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 fenerally 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 File:Nl small.gif) 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)