Wikipedia talk:No Nazis: Difference between revisions

Essays High‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages High This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay.

1. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
8. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jorm (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
11. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
12. Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
14. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15. Nazi ideology is an ongoing contemporary problem worth recognizing and addressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
16. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
17. –dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18. RolandR (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
19. oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
20. pythoncoder (talk | contribs)
21. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
22. Symes2017 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
23. Davide King (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
24. Orangemike --Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
25. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this essay. First of all, when the essay says: Racism, both historical and neo-racist varieties, is inherently incompatible with these principles in a way that virtually no other ideology is. and Declaring oneself to be a racist ... crosses the line into disruptive editing In my view, simply declaring a belief, even an idiology, can never in and of itself constitute disruptive editign, nor a valid reason fort a block, Indeed blocking on such grounds ought in and of itself to be grounbds to dedydop the blocking admin.

Now it is true that most racists or fringe extremists engage in personal attacks, POV-pusing, attempts to remove valid content from articles, vandalism, and other forms of disruptive editing. Such behavior is indeed worthy of a block. But a hypothetical editor who declares him- or herself to be a follower of some racist ideology, or simply to believe in the inferiority of some racial or ethnic group, but who carefully follows NPOV, does not make personal attacks, and does not distort sources in articles or otherwise edit in the service of his or her beliefs is not editing disruptively, and should not be blocked simply for expressing a belief.

Secondly, the description of what a racist is, particularly the list of core beliefs uniting the various types of racists is very US-centric. There are racists who are not white-supremacists. Particularly in other parts of the world than the US, racism may not be a matter of white vs non-white, and may often be closely associated with religious prejudice. The situation in n the Middle east, where prejudices for and against Arabs, Israelis, Iranians, Iraguies, and various nother groups are common and often open comes to mind. The large and complex problem of racism in the Indian sub-contenent, with many regional, ethnic, religious, and caste groups being the victims of prejudice by others also comes to mind. Many other examples could be cited from other parts of the world.

For both of these reasons I disapprove of this essay as currently written. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comment. I enjoyed reading it. Tradedia^talk 00:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The summary overview says "They will almost inevitably lack a neutral point of view" — what does this mean exactly? Anyone who lacks a neutral point of view is "inherently incompatible with Wikipedia"? I always thought it was Wikipedia itself that has a neutral point of view, not the people who create it. Should people only be allowed to edit articles if they have no opinions on the subject of the article whatsoever? 80.3.103.8 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's this concept of manners of degree. A user who happens to think Epstein didn't kill himself but doesn't edit political articles doesn't really affect things. A user who has an opinion where on the Proto-Indo-European homeland was but realizes they might be wrong or thinks that other views are worth discussing is generally fine. Most of the editors who I know identify as religious often edit articles on other religions simply because their religious belief causes them to be interested in religiosity in general. Having opinions is fine so far as one can allow other opinions to exist. Nazism doesn't simply want other opinions reduced, it seeks to eliminate the people that might hold them.

A user who thinks that melatonin makes one less intelligent or Semitic ancestry makes one less moral can't be trusted to edit articles relating to race or history -- nor can they be trusted to work with anyone but white gentiles (which means serious problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL). A user who thinks that the powerful must subjugate the powerless and direct them to persecute minority scapegoats as a distraction can't be trusted to edit articles relating to politics or society (nevermind how that user's behavior is going to relate to WP:AGF, WP:WL). A user who "can't" see those how such users would be a problem can't be trusted to edit anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you use religious people as a comparison group, since it isn't hard to think of systems of religious belief that hold a certain leader or text to be the ultimate absolute authority, and that any contrary opinions deserve to be silenced and suppressed by violent force. And given how often I see the word "racist" used as a meaningless buzzword to silence any rational debate and avoid having to confront uncomfortable truths, it's surely rather ironic for anti-racist moral crusaders to accuse people they view as being racist of being intolerant of other viewpoints. A good example would be when people try to offer any criticism of Islamic doctrine. Racial beliefs are only one category of belief that fascism attaches itself to — religious beliefs are another. What about Muslims who delete well-established scientific and historical truths from Wikipedia because they contradict a literal interpretation of the Quran? Are they in any way less unwelcome? 80.3.103.8 (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the problem with that comparison: if then-president George Bush had converted to Salafi Islam, Osama bin Laden would have considered that a victory and maybe called off attacks on US forces for a while (but yeah, not counterattacks). Racists wouldn't care if a black man identified as white, even if 93.75% of his DNA was European, the best they'd treat him is letting him be an Uncle Tom to make them feel better about generally hating black people. And this is obvious to anyone who is not trying to defend racism. This isn't to say that extremists of any sort (religious or otherwise) are welcome here, but Nazis are especially unwelcome here because their extremism, again, targets qualities that a person cannot reasonably be expected to change (and bear no particular effect beyond vitamin D intake vs skin cancer risk). Also, it's pretty dishonest to try and twist my previous response to "so religious extremists are welcome here?" Doing so makes it pretty clear what your goal is here. Any further alt-right trolling will result in a WP:NOTHERE block. If alt-right trolling wasn't your intention, consider this a call to wake the fuck up. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People who delete facts because they reject them are unwelcome for a different reason than Nazis. This essay is about one subject, and some of the commenters here try to make it about other subjects. And: Not tolerating intolerance is very different from not tolerating people because of properties they cannot do anything about. A Nazi can turn a new leaf and become welcome, while somebody with Jewish ancenstry or dark skin has no chance in a Nazi society. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings on this essay. On one hand, I can understand how it can be detrimental to an online space, or any space for that matter, to tolerate the presence of people who openly advocate for the extermination or oppression of others on the basis of racial or ethnic classification. On the other hand, I've had some strange views myself over the years (still do). While I have "flirted" plenty with totalitarian ideological tendencies, ethnic and racial identity components have never really resonated with me. It's hard for me to place much blame or pride in ancestral or cultural background—given it's basically a roll of the dice and its exact classification can be rather arbitrary.

That being said, while I have held and still hold controversial views, I am not politically active. My past expressions of my views have never resonated with many people or gained much traction. My own behaviour has never been one of violence or aggressive harassment directed at others. For all extensive purposes, my own ideological notions and biases have not caused anyone any measurable harm. Sure, there may have been people in history who have caused harm holding similar views to my own, but I have had no influence on them. Almost every philosophy has had adherents who have done awful things.

Why I bring this up is because I believe my views would be far more idiosyncratic (i.e. "extreme") if I were exiled or made an outcast in society—or even on the Internet. Social tolerance and communication has resulted in my views becoming more moderate in some areas over the years. If I were cast out, I would have less exposure to dissenting ideas and would adopt an increasingly bizarre worldview.

I have and have had held connections with people who hold differing views from my own, sometimes the differences are so extreme that they are completely opposed to one another. Yet, I do not ban these people from my life, I do not block them. Nor do they block me. We express our different views with civility, refrain from attacking one another, while at the same time, are open to criticizing each other's views. If I were not to have this tolerance, I would be completely unable to communicate with others in society, in fact, I would be unable to tolerate living in society itself.

Why I say I am mixed on this essay is partly because despite the above opinion and personal experience, I am a bit of a hypocrite. There are some views that I find too difficult to tolerate. People who believe in the sexualization of minors or sexual activity between adults and minors, I cannot find any tolerance in me for them. Truthfully, for as long as someone held such views, I would want nothing to do with them.

On the specific topic of racism, I do not think it is wise to ban people holding such views from a space given how prevalent the view is across the world. To ban it in my view is rather in favour of Western egalitarian ideals over other worldviews, and thus is not reflective of a global perspective. It's one thing if someone is here to deliberately sabotage the neutrality of articles by advocating for their own ideology, but I do not think holding a racial prejudice and discriminatory belief alone should be grounds for removal of editing privileges.

If I have misinterpreted this essay, be sure to correct me. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also mixedly disagree. What bugs me most is:

The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are:

* That white people are more intelligent than non-whites.
* That white people are more industrious than non-whites.

...

1. The first claim means that many the contributors to Race and intelligence are racists and should be banned. (Disclaimer: I have not edited it, as far as I can remember.)

1. That it forgets, worse: denies, about Yellow, Red, Black ... (add the colors of the rainbow) racism.

1. That it is non inclusive (!). Wikipedia should be open to everybody, as long as they operate by 5Ps and do not break the laws. That includes racists, cyclists, pedofiles, kulaks, "appearing to be leftist, but practically rightist" (terminology from Cultural Revolution) and, dunno: sentient vicious imprisoned ladybugs who can type, unless WP:NOTTHERE.

In short, we should operate under On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

-> We should thus quickly remove or rephrase this essay, as it is referenced in many places.

Zezen (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]