Talk:Supremacism/Archive 1

message: In case somebody doesn't like me including Judaism, I suggest they read this. Sam Spade 03:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Now thats a good point. I agree. Sam Spade 03:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

text: I NPOV'ed myself a bit. Sam Spade 03:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaism 1

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Same question

message: ' 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)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  :) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  If JDL is removed from the list, it is proof that Wikipedia is biased. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Then make it islamist groups, as they all have this in common. Done.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone.  Why are you so eager?  Could we hear from other editors? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Added two categories

message: 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)
thread_title: Why islamist groups  qualify as supremacist groups

message: 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)
thread_title: Added other religious groups

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requests for comment 

message: #Those groups regard their own group (Muslims/whites/blacks/Hindu) as superior to non-membetrs of their groups. 
#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.
#Those groups regard freedom of expression and other civil liberties as less important than the supremacy of their belief systems. 
#Several of these groups are described as supremacist groups at their Wikipedia pages.  
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arguments in favour for including several islamist, Creator Movement, Christian identity and Hindu groups in the list of supremacist groups

message: MelEtitis, have your say.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against including aforementioned groups

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed copyediting request 

message: *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".  Post to American Renaissance (magazine)
Without a notable source this appears to be original research. Thank, -Willmcw 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (well, "original research" is a bit of a euphemism, but agreed in principle). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiculturalists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The List 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Review and Refine 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why change the Discrimination box? 

message: 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, 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)
thread_title:  Two problems: lack of evidence and overly broad definition 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Obviously need Male Supremacism paragraph too

message: 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)
thread_title: Explain global tag

message: 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)
thread_title: [[American exceptionalism]]?

message: An 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)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Weasel words" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish supremacism and Zionism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced and overly vague intro definition. Most citations don't add value. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jewish Supremacism paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title: Colonialism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Native American Tribal Supremacy 

message: - Please discuss proposed changes here.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: With who? Soperthink (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish section nearly as large as white supremacism, larger than all others. 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: 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 . — Newslinger talk 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Result of the discussion was that the source is not reliable.VR talk 18:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on reliability of ''[[The Myth of Islamic Tolerance]]'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add sex to the list of attributes? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is hardly worth the bother editing this appalling article, but "species" is now gone. Zerotalk 05:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence absurd 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Zerotalk 02:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Jesusmahdimessiahqin edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Supremacism vs intercommunal violence