Talk:Supremacism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)