Talk:white supremacy

white supremacy
Keep. A Merriam-Webster term, also defined in other popular mono- and bilngual dictionaries. Even though it seems unfair to other races or ethnicities, whites are at the top of the food chain, that's why the term exists and is common. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact of this being an ideology is what makes it non-idiomatic. Going just by the literal meanings, one could say that there is "white supremacy" in ice hockey and "black supremacy" in basketball, but if you actually said that, you'd get some funny looks because the phrases carry ideological connotations. bd2412 T 02:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That distinction should be covered by a proper definition of supremacy. Delete all. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A "proper definition" of supremacy would not counter the fact that referring to "white supremacy" in contexts outside of human racial strife is just plain wrong. bd2412 T 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kept. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Arab supremacy‎
Seems obvious SoP as no other way to interpret this than as supremacy of the white (black or Arabs). Note has a dedicated sense, thought it probably shouldn't. And if it should, it needs to be worded so it's correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I think the dedicated sense at supremacy is necessary. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain on "black supremacy" and "Arab supremacy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Absent further comment, I am going to close black supremacy and Arab supremacy‎ as "no consensus" after the next 24 hours. bd2412 T 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the outcome of white supremacy but if we're going for consistency and appealing to an 'ideological' sense of the word, then we should keep black supremacy and Arab supremacy (or sense of racial supremacy or national supremacy). So yes, I think a no-consensus close should be appropriate. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 17:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Contrast the RFD at Talk:Jewish supremacy. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

white Christian supremacy
To me, these are transparent sums-of-parts, using the same sense of supremacy that's also combined with many other terms:, , , , , , , , even combinations, e.g. . "White", "black" and "Arab supremacy" were kept after an RFD with moderate-to-low participation despite running from late 2012 to early 2014; "Jewish supremacy" failed RFD; "racial supremacy" has apparently never been RFDed, or updated much, since its creation in 2005 with excessively many senses, as discussed in Tea room/2018/February. The others haven't been created yet. (I'm listing them all because presumably they either all merit entries and the redlinks should be restored, or they all merit deletion.) - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. These, being short, sound good as titles of Wikipedia articles; that doesn't make them lexical and entryworthy. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete them, except white supremacy. There was also European supremacy at one time. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep white supremacy per Dan Polansky. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete 'em all. -- · (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Got some reasoning but I'm tired. Will share on demand. Equinox ◑ 06:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep white supremacy with the use of lemming heuristic. I feel that especially "white supremacy" is something of a unit, based on the use I heard in U.S. media. And when I look at, I see it in multiple dictionaries including Merriam-Webster. The other supremacies appear to be something of snowclones, where "white supremacy" would be the parent of them all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Sum of parts.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all as sum of parts as well. I think, in accordance with on what Dan said, that there is snowcloning afoot here, but I don't think that even though a term is a parent of a snowclone that it necessarily merits its own lexical entry.  Maybe create a snowclone and note that white supremacy is the likely parent? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @SanctMinimalicen: But how do you make the snowclone accessible to the reader? Wouln't it be better to keep "white supremacy", redirect the others to it, and, in white supremacy, make a usage note stating that this has been snowcloned into X, Y, Z? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely see the merit to that as well. I'm feeling a tension here between the ideals of usefulness and proper accuracy of lexical inclusion...my natural bent is towards the latter but the former certainly has weight.  I noticed that on the entry for supremacy, sense three is pointing at what we're discussing.  Could we make a usage note there that directs the readers to the "white supremacy", etc., snowclones? That might reconcile the two ideals I mentioned.  Additionally, we could perhaps redirect "white supremacy" to "supremacy", where they would find the usage note and thereby the snowclones. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've deleted black supremacy, Arab supremacy and racial supremacy, and brown supremacy and brown supremacist (SOP PAM creations) on the same model. There would seem to be consensus (6-2?) to delete white supremacy, too. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep White supremacy exists in America in the context of subjugation of minorities, historically being African Americans vis-a-vis slavery. Black supremacy rose alongside the black power movement as a reaction to white supremacy. These terms contain a lot more than just the mashing together of two words. Do people here not bother researching the terms they vote on? Reading some of these discussions, it seems like context or history don't even seem to matter. When someone uses these terms, they're doing a lot more than childishly combining two terms; the phrases have a lot more weight than that which is why they have so much rhetorical power. 69.112.147.119 06:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Context and history, surprisingly, change over time!! Which is why we try to reduce definitions to their actual meaning and not the most current political fad. Equinox ◑ 06:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep 69.116.145.18 12:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking the IP votes. It concerned me that these IPs both look very similar, but also that according to WT:Voting policy IPs are not allowed to vote. As stated by JohnC5 on Discord: "I'd say they are allowed to provide input but not vote." Therefore, leaving the comment above alone, but the keep votes don't count. To anonymous editors, please create accounts in the future if you want to vote in discussions. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since sockpuppet voting is a very serious accusation, I checkusered both IPs. Based on public geolocation tools, they're both with the same ISP and geolocate to Brooklyn, NY, and Milford, CT- close enough to be the same person. That said, there's no evidence a checkuser can see of the same device using both IP addresses (that doesn't rule out one person using a different device for each IP address, or having someone else make the edit for them, but no evidence is no evidence). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep white supremacy per Dan Polansky. --Lambiam 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

kept, others deleted. As for, it needs further discussion; I'm splitting the request and moving the second part to the bottom, so we can archive the first (let's reduce clutter). Per utramque cavernam 10:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)