of the racist article and so not racist at all' too wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nation_of_Islam#Sources -.-

Nice argument: "Those I disagree with must be racists. Or members of the Nation of Islam."

[Selina]

Whatever team of POV pushers made the "racial separatism" articles probably called themselves "racialists" rather than racists, but it's still racism...

sourced statement saying "NOI founder Farad Muhammad (W.D. Fard) taught the white race was produced thousands of years ago in a failed laboratory experiment by an evil wizard named Yacub", but most Islam does not actually teach that - That seems rather relevant to the divide to me? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

start over with a new article, using neutral sources like The Black Muslims in America, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the Black Muslims, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A hate group is a hate group is a hate group, would you suggest to do the same to the klan article? 'Nuff said. As for your sources, they're not even linked to anything, and the titles don't even look remotely neutral. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been avoiding this argument and the reverting on purpose due to how heated this is getting, like I suspect Will Beback has since his last comments above - but I thought someone else should chip in here: There is no difference between racial supremacy and "racial separatism", no different than how racists prefer to call themselves "racialists", I have dealt with people from very racist websites before attempting to push their crap... Sure, the KKK may say they don't want to kill people but just put everyone who doesn't fit their standards on a boat somewhere "separate", but that's still racial supremacism... Do you really really think anyone would agree with you Malik that apartheid is NOT a kind of racial supremacism? Face-sad.svg MLK would be ashamed to have his picture attached to your defending of these kind of people Face-sad.svg "NOI founder Farad Muhammad (W.D. Fard) taught that the white race was produced thousands of years ago in a failed laboratory experiment by an evil wizard named Yacub. (“The Nation of Islam: The Relentless Record of Hate.” Anti-Defamation League (New York):1995. p.3) They state that it is impossible for blacks and whites to co-exist. (“The Nation of Islam: The Relentless Record of Hate.” Anti-Defamation League (New York):1995. p.22)" (the userbox on my page used to be MLK before "the userbox wars" started) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 05:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:COI issue with this article?

"Separatism" is one and the same as supremacy as I said, it is intrinsically connected to a racist viewpoint of the world, I don't see how you could have taken my comments any other way or are choosing to misunderstand... Do you think separatism, apartheid is not racist? Because nearly anyone else would disagree... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


I can't think of anyone outside the internet who would agree with you there... As well as apartheid, the nazis used to explain away concentration camps to the majority of the populace as "sending Jews away", and then you have all the modern racist organisations constantly talk about "separating" people that don't fit the race they want by "sending them away" too... It's one and the same... Different methods, same ideology --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to get sucked into this debate (not being sarcastic), may I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit insulting, my point is as I already said before the argument as to whether people calling for separating races because they think they are inferior are racial supremacists, or not, is a red herring when it is racism by definition... You are saying that sources saying they want to divide people up on race cannot be used to prove they are racists, when it is racism by definition... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your inability to distinguish between black supremacy and black separatism astounds me. Talk about common sense! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

google.com/search?q=bnp "common sense"

+

google.com/search?q=bnp separatism

Search About 1,610,000 results
White separatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wikipedia.org/wiki/White separatism
White separatism is a separatist political movement that seeks separate economic ... Samuel T. Francis · Nick Griffin (Current president of the BNP)

Racism is racism is racism... A nazi salute is still a nazi salute if you're wearing a black glove on it...

[Emperor]

Also note the gigantic Bank of America banner in the middle of the article.

Heh. Silver seren took it down.

[EricBarbour]

Now, you guys are onto something. The secret of controlling Wikipedia content is to be sneaky and subtle.
In the past, clueless people would show up and tip their hand in the process of inserting their
bias, and get caught quickly. Because so many of the admins (especially the patrollers) are
arrogant young men who aren't very smart, and can catch obvious things easily but are simply
incapable of recognizing sneaky POV editing. as time wears on, more people with a political or
social agenda will figure out how to edit, and we will see even more bias in articles--but subtle
bias. The result is more likely to be unreadable articles, not obviously-biased ones.

Perfect example of an incompetent patroller: Tedder.
I just got done looking at his history. He's a dummy. (I'd show you his vanity website, but it's very embarrassing.)

This is how the extreme Zionists got the upper hand--they simply showed up first, and were very
aggressive from the start. That tide is starting to turn, as more of their opponents show up and
figure out the "rules". And I don't mean the "written policies", I mean the REAL rules.

First rule of editing Wikipedia: do not talk about editing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is a Fight Club, and
Jimbo Wales is Tyler Durden, a mass delusion.

[Selina]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists... in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist, or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

In September 2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism of the British Parliament published the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism [..] The report states that left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for antisemitism,(Critics of Israel 'fuelling hatred of British Jews', The Observer, February 3, 2006.) and that the "most worrying discovery" is that antisemitism appears to be entering the mainstream.(MPs deliver anti-Semitism report, BBC News, September 6, 2006.) It argues that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, the report states, traditional antisemitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is "at the core of the 'New Antisemitism', on which so much has been written," adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements."(Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, September 2006, p. 22.)

[nableezy]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

Is this the WTF? thread? Because that was truly a WTF statement.

[Malik Shabazz]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

Is this the WTF? thread? Because that was truly a WTF statement.

While I don't pretend to understand Selina, I would agree that some (many? most?) racists use the word Zionists when they mean Jews -- if that's what she's saying.

[nableezy]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

Is this the WTF? thread? Because that was truly a WTF statement.

While I don't pretend to understand Selina, I would agree that some (many? most?) racists use the word Zionists when they mean Jews -- if that's what she's saying.

I think her post is a bit more encompassing than that. Especially in the context of a reply to Eric's. She seemed to be saying that when somebody uses the word "Zionist" that they are in fact a racist using that as code for "Jew".

[lilburne]

Just a reminder.

[Kelly Martin]

She seemed to be saying that when somebody uses the word "Zionist" that they are in fact a racist using that as code for "Jew".

No, that's not what she said. That you choose to think that she did, says more about you than it does about her.

[Selina]

I never said it always means it, no - but neo-nazis practically always use it as a code word yeah (even on their own sites they get so used to it). We had people come here from neo-nazi sites years ago, I did a lot of browsing after that and got attempted stalking for fighting them too - seen it all

lilburne: It's not about politics or israel so I'm not sure what your point is?

[nableezy]

She seemed to be saying that when somebody uses the word "Zionist" that they are in fact a racist using that as code for "Jew".

No, that's not what she said. That you choose to think that she did, says more about you than it does about her.

Really? Eric's post said the following:

This is how the extreme Zionists got the upper hand--they simply showed up first, and were very aggressive from the start. That tide is starting to turn, as more of their opponents show up and figure out the "rules". And I don't mean the "written policies", I mean the REAL rules.

To which Selina replied

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists

Those were the only instances of the word Zionist on this page at the time. You really want to tell me that a reply to somebody using the word Zionist that says that racists use that as code for Jew is not making the implication that I say it is? OK, but I think that says more about you than it does me.