Talk:Supremacism/Archive 1

Judaism 2

I use "Jew" here to mean only adherents to Judaism (rather than Jewish ethnicity, for consistency's sake: Jew).Owen&rob 03:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure there are Jews who do not believe that they are the chosen people per se. Since they are instantiative of Judaism, I feel it is a little unfair to include Judaism wholesale as "supremacist", but would would like to see some impartial connection made here. Owen&rob 03:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the following sentence were removed, would you approve of the remaining article? - Texture 03:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"On the other hand, the Crusades, Islamism and the Jewish ethnocentrism can all be shown as examples of intolerance based upon those characteristics."

Next, can you find another way to produce a similar conept with a better, distanced example? (For example, the Crusades are removed from Christianity since we obviously do not practice Christianity today. (Why Islam is exempt from being included in the battle cry "remember the crusades", I don't know. They were overly as bad as the christians (except they were better to non-combatants in Palestine.) - Texture 03:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Judaism 1

In case somebody doesn't like me including Judaism, I suggest they read this. Sam Spade 03:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jusaism is not a supremacist group. If you would like to propose a group of jews that is, feel free. But the majority of jews and the jewish religion are not. - Texture 03:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I take it you did not read the link I offered? Try Jews as a chosen people as well Sam Spade 03:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, actually I did. Read the Bible. Read the Qaran. Come back to me and tell me we should add all christians and muslims as supremacist groups then I'll agree (with a disclaimer for the three). - Texture 03:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now thats a good point. I agree. Sam Spade 03:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not bad. Can we change "can each be accurately" to something more in line with belief? I think you need to tone it down to something more passive. I like the rest of it, though. It's seems fair. Let's see if it stands. - Texture 03:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

yep Sam Spade 03:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You lost me again. "On the other hand, the Crusades, Islamism and the Jewish ethnocentrism are all examples of religious Supremacism." - These are examples of intolerance but need more angles to make them supremacist. The crusades is too broad to stroke with this brush. Jewish ethnocentrism believes their values are above other religions. Not their race. (As I understand the concept.) Islamism is too broad and includes groups who are intolerant but not supremacist. If you lose even one of these examples it becomes unbalanced and I would not agree it is a fair addition. - Texture 03:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I NPOV'ed myself a bit. Sam Spade 03:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I tried it a little more. I still don't know if I like the sentences existence, but how is that? - Texture 03:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Same question

that you asked just above, plus what is that "judaism 2" section doing up there? Sam Spade 06:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My fault. Owen created a section at the top and I got confused between your original question and his so I seperated them. - Texture 13:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As for the change... I moved it toward "intolerance by the characteristics" and away from "supremacist" because I don't believe you can paint that large a picture of those concepts. As it stands the sentence is too broad and inappropriate. - Texture 13:59, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One more try... I don't agree that supremacism and religious groups can be equated except at the splinter level. There are, however, examples of intolerance based on the same concepts at the generic level - Texture 15:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear there are examples of outright supremacism involved, but I also agree its unfair to insist that every member necessarilly ascribes to such philosophies. I am gonna try to word it that way, let me know what you think. Sam Spade 17:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

moved from article

' towards belief in a racial self-identity, which was followed by a similar protectionism and converse exclusion of foreign culture and influence '

This stuff has a handful of problems with it, including ethnocentrism, historical innacuracy (belief in racial self identity long predated the scientific developments) and the bit about protectionism which I would say is debatable, and would appreciate some examples of/sources for. Sam Spade 05:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:)

I am always gratified to find that material I have written has stood the test of time; in this case I see some of it withstood removal only to be reintroduced as a stabilizing element to the debate. Moments like these make me truly glad to be a Wikipedian. Sniff! :) -==SV 04:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If JDL is removed from the list, it is proof that Wikipedia is biased.

Wikipeidans do not want bias in this Enclyclopedia. FACT: The JDL is a supremacist orgainization on the USA terrorist list. Do not remove fact from articles based on personal bias.

• Feel free to discuss, here in the talk section, in what way the JDL meets the definition of a supremecist organization from the article: Supremacism is the belief that self-determination and freedom of association are principles less important than the virtues obtained by one's race, religion, belief system or culture ruling over others. This is generally justified by some notion of superiority, sometimes described in scientific terms, but it can also be by divine covenant such as the divine right of kings (royal families or "chosen people"). Yes, they are extremists; they are not supremacists. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The JDL are supremacists, as is: # "Kahane Chai - an Israeli fringe organization that preaches Jewish supremacy, named after Meir Kahane" THIS IS ALREADY LISTED on Wikipedia and DESCRIBED AS SUCH, so it meets the definition. I am sorry if you personally do not like it. DO NOT revise and falsify thE Kahane Chai definition after this post, or I will report your activities.

JPGordon, hencefoth PLEASE STOP following people around the Wikipedia site, and deleting their contributions based on your own personal views. Kindly stop harrassing of other contributors.

• Kahane Chai? Go ahead and list Kahane Chai. JDL's a different can of worms completely. Feel free to "report my activities"; you'll discover you'll get very little sympathy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JPgordon: "you'll discover you'll get very little sympathy." You are very smug towards others. Explain to Wikipedia users why the administrators/founder of this site wouldn't be sympathetic to complaints of harassment of others? to your propagandist and supremacist sympathies in editing? to your revisions and denial of fact to suit your personal agenda? Is that what Wikipeida is coming to? Your actions, and those of your "tag-team" which sadly includes some "administrators", can easily be tracked.

Jpgordon: Do not follow contributors around this site deleting their input.

• I don't need to follow anyone around; registered users have "watchlists" which notify them when articles of interest to them are edited. Go ahead and report my "activities". The place to start is with a "Request for comment". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---Yet another excuse for your deletionist activity, Jpgordon? You follow and harass others. Your "interest" (which others have criticized as selective bias and activism) keeps articles from NPOV. You have more than an "interest". Your propagandist viewpoint belongs on advocacy websites, not an Encyclopedia. You are always causing partisan controversies on articles where you hold your POVs so dearly. This is not what Wikipedia strives to be. Young man, reread the first line of the article: "Supremacism is the belief that self-determination and freedom of association are principles less important than the virtues obtained by one's race, religion, belief system or culture ruling over others." You let your Jewish advocacy and personal loyalties contribute to partisanship and bias, on this and many other articles. It is clear to those that review your activity on Wikipedia. People should review it. Do you honestly think that people will accept your ethnic, religious and racially-biased POVs each and every single time a contributor wants to add to this encyclopedia? Wikipedia is open for editing by ALL people of ALL different backgrounds, religions and races, not just yours. Your tag-team of "interested" Jewish supremacists just team up to dishonestly circumvent the 3R rule and selectively diminish input of others. This is not your personal topic. The situation is Palestine is seen by the majority of the world's citizens as a case of Jewish Supremacism. Any article ought to acknowledge that fact even though you might not like that fact.

Islamists

There is no "Islamists" group with a set agenda and goals; the term "Islamist" is a neologism, coined to refer generally to politically fundamentalist Muslims, whose aims and beliefs are varied. Islamism is mentioned in the article, but Islamists shouldn't be inserted in the list of supremacist groups. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Then make it islamist groups, as they all have this in common. Done.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Undone. Why are you so eager? Could we hear from other editors? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I would dispute that Islamists are supremacists as they are commonly seen, unpleasant as they are. They are certainly fundamentalists, but I'm not sure the supremacist tag holds here. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you Axon. Supremacism is one of the cornerstones of islamism. Their ultimate dream is to have one world-encompassing Caliphate which will dominate all non-Muslims and force them to pay tribute. You like to be gay, isn't it? Rest assured your will get a free air travel from a high building from those guys if they have their way. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Supremacism is the belief that self-determination and freedom of association are principles less important than the virtues obtained by one's race, religion, belief system or culture ruling over others. This is generally justified by some notion of superiority, sometimes described in scientific terms, but it can also be by divine covenant such as the divine right of kings (royal families or "chosen people"). Do you deny, Axon, that islamist groups think that self-determination and feeedom of association are principles less important than the virtues obtained by Islam ruling over others?--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If the groups that you keep trying to add are supremacists, then we need to add Christians who believe in conversion, and whose ideal is a Christian world, communists whose aim is a communist world order, etc. They're not included under the groups, section, though they're mentioned in the appropriate place in the article, as is Islam. Your insistence in including more Islamic groups doesn't strike me a being NPoV editing.

I've expanded the article in attempt to explain the notion of supremacism more clearly, and to distinguish it from non-supremacist beliefs. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid, Mel Etitis, you don't understand Christianity and the goals of Christians that well. Christians do not want to control the whole world, they want to convince as much as possible people to become Christians in order to save their souls. As per teachings of Jesus, violence and any kind of force is forbidden. Christians, as well, do not consider themselves (as people) superior, although they consider their belief system as more true than other belief systems. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That you feel able to make sweeping statements about what Christians want suggests that you don't understand Christianity very well either. And the idea that Christians are non-violent doesn't warrant a response. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, enlighten me. Please show the supremacist nature of christianity as per your definition above. And show why the islamist groups I mentioned do not qualify like supremacist groups. I already pointed out that they a) consider the law of islam superior to democracy and self-determination and b) want to establish a world-encompassing islamic Caliphate, in which non-Muslims will be dhimmi, thus second-class citizens. If you cannot, will you accept my addition? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Germen, please don't call people gay, especially in broken english.Heraclius 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, Axon is a gay according to himself. He is member of the category of gay Wikipedians. I do not think gays are less than other people. Unfortunately, islamists do so, so I thought it to be appropriate to warn Axon about this.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

He's probably encountered homophobia among Christians, so it won't come as any surpise to him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Christians don't believe that they should throw gays from high buildings or stone them, like Islamist and traditional Muslims do.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

1. In fact homosexuality has been punishable by death in Christian societies, and there are Christian groups who advocate such penalties even now.
2. Stoning is at best controversial in Islam (see, e.g., Talk:Hudud}.
3. In any case, none of this is relevant to the issue of supremacism, or you obsession with inserting Islamic group into this article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
   1. Christianity (like islam) cannot be judged from its society, but must be judged from its scriptures. There are no known current Christian groups which advocate the killing of homosexuals, if so, cite your sources.
   2. Islamic religious sources (Hadith) and authorities support stoning. A large minority of Muslims, including Quran only Muslims abhor it.
   3. I have given my arguments to that matter, just I was refuting this unfair blame to Christianity.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Added two categories

As from now, I have not heard any sound reason from Mel Etitis why several islamist groups are not supremacist. In order to defuse tensions and please Mel Etitis, I have added a new category: religious supremacist groups and secular religious supremacist groups. Like we say in Holland: equal monks, equal hats. Why whining about Kahane, and hkeep silent about the equally fascist Takfir wal Hijra? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Because we're not talking about fascism (even when that term is misused as you've done), but about supremacism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As do I. I gave valid reasons why those islamist groups qualify as supremacist. You did not give any reason.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why islamist groups qualify as supremacist groups

Quote from your article:

Supremacism, however, goes much further than this. It doesn't hold merely that a belief or set of beliefs is true, and thus superior to the (false) alternatives, but that a particular group is superior to other groups.

This is my point. Islamists believe exactly that. They believe that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, which justifies discrimination of non-Muslims by Muslim in the shari'ah rule. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Added other religious groups

Shiv Sena and Christian Identity qualify as well as supremacist groups. Gosh, world would be a better place without those nuts. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment

I've placed this article at RfC in the hope of getting some opinions from outisde editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Meanwhile, Mel Etitis, give this thought a try. Why the Muslim community should be free from right-wing nuts anmd why should supremacist acts by Muslims not be classified like supremacist? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1. We're talking about supremacism, not being right wing; your persistent confusion of the two perhaps explains your mistaken additions to this article.
2. Your peculiar assumption that I really agree that these Muslim groups are supremacist but just don't want to say so in the article perhaps explains your inability to discuss the issue usefully. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Can you explain why the Kach grouping is supremacist but Hizb ut-Tahrir not? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Even after repeatedly asked so, Mel Etitis cannot motivate his religious exclusionist POV. We have seen that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Takfir wal Hijra strive to make Islam the system that rules the earth and consider Muslims to be superior to non-Muslims. So according to Mel's own definition they are supremacist. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments in favour for including several islamist, Creator Movement, Christian identity and Hindu groups in the list of supremacist groups

1. Those groups regard their own group (Muslims/whites/blacks/Hindu) as superior to non-membetrs of their groups.
2. The islamic groups try to subjugate other (non-Muslim) groups in order to achieve a world-encompassing rule by the Islamic caliphate. I added the Nation of Gods and Earths because of their Afro-centered racism.
3. Those groups regard freedom of expression and other civil liberties as less important than the supremacy of their belief systems.
4. Several of these groups are described as supremacist groups at their Wikipedia pages.
5. The religious extremist groups Kahane Chai and Nation of Islam are included, while there is no essential difference between those groups and the groups proposed by me.

So according to me, they qualify as supremacist groups. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

According to normal usage and the article, they don't. None of them holds that their group is superior, only that their religious beliefs are true (and others false); at most, they think that their beliefs are superior, but that's true of anyone who genuinely holds beliefs. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Normal usage" is POV. They regard Muslims as superior to non-Muslims, so what you say is not correct. You are advised to do some reading about those groups.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1. "'Normal usage' is POV"? See Wikipedia:No original research.
2. This isn't, as you're trying to turn it into, aList; it's an article about the concept of supremacism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
   1. Indeed, your concept of normal usage is POV, as these groups are normally referred to as islamofascist and islamic supremacist groups and you refuse to acknowledge this. As I have proven more than three times in a row, their ideology qualifies as supremacism. I have performed a Google test [1] and I think more than 80,000 hits can be seen as notable. So there are logical and notability reasons which qualify those organisations as supremacist.
   2. You already included a list of supremacist organisations, so this argument is not only void, but also quite hypocrite. As I said before: you did not motivate why you included only some supremacist organisations, but refuse to acknowledge other supremacist organisations. Better you remove this list or keep this list complete. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Oh good grief, again your ridiculous assumption, in the face of all my arguments above, that I really agree with you that all the groups you're trying to add are supremacist, but for some presumably reprehensible reason I want to deny it. I don't agreee that they're supremacist. I don't know how more clearly I can put this. Moreover your claim that the usage "islamofascist", confined in fact to a handful of right-wing journalists and U.S. neo-con politicians, is how these groups are normally refered to is simply false.
    • Note also that you're now in danger of violating Wikipedia:3RR. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • a) What arguments? I asked you repeatedly to provide arguments why those groups do not qualify as supremacist groups. It will help your case if you provide them. As I prove before, there are both notability and logical arguments favouring their classification as supremacist.
      • b) You have already violated Wikipedia:3RR three times (six times reverted), my friend. Whining about other users is against my interpretation of fair play so I have refrained from reporting you up to now. I would like to solve our dispute on the basis of arguments rather than powerplay.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I've given arguments; you've ignored them.
2. I've checked the history, and I don't see that I've done any such thing. If you can show me the diffs, I'll happily revert myself.
3. You have, however, violated 3RR despite my warning, and I've reported that at AN/3RR. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
   1. And, did it help? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, argument by sneer. Very edifying. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No sneer. I just hope it made clear to you that following a more cooperative and constructive approach in order to resolve our little misunderstanding is far more effective than the ad hominem approach. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against including aforementioned groups

MelEtitis, have your say.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed copyediting request

Just scanned through the discussion page, and there is no reason that I could see that the copyediting warning needs to be there anymore.

Of course, I also read the article in depth and made one very minor stylistic change.

I've therefore removed the notice; please leave me a notice on my User talk:Splintax if you want to discuss this.. :)

splintax 13:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Re the 'Beliefs and ideas' section

"If you believe that x is true and that y is false, then you must hold that someone who believes the reverse is wrong, and that your beliefs are in that sense superior."

I might think that someone who believes the reverse is wrong, but not necessarily that my belief is superior.
212.84.98.52 21:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

---

??? A true belief is superior to a false belief in terms of its truth value, by definition. I suppose one might try to argue that the false belief might be aesthetically more pleasing, or more comforting, but then those are non-truth-functional senses, so irrelevant to what's said in the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"...but then those are non-truth-functional senses, so irrelevant to what's said in the article."

If anything characterises supremacism I would suggest it would be a non-truth-functional nature. If I were a Christian, I may believe Hindus to be mistaken in their beliefs, but I wouldn't necessarily think that my beliefs were superior or that they ought to believe as I do; similarly for the remaining examples in the opening paragraph. In short, what I am suggesting is that this paragraph is not NPOV; indeed, that it might be supremacist as regards the role of logic in human affairs.
Thank you for your interest. 212.84.106.70 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

---

1. I don't know that supremacism is defined by non-truth-functionality, but the point of the passage in question is precisely to explain that supremacism is different from the ordinary attitudes involved in holding certain propositions to be true or false.
2. Christians certainly ought to hold that others should share their beliefs, unless they're immoral and don't care whether other people gain salvation.
3. The passage says nothing about logic; in any case, I know of no part of the world, no culture, no way of living, that isn't logical. If the white supremacist weren't logical, for example, then he might hold that whites are superior to other races, and therefore blacks should be given all the best jobs. Logic is inescapable, because it isn't a matter of how things are (so that they might be some other way), but the structure of how things can be. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello again.

Re 1: If I "believe that X is true and that Y is false" I don't see why I must "hold that someone who believes the reverse is wrong, and that [my] beliefs are in that sense superior." I might simply say the other person has different beliefs; and even if I then think their beliefs are mistaken, what makes my beliefs "in that sense superior"? Do I have a monopoly on truth? With more experience and learning I may well change them...

If I believe that x is true, and you beleive that x is false, then I believe that you're wrong. I don't think that I have a monopoly over the truth (where did that come from?), only that in this instance I'm one person (doubtless among many) whose belief is true. In terms of truth-functionality, then, my belief is superior. None of this is controversial, most of it's a simple matter of definition. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A supremacist kind of thinking seems to have crept into the passage before the second paragraph introduces a definition of supremacism. Hence my suggesting this paragraph is not NPOV and I have now so marked it. I would like to see if and what opinions other people have on the matter, which I hope is acceptable to you.

Is till have no idea what you mean, and I've removed the tag. I'll replace it if you can explain why you think it should be there (I don't even require that you make a good case for your position, just that you explain it clearly so that I know why you think the tag is appropriate). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re 2: There seem to be a lot of unjustified 'must's, 'should's and 'ought's flying about, before talk of supremacism even begins. Whilst I know and have met Christians who indeed behave as if others ought to share their beliefs, there seem to be as many keen simply to share their beliefs and give others the choice to find out more or not.

It seems to me that you've no understood the nature of Christianity (or, perhaps, of religion in general). In so far as it's concerned with hypothetical imperatives (such as: "if you want to achieve salvation, you should follow the teachings of Jesus"), and in so far as the Christian is a moral person, then the Christian should think that everyone ought to follow Christian teachings. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re 3: I would suggest that societies may strive to make logic a significant feature of their existence but that the history of mankind repeatedly shows how little if any priority logic is given - or, to put it in a nutshell, that human nature isn't logical.

This doesn't really make sense to me, I'm afraid, but I suspect that you've misunderstood the nature of logic. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope I have not misunderstood or misplaced any of the intentions in the passage (or indeed your thoughts here, for which thank you). If so, my apologies but please note there is at least one person who has found difficulty with it.
212.84.110.109 02:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your thoughts interspersed in the above. I'm sorry not to've made my concerns more clear. For that reason, perhaps it is best if I focus on just the first point in the above before addressing any others.

"If I believe that X is true, and you believe that X is false, then I believe that you're wrong."

Let's say I believe that theocracy is a good form of government and you don't. Must I believe that you're wrong? No, because (for example) I may accept that you might know or have experienced something about theocracy which, if I knew or experienced it, would change my mind.

I might nonetheless choose to believe that you're wrong about theocracy, but the point is I don't have to do so.

I hope this helps.
212.84.103.225 13:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I have edited the opening of the article in an attempt to make it simpler and to remove the POV comments about the Iraq war.

I have removed the first two paragraphs of the 'Beliefs and ideas' section as I feel that, regardless of how non-NPOV or well-argued they may or may not be, the point being made is that supremacism holds that "a particular group is superior to other groups". I suggest this is now implicit in the opening sentence of the article as it currently stands; in other words, an attempt to contrast supremacism with the holding of beliefs is not necessary and risks the non-NPOV I have tried to indicate above.

I hope my efforts are acceptable. If not, how are differences resolved?

Thank you. 212.84.121.180 03:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The main problem was that you recast part of the article from normal text into a sort of list (with the last entry "and so on"). You also deleted (rather than rewording slightly) the comment on the Iraq war; the passage is slightly PoV, but it does say that the West doesn't openly assert supremacist views, with the implication that this needn't be the actual fact of what's going on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Re the start of the article:

I have now reformatted the list as a sentence.

Re the comments on the Iraq war:

I have tried to neutralise these, but feel both are inherently POV. Taking the first, "Of course, Western society no longer openly promotes religious supremacism, the current war in Iraq being a good example", there may be a significant number of people who'd say the current war in Iraq is not a good example of Western society no longer openly promoting religious supremacism. (In other words, it's a POV that the war in Iraq is a good example.)

Similarly, saying "A great deal of care was made in order not to allow anti-Saddam propaganda to include an anti-Islamic focus" is a POV as people may well say that insufficient care was taken.

I have therefore left these comments omitted.

I note you also reintroduced the first two paragraphs of the 'Beliefs and ideas' section, but haven't indicated why. I had hoped the relevant paragraph in my previous message would indicate why I had removed them even before any POV/NPOV considerations. If you still feel they ought to form part of the article, I'd appreciate your indicating why with reference to that paragraph; if this is not enough, please also refer to the theocracy example in the message before it. Thank you. In the meantime I have left these paragraphs omitted.

212.84.102.224 03:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I wonder if you'd care to open an editing account? It's free, easy, has no strings attached, and brings many advantages. One of them (though an informal one) is that when hard-pressed editors in a hurry see a block of text removed from an article (with no edit summary — see below), they're less likely to revert it without stopping to examine it carefully. I know that that shouldn't happen anyway, but it does; I've just done it to you, and I'd have been much less likely to have done it if you'd not been an anon. Doubtless it shouldn't be that way, but it is I'm afraid.
2. Always use edit summaries; it's Wikipedia policy anyway, and it also makes it less likely that you'll just be assumed to be a vandal when you delete material from articles (or make other edits).
3. In fact, though, I do have problems with your version (some apply also to the original version). I don't think that it narrows the field sufficiently or in the right way. Mentioning the actions that supremacists think that they're entitled to take is good and important, and an improvement over what went before, but the inclusion of divine covenants worries me. That's surely something else (no better, but different in kind). It may be that supremacism is augmented by or justified in terns of appeal to such a covenant, but to call the divine right of kings supemacism strikes me as odd, to say the least.
4. I don't agree with removing the section on beliefs and ideas; I added it because an editor with an extreme and insistent PoV was making the very mistake that the section tries to head off. Your summary doesn't make the point clearly enough or at enough length. You've said before that in fact you disagree with the (standard) account of belief on which the section rests, and I still hold that you're wrong to do so. I don't want to insult you needlessly, and forgive me if the answer is an outraged "no!", but are influenced by some sort of "post-modernism" or "critical theory" approach?
5. The paragraph on religions strikes me as being better, on the whole, in its original form; why do you want to make the changes that you did? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your latest thoughts. I have now opened a user account as signed below.

Re divine covenant, divine right of monarchs, etc:

This content was in the article before I began making my suggestions and I simply carried it through. I suppose the notions of royal families and claiming a divine right to rule is not supremacist as currently described since I'd say they assume the (tacit) approval of the people to be ruled (otherwise cue revolution, etc). By the same token, however, I suppose claims of having a divine covenant and/or being a chosen people would be supremacist if such claims included the right to "dominate, control or rule those who do not" share or recognise those claims...?

Re first two paragraphs of 'Beliefs and ideas' section:

So far as I'm aware I'm not influenced by some sort of postmodern or critical theory, inasmuch as I haven't read or studied either. I hope, though - with tongue in cheek - you never find any need to insult me or anyone else...! In the meantime I'd appreciate your directing me to the kind of (standard) account of belief you have in mind when you say I don't agree with it, as I don't know whether or not I do.

Apart from this, however, I feel it should be possible to rewrite the paragraphs to remove the claim of being "wrong" (or right) and to attribute the belief that one belief is superior to another to an evaluation of evidence. After all, the conclusion in the second paragraph - that supremacism is believing "that a particular group is superior to and has rights over other groups" - does not conflict with the article's opening statement ("Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who belong to or profess it to dominate, control or rule those who do not."). Here is an (incomplete) attempt - perhaps we could improve it together? :

It is important to distinguish supremacism from the general holding of beliefs. If you believe something to be true whilst someone else believes it to be false, you may believe the evidence and reasoning for your belief to be superior to those of the other person [insert example]. Supremacism, however, goes much further than this. It doesn't only hold that the evidence and reasoning for a set of beliefs is superior to any other but that those people holding those beliefs are superior to others and have rights over them.

Re the paragraph on religions:

As explained above, I feel the example of and comments about the Iraq war are not NPOV. Furthermore, whilst they refer to supremacism, I don't see how they help eludicate the concept. For those reasons I feel they ought to be omitted.

As regards the rest of the paragraph, I'd hope my rewording would be seen as more succinct.

David Kernow 05:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I have now rewitten the 'Beliefs and ideas' section along the lines suggested above. I would still appreciate some thoughts as to whether or not and how the notions of divine covenant and chosen people might be included in the examples at the start of the article. Thanks.
David Kernow 15:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Multiculturalists

• The multiculturalists belief that multicultural society is superior to mono-cultural or mono-racial one and shold be enforced even against affected people's wish. See forced bussing, desegregation.

Do we have a source for calling multiculturalists "supremacists"? They are generally considered to be opposites. for example:

• Have a name for us and for our opponents. I guess we can call ourselves "People of White Ethnicity", "US Culture Preservationists", "White Preservationists", or what AR wrote "Racial Realists". Where white racism is persecuted, explain whiteness in terms of ethnicity rather than race. Even multiculturalist could agree that being Irish, Russian, Danish or other white ethnicity is acceptable. Please avoid names and symbols that seem extreme such as Nationalist, Supremacist, White Separatist, and KKK. I guess we can call the opposition "Multiculturalists", "Colored Supremacists", "Diversity Dictatorship", "Global Socialists", "New World Order Fascists" or "Corporate Greed". [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/get_serious_abo.php Post to American Renaissance (magazine)]

Without a notable source this appears to be original research. Thank, -Willmcw 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (well, "original research" is a bit of a euphemism, but agreed in principle). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

---

What a shitty article. Use of "I", and placement of neoconservatism? WTF?

The List

The list is completely uncited. Whether or not Salafist Islam or the Christian Coalition has a supremacist ideology is something that is important, but is not answered on this or those pages. Unless I see citations in the next week, it's coming out as pointless. Hornplease 06:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Review and Refine

Everything (including the beliefs) created by human beings should be reviewed and refined. --m —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaparty (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why change the Discrimination box?

I think it look better before, Yahel Guhan, especially as it provided the first-time reader with a more intuitive interface. So why change it? ·Michel (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The template was hanging over the end of the article; the article isn't big enough for that discrimination template; at least the navbox fits in the article. Yahel Guhan 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess it looked fine in the browser I was using then (Safari), but I know the problem. · Michel (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Two problems: lack of evidence and overly broad definition

Problem One: No cited evidence that these groups all meet this definition This entry articulates the following as defining elements of 'supremacism:'
1) a belief that a particular race, religion, gender, belief system or culture is superior to others;
2) a belief that this superiority entitles those who belong to the group or who "identify with" the belief system to dominate, control or rule those who do not;
3) a belief that members of the superior group have rights over those who do not; AND
4) the seeking of scientific justification for those views.

I am not familiar with each of the groups that this entry identifies as 'supremacist,' but I challenge the author to find and cite writings or statements from representatives of each of those groups that provide evidence of each of those four elements. Without cited evidence that each of the listed groups actually holds the beliefs ascribed to them, identifying them as 'supremacist' is not far removed from simple name-calling.

Problem Two: Overly broad definition

Using the Christian Coalition as a convenient example (because they have so much on the Internet[2], I'm pretty sure you will be able to find and cite CC quotes that articulate their explicit ambition to influence--or even control--American government based on their belief system. However, if we define everyone in a democratic society who takes action to ensure that people share his or her beliefs win elections and write laws, then every political activist--heck, every voter--is a supremacist.

I'm thinking it will also be easy for you to find some evidence that the Christian Coalition believes that America is a 'Christian nation,' and that therefore our government and laws should reflect their particular version of 'Christian values.'

However, are you ready to label as 'supremacist' every majority cultural group who expresses a desire to control the political and social culture within the area where they are the majority? That's a mighty broad brush--it sweeps up the likes of the Nazis (who actually did attempt to exercise supreme authority outside their own land based on their self-given rights of superiority, with the likes of, say, French Canadians who want to use the mechanisms of government to preserve Quebec's cultural heritage.

We need a strong, undiluted term that applies ONLY to those who claim or take supreme authority for their own race, sex, or social group based on an expressed belief in that group's inherent or entitled superiority over all others. I think that term should be 'supremacist.' To apply that term to all of us who seek more power or respect for our own groups and kindred spirits weakens the term and weakens our ability to designate the true supremacists among us.

here's another term... Elitism/Elitist --Ne0Freedom 05:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs)

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Aren't these groups suffering from ASPD? --God and religion are distinct. 17:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Supremacism and Chauvinism

Male and female supremacism and chauvinism are the same. 71.175.33.237 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. First, they're not. Secondly, the article is in any case not about "male and female supremacism", but about supremacism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with the previous opinion. Chauvinism is a term in itself, defined in the dictionary (eg: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinism ) as "excessive patriotism". This concept should not be considered the same as supremacism (which by the way I could not find in the dicitionary).

I believe the articles must be kept separated, and if considered adequate can be cross-referenced. DPdH 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Please retain the cross reference, but do not merge. Chauvinism is described as extreme and unreasoning partisanship to one group against rivals, whereas Supremacism is understood to mean a belief that one is superior to others - similar on the surface, but underlying Nicolas Chauvin's etymology is that he worshipped Napoleon and his nationalistic ideals - supremacism implies that the person's own belief places them personally above all others, perhaps accepting the existence of peers, but presumably never 'worshipping' anything more substantial than the ideal. In this sense, I would suggest that charismatic leaders themselves such as Adolf Hitler would be supremacist, whereas followers of Hitler as a leader would be chauvinistic. Doubtless the arrogance of some contemporary followers of Nazism would have them viewing Hitler as a peer and they would follow the ideal, not the person, making them more supremacist in nature. This would have been unlikely to be the case were they to have personally lived under Hitler's charismatic German dictatorship. --Morte011171 07:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The historical origins of chauvinism are important, as is the precision of the term. Shall we delete 'bright' from dictionaries simply because it has some similarities to white? No. I'm a long-time WP contributor who happened upon this article via a google search on Chauvinism. It has significant value, in my view. I agree with what others, above me, have said. Indeed, I shall delete the proposed merger given that I see only opposition. I apologize if I overstep my bounds in so doing. Holmwood

Oppose. Chauvinism has an almost derisory feel about it, and I can't see how it could be confused with the murderous turn of mind that more often than not gets associated with supremacism. · Michel 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the merge tags as there is no consensus for the merge and they have been on the article since May 2007. --Deadly∀ssassin 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously need Male Supremacism paragraph too

I don't have energy to work on this paragraph today, but the article leaves the impression that male supremacism and female supremacism are just two sides of the same coin, when obviously throughout history and through much of the world today male supremacism is the dominant cultural model. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Explain global tag

Several examples from around world mentioned. Which would you suggest adding and do you have WP:RS for it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

American exceptionalism?

Rather than edit warring on this, people, how about discussing? The article doesn't explicitly mention supremacism, so it is debateable. However, a books.google search of American exceptionalism supremacism shows that some do link them. I'm sure further searches would show WP:RS making this link re: current US wars. But that material needs to be added to that article; and it could be added to this. Do the work. Don't edit war. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Religions sorted in order of population

I notice that an editor is arguing that the Religions section should be in chronological rather than population order. But the very first sentence of the section on Jews particularly mentions zionism, which of course postdates both Christianity and Islam. As this approach necessarily muddles the chronology badly from the very first sentence, it makes much more sense to put the three groups in the order I had them, which is by proportion of population. Is there a reason other than chronology for wanting Jews to go first? Goodwinsands (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you are new to Wikipedia. Welcome. I encourage you to read the policies I link to below.

First, it is WP:original research for you to say which religions have the most adherents without even refs, but even if the facts are found, the logic is questionable.

Judaism is the oldest of the three religions mentioned; searching books.google, I didn't find anything off hand from ancient/biblical times using the phrase, but that does not mean that someone won't find them any day now. Plus obviously the drive to create a Jewish state in Israel is based on promises written about in the Hebrew bible before the other religions were formed.

History_of_religion#Axial_age reads in part: 800 BCE to 200 BCE has been described by historians as the axial age.... this period as the foundation of many of humanity's most influential philosophical traditions, including monotheism in Persia and Canaan, Platonism in Greece, Buddhism and Hinduism in India, and Confucianism and Taoism in China. So mention of any of those that also are described as having supremacist strains is also relevant and should be added - in chronological order.

I searched books.google for Zoroastrianism and supremacism and it turns out some white supremacist sects have used that as a basis of their views; and given the empire building of the Persians, more historical examples probably can be found. There were also lots of hits for Hindu supremacists and I didn't even try Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. So more research can be done and any relevant material added about them - again in rough order by creation of religion.

In Wikipedia we want to expand information, and keeping things chronological by the time they were created just makes sense. If you object to what looks like an emphasis on one religion, expand the article to include examples of supremacism in other articles not yet covered. An attempt to impose some less logical order easily could be seen as an attempt to draw WP:Undue or WP:POV (biased) attention to one religion over others.CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't find that argument very persuasive. If you don't find the number of adherents clear enough, although it's quite well-established, and it doesn't at all seem to be "original research" to use it as a way to organize a section, then how about alphabetical order? That would make as much sense as what you're doing, and it wouldn't run into an obvious and funny contradiction in the very first sentence the way the present arrangement does. Goodwinsands (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's give others a chance to opine. Plus I think I'll add some more religions chronologically and then the order WILL change, won't it?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, do today's changes satisfy your concerns? At my leisure I'll do Hinduism too, which seems to be older than any of monotheistic religions. Or you could put some time in and research it and add edits :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems even worse to me than the initial problem. The new paragraph is not about Zoroastrianism but what the Nazis -- historically just yesterday on the time scales we're addressing -- did with it. Surely the Nazis weren't Zoroastrians, and surely Zoroastrians should not be charged with inspiring Nazism. The paragraph is fundamentally misleading in connecting the two so strongly. This is exactly the kind of awkward kludge one gets trying to force a timeline onto a subject that is not best addressed chronologically. There is no serious contention about the relative sizes of the adherent populations, and there is no serious contention for that matter about alphabetical order. But using chronology is at best a very uncomfortable fit that instantly and inevitably plunges the section into the kind of troubles I describe. Your position that chronological order is self-evidently the best, self-evidently the most "logical", and self-evidently the most "NPOV" structure merits reevaluating, as it's led to a real time-warp, what with Zionism before Islam and now Nazism before Christianity. At least it would be possible to keep alphabetical order straight! Goodwinsands (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually that did occur to me that I was stretching it after I read the unsourced material directly above that section on Nazis, after I'd put it in! Sigh...

I think chronological by years that the source claims a religion has supremacist elements/individuals/movements might be most NPOV and even encourage research to back further in time, since in ancient times people enslaved and killed people of other religions left and right. Then if sources on earlier periods are found, things can be moved around. Alphabetical would be the next least POV arrangement.

Here's the numbers Major_religious_groups#Largest_religions_or_belief_systems_by_number_of_adherents. Of course, Christian Supremacists (all 2 billion) DO have the most nuclear weapons.... CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how sorting these groups by population size could be "POV" if we use objective sources to determine what the populations. But if we are agreed that alphabetical order is not "POV" but disagree about the usefulness of other arrangements, then alphabetical order would be I think a proper compromise. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change to alphabetical for now, until some other order (including Chrono) becomes obvious to others who might come along, fine. I did find something interesting on Zoroastrianisms' images of dark/bad and light/good spirits and relation to racial supremacy, but the source, while quite intelligible, was not quite WP:RS. But there might be other sources out there that will to what extent supremacism is basic to the religion, as opposed to something interpreted later. (Which I think is relevant if you can make similar or relevant points. Otherwise maybe just use as sources for earlier claims about white supremacism or Nazism or whatever is relevant.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have alphabetized the entries by religion, increased the neutrality of the discussion in a few places, and removed a couple of inconsequential characters. I also, though, have to protest against your clear implication above that every one of the world's two billion Christians is a "Christian supremacist." This is the sort of blanket statement of POV I thought was not permitted on Wikipedia. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about not making stupid jokes. One gets so used to bad behavior, sometimes one engages in it. Will check edits soon when more awake. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Weasel words"

There are a lot of sentences that say things like "Some people believe.." or "Some anthropologists say...." without naming who the heck is being talked about. There is no indication that these are a dominant or representational points of view. I could say, "Some of my friends believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories" but it says nothing about 9/11 conspiracy theories or even anything about my friends (it might be 2 people out of 100). These kinds of statements need to be written to be more precise and sources cited with back up such generalities. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish supremacism and Zionism

This is a subject which is much talk about in the media. Therefore I thought it was important to include it in this article. Properly sourced and important for the readers. Olehal09 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced and overly vague intro definition. Most citations don't add value.

This page has some major problems. The introductory paragraph seemingly comes out of nowhere and uses charged language with no citations. This is inappropriate wrt NPOV. Furthermore, there are variations on the definition. A more general sense in which supremacist is used is simply to believe in the superiority of a certain group, the more specific definition entails the "right to rule" whatever that means. This vagueness detracts from the quality of the article. It badly needs a deeper explanation of the concept and its rationale/psychology and fewer citations.

Also I noticed a discrepancy between the way authors are cited, some sources saying "alleged" and others saying "argued" or "has written". Whatever is used, it should be consistent. The inconsistency reeks of bias.70.59.21.174 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If I weren't such a nice girl, i'd say: "Grab a [BLEEP]ing dictionary and look it up yourself". Fortunately I am a really nice and, what's more, very polite girl and I don't say such things. Instead provided the dictionary reference for you. Kleuske (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You're so nice. The dictionary definition mentions nothing of the identity politics categories listed in the Wikipedia article. On what grounds are they included? It's an arbitrary list. Typically the use of the concept of supremacist relates to race specifically or groups generally but not a predefined set of groups. We limit the use of the supremacist concept by limiting it to these groups. It would be appropriate to use the more neutral dictionary definition you provided, since it is more general: "a person who believes that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them". This is a nice clean definition that avoids the identity politics associations. 70.59.21.174 (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I've submitted a request at the Guild of Copyeditors to have this article cleaned up and copyedited. And when I say "this article is a mess", I apologise to the number of decent and rational editors of this article who are clearly trying to raise the standard of the article. But, as it stands, it seems a very POV and muddled-up article. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 21:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Supremacism paragraph

I put in a bunch of refs because I know if I didn't people would say there was not enough WP:RS. I think the article in general suffers from too little info and WP:RS so the goal should not be to whittle down this contribution but to pump up the others which barely scratch the surface of the issue. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph about Jewish supermacism is outrageous. Did Jews ever try to dominate non-Jews? Compare that to Islam today and the crusades. What's happening in Israel is a national conflict. It's a disgrace to Wikipedia that Jewish supermacism is discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.191.232.69 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on Christian and Muslim supremacism paragraphs since all three religions do have those aspects. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I divided up the examples into the specific area, making it clearer what needs more input. I put in edits on both of the other two Abrahamic religions religions, using better sources, as well as a couple more popular ones. How to describe the writers etc in the separate paragraphs needs work. Other religions can be added if decent WP:RS can be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

~the notion that one can not discuss Jewish Supremacism is itself a feature of Jewish Supremacism. The fact that it is not discussed here at all, while everyone who is at all critical of Israel or Zionism is sure to have their wiki page mention "anti-semitism" and the ADL's opinion. A quick spin around Chabad's website, various decisions by Israel's supreme court, and much of the Torah/Old Testament demonstrates that "supremacism" in both a racial and faith sense is absolutely inherent to Judaism and its concepts of "chosen-ness" and right to land by {racial} inheritance, etc.

It's simply that it is politically more sensitive. As to "did Jews every try to dominate non-Jews"? Ask the Cypriots of about 2900 years ago, or today's Palestinians?

Also see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSy6ENVAJlY ; http://www.alternet.org/story/148016/how_to_kill_goyim_and_influence_people%3A_israeli_rabbis_defend_book's_shocking_religious_defense_of_killing_non-jews_(with_video)

Not to pile on links in talk - but the fact there isnt a better developed section on Jewish fundamentalism and supremacism is the disgrace. Indeed the wiki pages on Rabbi Ovadia Yofsef barely mentions his xenophobic and racist comments while Rabbi Schneerson's page manages to avoid discussing his Supremacism and racism *at all*.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/1007/Rabbi-Ovadia-Yosef-in-his-own-words http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/10/netanyahu-block-from-eulogizing-rabbi-ovadia-yosef-at-funeral-by-state-funded-haredi-rabbis-123.html http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/07/why-is-the-us-honoring-a-racist-rabbi/

Indeed, the largest funeral in Israel's history was for a man who said non jews were born to serve jews, and couched it in Torah. But to have an entry on Judaism's religious nuts is somehow impermissible because they're Jews?

Nope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikekel74 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Colonialism

Centuries of European colonialism in the Americas, Africa, Australia, Oceania, and Asia were justified by white supremacist attitudes.[6] The citation for this reads..."challenged not just the Western presence but the entire mystique of white supremacism on which centuries of European and American expansion had rested" The wiki user here changed mystique it's close synonym, attitude. However, white supremacy is more than an attitude or mystique, and therefore doesn't exist in the current source. The term was used loosely and was merely a sentence in a long quote, not elaborated upon. Mystique implies a fanciful or awesome appearence, to impress or awe. The sentence provides an intro to the section "Colonialism". It attempts to show that Supremacism was present throughout the colonial period, "spreading it large" so to speak. White supremacist attitudes or mystique simply does not qualify and is highly opinionated. 71.161.203.168 (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Native American Tribal Supremacy

Research and updates are required pertaining to Native American tribal chief selection. Article is very degrading and bias. Twillisjr (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead edits

Soperthink - Please discuss proposed changes here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? Soperthink (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but changes to the lead like that typically need consensus first. You removed a lot of material. Per WP:BRD, please discuss and get consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

With who? Soperthink (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Editors who watch this page. You've had 3 people revert you, so the are some people watching. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

How can I talk to all of them at once? Soperthink (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging is a good way to get someone's attention. Like this: Materialscientist EvergreenFir (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Soperthink: My takeaway on this is that the lead ok how it is currently, as it's general enough and gives examples on who can participate in supremacy, but we could definitely add on to it with some examples of how people practice supremacism. But honestly, I don't know much about this topic. I only found your edit while patrolling the recent changes. I would wait for other editors that track this page to comment here. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 06:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Jewish section nearly as large as white supremacism, larger than all others.

3D test of antisemitism Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization

Wikipedians have chosen edits here resulting in a group of under 15 million in the world or 0.02% of the human population to have the second largest supremacism entry after the slightly larger one for colonial European whites. With minimal research or even entering "Jewish Supremacism" into a search engine it is easy to discover that this narrative is almost exclusively an anti-Semitic one meant to expunge, explain, or lessen in comparison the well recorded crimes done in the name of a white(and/or Christian, European, colonial) national entities hiding them behind those allegedly far worse or at least ironically equal actions committed through history by (((the Jews))). Other far larger national-ethnicities, for example Chinese or Indian Supremacism, are given one short combined paragraph; Christianity and Islam when combined are just barely larger. Especially troubling is a modern American fringe anti-semites and white supremacist's conspiratorial allegations being entered in the Jewish section rather than displaced from the white supremacy paragraphs. Putting such a concentration on any ethnicity comprising only 0.02% of the human population certainly gives supremacy movements with an anti-Semitic component moral validation, one particular movement which committed literal genocide successful in murdering over of 1/3 of that tiny minority in living memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.15.205 (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition

"Supremacism is an ideology which holds that a particular class of people is superior to others, and that it should dominate, control, and subjugate others, or is entitled to do so."

That would be class discrimination, not supremacism.

New Definition: Supremacism is an ideology which holds that particular people are superior to others, and that they should dominate, control, and subjugate others, or are entitled to do so. Udihgi (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Supremacism is simply the belief that one thing is supreme among its type. It doesn't necessarily include aggression toward the non-supreme things. For example, someone can believe humans are the supreme lifeforms on Earth, but that doesn't mean they think other life forms should be abused or wiped out. This type of unbiased, rational definition probably won't fly on Wikipedia, though, because it's controlled by leftists. 107.77.221.6 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Section headings

This edit, nearly a year ago, changed 'Racial (Supremacism)' to 'Racism' - 'Sexual(Supremacism)' to 'Sexism' - and 'Religious(Supremacism)' to 'Fundamentalism'. All three changes seem problematic to me - while racial and sexual supremacism are certainly examples of (fairly extreme) racism and sexism, nonetheless racism and sexism are not synonyms of racial or sexual supremacism (there are a multitude of other forms of racism/sexism). Making religious supremacism a synonym of fundamentalism seems even more problematic and frankly potty - fundamentalism generally refers to modern, austere, literalist interpretations of religious texts. To refer to the Crusades, therefore as fundamentalism is so anachronistic as to be bananas. And are there no 'fundamentalist' branches of religions which have no connection with supremacism? The most that one could say is that some 'fundamentalists' are sometimes 'supremacist'. Though even the word 'fundamentalist', is almost by definition a word used by outsiders. All three headings seem misleading and WP:OR-ish. Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

There is a discussion on the reliability of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert B. Spencer on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Publications by Robert B. Spencer. — Newslinger talk 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Result of the discussion was that the source is not reliable.VR _talk 18:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Add sex to the list of attributes?

I reverted an attempt to change "gender" to "sex" on the list of claimed superior attributes in the intro. Clearly it is POV and unacceptable to remove "gender" but I think it may be legitimate to add "sex" to the list. I'd like to get further opinions on this before stepping into what might be a minefield by adding it.

Here is my reasoning. Male supremacists typically discriminate on both grounds, regarding trans men, trans women and all non-binary people as inferior and "degenerate". Only cis men get to the dubious privilege of being invited to join the patriarchy (and even then only if they meet several of the other criteria already listed) so clearly both gender and sex are being used as the basis for claims of superiority.

Should we add "sex" to the list? If so, should it be listed as a completely separate item or should it be grouped, e.g. as "gender/sex", "sex and/or gender" or something like that? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence absurd

The article says: "The supposed superior people can be defined by age, race, species..." There is only one species of people. No group of humans is reproductively isolated. The word "species" is nonsensical in this context. We are all one species.97.73.96.136 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Kathleen Rosser

It is hardly worth the bother editing this appalling article, but "species" is now gone. Zero^talk 05:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Racial supremacism section still needs significant work, possible candidate for deletion

This article would benefit significantly from a discussion of the differences between supremacism, racism, nationalism, ultranationalism, chauvinism, and other related terms. I have a solid background in the study of extremism and have never seen "supremacism" as a unified topic, and a search through Google Scholar turned up no studies that attempted to give the term an overarching usage to multiple ideologies. That the link to Arab supremacy redirects to "Racism in Arab World" while previous editors included links to Indocentrism and Han nationalism, among other forms of in-group identification rarely described as "supremacism", speaks to the lack of clarity on supremacism as a distinct concept. My sense is that outside of well-established usages such as white supremacy and black supremacy, the "supremacist" designation is largely subjective and moral rather than based on any clear distinctions.

I reworked the racial section to bring the summaries more in line with the main articles for each, but relied on taking direct verbiage from those article so future editors should feel free to rewrite into fuller summaries. The main articles themselves had some major issues. For instance, the citation in the introduction to the White supremacy article is a review of an HBO series that, according to the citation, the director "explicitly calls 'a story, not a contribution to historical research.'" The timing of scientific racism, white supremacism, and colonialism is still off: the main article for scientific racism has its formalization starting with Linnaeus in the late 18th century, by which time colonialism was centuries old.

The piece also had a paragraph on "Jewish supremacism" as a variation of the International Jewish conspiracy. While this belief is common among white supremacists, allegations of an out-group's supremacist beliefs didn't seem to fit in an article about in-group supremacist beliefs, especially when the next section has a subsection on Jewish religious supremacism. There additionally was a paragraph on Indian and Chinese views of outsiders as barbarians and inferiors, but these were just stray quotes. The sinicization of Tibet and Xinjiang could fit the mold for an example of "Han supremacism" if anyone wants to tackle that.

I'll defer to editors more expert in the space, but without a clear distinction between supremacism and other forms of extremist in-group belief, we may want to consider deletion for this article. Nben7070 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Another editor reverted my changes but didn't provide an explanation. I reached out for more information but didn't get a response so I'm reverting back. As mentioned earlier, the section I edited still needs significant work so I welcome all suggestions to improve it. Nben7070 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest editing this section "...and finally the "Homo mediterraneus" (Neapolitan, Andalus, etc.) Jews were brachycephalic just like the Aryans were, according to Lapouge; but he considered them dangerous for this exact reason; they were the only group, he thought, which was threatening to displace the Aryan aristocracy." To "and finally the "Homo mediterraneus" (Neapolitan, Andalus, etc.). Lapouge considered the Jews dangerous; they were the only group, he thought, which was threatening to displace the Aryan aristocracy."

In the previous paragraph it is mentioned that Aryans are dolichocephalic, but then "Jews were brachycephalic just like the Aryans..."

Its incoherent. Ravpibe (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Jesusmahdimessiahqin edit

I understand and empathize with the motivation behind this recent edit, but it probably does not quite fit the tone of Wikipedia’s mission statement, so I suggest some kind of dialogue with the author (and at least one other editor more experienced than I) to rephrase the text in a way that both the author and Wikipedia standards can agree upon. Blu Moon (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Facts are okay by me. The Turkish purge targeted a religious supremacist ideology that infested and rendered its government dysfunctional and self destructive. The issue is covered right here on Wikipedia with no objections. Jesusmahdimessiahqin (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jesusmahdimessiahqin: You have to follow Wikipedia's policies. We do not add our own comments and we do not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Anything you add in violation of those policies will be removed sooner or later, so you are wasting your time adding them. What you have to do is find a reliable published source and report what it says (not comment about what it says). Then there are issues of WP:WEIGHT to consider, since this is a general article about supremacism, not an editorial on modern examples you think are important. Zero^talk 02:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Supremacism vs intercommunal violence

There is a lot of tangential material about intercommunal or other violence and persecution at present that is not linked to supremacism in the sourcing. Violence can have all sorts of reasons/causes, not least politics and power. Here, unless the sources connect material to the actual subject, which is supremacism, it is WP:SYNTH, and should be either linked or removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)