Talk:Jewish supremacy

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

David Duke

David Duke and other neo-Nazis also use the term "Jewish supremacy", but for antisemitic conspiratorial purposes. The article currently makes no mention of this usage. Would usage of the term be best mentioned in this article or perhaps a separate article? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not one topic

When this was an article, most of it was devoted to describing "Jewish supremacy" as an alternative term for the systematic discrimination against non-Jews in Israel and Palestine more fully described in another article, Israeli apartheid. Also mentioned were some other uses of the term, to describe religious beliefs asserting the superiority of Jews and also by antisemitic conspiracy theorists. I'm skeptical that this adds up to one coherent topic. An indication would be the lack of sources that cover all distinct meanings. I think the reader is better off when we help them find the content they mean specifically.

Further discussion at User_talk:The_Banner#Any_content_based_reason_for_the_revert? (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

And that discussion and the appeal for a wider discussion prior to major changes is ignored, so again boldly reverted the major change. The Banner talk 07:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have requested input from three wikiprojects in this discussion. The Banner talk 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

(here from the notification at the politics project) The Banner's revert is not unreasonable, but in justifying the revert it's also not unreasonable for buidhe to expect a response that demonstrates reliable sourcing to support this topic in toto, otherwise this appears WP:SYNTHESIS. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not interested in who did what to whom, but it's obvious that changing this page into a dab page while simultaneously removing a lot of content is something that requires a prior discussion. It isn't so difficult to start an RM. Zero^talk 12:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not a proposed move, so I don't see how an RM would be the right course of action. (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I concur with reverting Buidhe's gutting of the article and turning it into a disambig page. If you want to delete the article, then start an AfD. Trying to forcibly gut this article isn't the pathway forward. Buidhe, either get consensus for gutting the article or stop doing what you're doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Converting it to a dab page is not the same as deleting an article, so afd is obviously an inappropriate venue and an afd would likely be speedy closed on the grounds that no one is arguing for deletion. It would be more constructive to provide some source and content based justification for the article remaining in its current state, if you actually disagree with the change. (t · c) buidhe 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

By converting the article to a dab, you are effectively deleting the content. It will be more constructive to get consensus to do so before attempting it again. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Per our policies, the WP:ONUS for retaining disputed content is on the editors seeking to retain it.

It's hard to find a consensus in favor of the content when so far no one has actually expressed support for the current content, let alone made a substantive rebuttal to the policy and source based concerns about it. I'm eager to salvage the article if there are enough sources to support it, or we can find a way of circumscribing the scope that distinguishes it sufficiently from the articles listed on the dab, but I did not find anything that would suffice. (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You keep dancing around the facts that you removed an article without any prior discussion. Only after the revert you started a local discussion on my talk page. And when I asked again for a wider discussion, you removed the article again. And after protests against the procedure, others have to improve the article? Sorry, I( can not see that as a serious request. The Banner talk 19:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Concur with The Banner. Buidhe, get consensus. If you don't get it, your preferred changes aren't going to happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to discuss but no one here seems to be interested in content and sources. Without that I'm not sure how any discussion is possible. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

(I saw this discussion mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring) Maybe you could take this article to AfD and in your nomination statement, mention that you would like to turn this article into a dab page. An RfC could be another option. Some1 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that's inappropriate. AFD is for deletions; turning an article into a DAB isn't a deletion and would be rejected there, since it can be done via normal editing - it's something subject to the normal WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD process. Something like that is done via normal editing - it can be done boldly with no discussion (although it's clearly very BOLD) and if people object, they need to say why so their objections can be engaged with. Doesn't need to be a strong objection for something so bold, but it does have to happen, you can't just insist that an edit go through AFD on account of it being big. Just saying "you need to discuss" and then refusing to engage with discussions beyond demanding more discussion is not appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm genuinely lost by the responses here - those intent on leaving this article as it is have focussed on an editor's behaviour and not the content at issue. Can anyone provide a couple of reliable sources that discuss this issue in toto as requested? Admittedly, I've not looked extensively, but I can't and certaintly the sourcing in the article at present does not address the concerns raised. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  This Google Ngram is possibly instructive, which might suggest a primary topic related to contemporary use of the term as indicative of the status of Jewish Israelis over that of all others in the areas controlled by Israel. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, we should focus on the proposed changes and not on procedural wrangling. Right now, by my reading, nobody has articulated a specific objection to turning the article into a DAB. I feel that Buidhe has articulated a reasonable argument that this article just duplicates things covered elsewhere and would therefore make more sense as a DAB, so I'd support doing so. --Aquillion (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The argument that this article duplicates things covered elsewhere is refuted by the fact that one of the three meanings listed in Buidhe's dab page version does not have any targets. If it isn't possible to point it at an existing article, then it isn't covered elsewhere. Personally I don't like this page at all and wish it could be rewritten from the ground up. It could even be a dab page if the material is properly covered elsewhere, but it isn't. Zero^talk 23:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any actual research on this? I have mostly heard of it as a right-wing conspiracy theory, with some horseshoeing on the left. Looking at the sources, this is full of OR and SYNTH. It should probably be AfDed and merged with Antisemitic trope or a conspiracy theory page. Anything related to Jewish extremists can go on a relevant page. Metallurgist (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Will remove OR and SYNTH detritus. Longhornsg (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Removal of quote by Ben-Gvir

@Longhornsg: Could you explain your reasoning for this edit? I don't see how Ben-Gvir saying that "My right, my wife's, my children's, to roam the roads of Judea and Samaria are more important than the right of movement of the Arabs." can be considered "pure WP:OR" or how it's "not saying one race is better than another".

The cited article quotes Palestinian Authority leadership, who refer to it as an example of "Jewish supremacy and racial terror against the Palestinian people" & B'tselem described it as "the reality we see on the ground, every day, for five decades. The rights of the Jews are more important than the rights of the Arabs, this is what apartheid looks like."

Isn't the idea that, because he & his family are Jewish, that their rights supersede those of others, explicitly what this page is about? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If anything, only the PA quote wouldn't be WP:OR, but I very much dislike including quotes from political figures where better WP:RS would suffice. This page already suffers from low enough quality, as evidenced by the editor comments above on this talk page. Longhornsg (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

My issue though is that it wasn't replaced with content from "better WP:RS", it was just removed.

I agree that there can be better analysis of the topic (or this article's content can be split/merged with other appropriate articles), but if the article currently has low quality sources, better content should be added rather then removing the little content that's relevant, but not perfectly implemented, otherwise, it just make the current state worse. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The removal is unwarranted and not constructive, and it can't be original research to quote a prominent politician's remarks published in a reliable newspaper. Dauntbares (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Request to delete full “Jews as chosen people” article in See also

• Remove the link to the “Jews as chosen people” article in the “see also” section:
• It is a common misconception that the “chosen people” idea within Judaism relates to Jewish supremacy. Jews as “chosen” refers to a covenant to fulfill certain commandments, and has nothing to do with ethnic hierarchy. I worry that that placing this article in see also, it encourages or supports this misconception:
• :

GrippingStory (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, see also doesn't indicate that they're equivalent, just that readers looking at this might want to read that article as well. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above response. I don't see anything inappropriate about including the link. Day Creature (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

What I mean is, by including this term in "see also" it doesn't necessarily suggest an equivalence, but it DOES suggest that it relates to the idea of Jewish supremacy. Even suggesting this link I feel is inappropriate and encourages a false equivalence. It's not de facto, but it does in principle. If you put a person's article in "see also" under the article for, say, serial killer, it's not automatically saying said person IS a serial killer but it does put the idea in people's heads…

Apologies if I'm not allowed to reply to this chat because I'm not extended protected. Feel free to delete if so! GrippingStory (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not allowed to reply to this chat because I'm not extended protected. Feel free to delete if so! If that were the case, this talk page would've also been extended protected, and you wouldn't be able to type in it even if you wanted to.

As for the example you gave, if someone is famously associated with being a serial killer, even if falsely, it might still be worthy to include them in the see also section. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If that were the case, this talk page would've also been extended protected, and you wouldn't be able to type in it even if you wanted to. Good to know. One time I posted to a talk page and a moderator deleted it claiming I wasn't allowed on the page, which must've been a mistake…

I guess I just feel it would be more responsible, in this case, to link to the specific section of the "Jews as chosen people" article that talks about fringe interpretations of the concept as supremacist, rather than the full article which I maintain encourages a false association. Thanks for your help. GrippingStory (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Even in the "Jews as the chosen people" article, the idea of chosenness as ethnocentrism is laid out in a "debated interpretations" section, and is a very small part of a bigger article. GrippingStory (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed it from the see also section and added it as a distinguish. Is that better? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you for the swift replies. GrippingStory (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem! Let us know if you need anything else. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Inappropriate link

@User:Zero0000 It is inappropriate to add "Not to be confused with Jews as the chosen people" to the top of the article, which leads readers to think there is some sort of link between the religious concept of chosenness and the existence of racism in Israel. There is no justification for it whatsoever. It is fundamentally misleading and suggestive. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore: You don't understand the purpose of such links. They are there to redirect readers who found a page different from the one they were looking for. They do not suggest a positive link between the topics, but most commonly the opposite. You can see that from the words "Not to be confused". Over 100,000 pages have such links and most of the time they point to topics that are completely different. Look at some other examples, say this or this. Your objection is based on a misconception. Zero^talk 05:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)