Talk:Jewish supremacy
This term is not particularly idiomatic. Rather, the term "supremacy" is productive, in that it can be used with any category at all, be it racial, gender, sexual, religious or whatever else.
The original definition was, of course, more a complaint than a dictionary entry. -dmh 19:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Why do we have this? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as very obvious and easily guessable sum of parts.--Dmol 12:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Definition: "A form of racial supremacy attributed to Jews, particularly in the title of a book by David Duke". The Wikipedia article Jewish supremacy actually redirects to David Duke, suggesting it is the title of a book, not an idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Delete - not idiomatic at all. SemperBlotto 12:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. foo supremacy will always be SOP unless the phrase is referring to something other than an assertion or perception of foo being supreme. bd2412 T 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, not idiomatic. Amazing how old it is though. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Where are all the defenders of encyclopedic entries. This is as entryworthy as any other encyclopedic entry. Is this just a matter of the taste of the voters? DCDuring TALK 13:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Would you mind giving a few examples of comparable entries? Maybe we should delete them as well. --Hekaheka 13:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- See #social ecology theory, #plywood saw, #illegal formation, #water 2, #start button, not to mention all the proper names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Although I generally have no problem with the entry being deleted, a better option might be a significant revision here--or a deletion with a disambiguation and revision of the Wikipedia page. The David Duke version of "Jewish Supremacy"--the one he used in the title of his book--is due to Henry Ford (1921). In particular, Ford railed against "Jewish Supremacy in motion pictures". But he did not come up with the term. GoogleBook search for "Jewish Supremacy" before 1921 reveals 337 raw hits (actually, only about 80 distinct titles). And there is a theme that is presently not covered either here or in Wikipedia. "Jewish Supremacy" is a misnomer (for "Jewish Primacy") that identifies Jews as "the Chosen People", but, more specifically, it identifies them in Christian theology as "the Chosen People" no more, as Christians have become "the Chosen". This is an important Paulist point that has been adopted by different denominations. In particular, British theologians of the mid-19th century saw the Anglican Church as the successor to Jewish Supremacy. This is a very distinct connotation. If the entry is kept, it must be modified. I'll do what I can, but others must check their own sources (I'm trying to keep this clean of "original research", but, unfortunately, there is really no way to fix it without it). A different question--who put in RFD-failed? These decisions are supposed to be signed. So far, there is a near-consesus among those comment here that the page should be deleted. There appears to be one wavering vote that suggests that it should be kept as an encyclopedic entry, but it's a weak defense, at best, and the encyclopedic entry actually does not exist right now--it's just a redirect. Alex.deWitte 17:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)