Talk:White Separatism
David, quit mis-redirecting this article to promote only your own selfish POV verses a neutral and objective Wiki NPOV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&action=history
You AND YOUR ILK are the one POV "vandalizing" and "spamming" and reverting the NPOV article on separatism verses the POV one on supremacism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&action=history
Thanks! :D
"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.
A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."
Rewrite
I have completely rewritten in an attempt to follow Jimbo's advice on the mailing list -- [1]. I have also preemptively added a note that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Feel free to remove it if you feel it's NPOV enough. I imagine that it will be mercilessly edited in eny event.
Cheers, BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Jimbo only reveals his own biased POV and advices a pc-slanted book, accordingly.
"[WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Wed Feb 25 15:05:26 PST 2004
Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Next message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I'm a little confused. Why are people so adamant against having an article "White Separatism"? Rather than banging our head against the wall fighting this guy, why not just make a better article?
The junk this guy is inserting is junk. It looks like a quote from someone, and if it is, then it's probably worth treating in a short article on the subject.
There's nothing inherently wrong (that I know of) about having an article on "White Separatism" as distinct from (but related to) "White Supremacy".
Here's a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801865379/102-0949346-1338507?v=glance
My dictionary (American Heritage) has separate entries for "White separatist" and "White supremacy".
The (in my opinion, disgusting) point of view expressed in the quote is of encyclopedic interest because it *is* a point of view held by at least some people who take action in the world, action that should concern us all.
David Gerard wrote:
> See > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/65.125.10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171 > > He's coming in from three IPs and putting the same bit of spam into > a set of articles and their talk pages (and those of anyone who > reverts the spam). > > He intends to continue however possible: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:White_supremacy&diff=2458552&oldid=2458453 > > "WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being > maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article." > > At what point should an anon user be blocked for spam? Is there a > measure of what's spamming on Wikipedia? > > (And I am following bcorr's example and trying to keep reverts to > no more than three per article.) > > > - d. > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs
Next message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list"
However, the article now is more NPOV with the addition of the quote by an actual "white separatist", and whether or not you or JIMBO POV actually agrees with it or not, along with what was re-written. I will not revert it anymore as long as it stays relatively NPOV, which it is with my additions. Thanks for working with me, and Jimbo, on maintaining a wiki NPOV.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
Replacing the quote
I replaced the quote and added more attribution to it. I think that NPOVs it enough. Of course it would be much better with an opposing view. --Spikey 21:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That'll do nicely. Perhaps now it won't be cut'n'pasted everywhere ... It's representative and has an attribution, which is better than it just being spammed across a bunch of articles. Of course, it could do with some deconstruction or an opposing quote or something. - David Gerard 22:27, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
From User talk:Spikey:
- I had hoped that we had come to some sort of consensus (or at least truce) at the white supremacist article. So I'm wondering why you feel that the quote (and one opposing it) is necessary for the article? I won't repeat it here, but there are deeper reasons behind its original inclusion in the article, referred to here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I don't mind the quote's presence with proper attribution and context. Taking this to the talk page ... - David Gerard 22:30, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
I don't feel the reasons behind the quote's inclusion have any bearing on the content's POV. Technically, I put this quote in, currently. I do not hold these views, and would honestly be offendended to be accused of holding them. I am not officially Jewish, but I grew up in a Jewish community, and I am offended by most to all of the content in the referenced article. On the other hand, my spiritual/religious/philosophical beliefs compel me to keep this quote, properly attributed. We should not censor this POV, we should let it be heard, qualified with its source, and let people make up their own minds. That is the essence of NPOV.
The essence of a NPOV is a NPOV, and is NOT whatever POV the leftist-pc editors happen to hold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&action=history
Let's keep the wiki factual and objective or it will lose its credibility. Thanks! :D
- Wow, good work Paul. I looked over that edit history, and this is one particularly good example of you trying to improve an article only to be harassed by idealogues. I think the article could stand some improvement, but its sure alot better than the redirect that you found. Thanks for helping out on the cutting edge of NPOV once again Mr. Vogel, I tip my hat. Sam Spade 07:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Sam! Such idealogues of the left or of the right will ALWAYS attack the unbiased and objective and middle-ground NPOV and then falsely accuse you of being the bigoted or biased ENEMY! LOL! :D Thanks again, Sam, for all of your support!!!
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
this is original 'research'
In practice it is hard to imagine how a separatist society could be organised without being also racist. Either all races must occupy entirely separate areas of land, and interact only only as equals (as two countries sharing a border) or one race must hold supremacy over the others in that it controls those aspects of society that cannot be separated, such as military, land rights or pollution control.
Actually its clearly not research at all, but either way its not based on fact, but rather editorial opinion. The wiki has no place for this. Sam Spade 19:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sources
Does anyone have access to the book -"White Power, White Pride!" The White Separatist Movement in the United States- by Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie Shanks-Meile? I believe this text is an examination of the "white separatist" strategy adopted by neo-nazi groups in the US and may be a useful source to draw for the criticism that the "white separtist" argument is a tactical move by racists to try to make their views seem less extreme.AndyL 03:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think thats an accurate assesment/summary of the concept, I wouldn't even call it a criticism exactly. See if you can fit it into the article while maintaining NPOV. Remember 'racist' is POV. Sam Spade 04:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- My uni library has it, I've read it, and you've summarized the argument of the opening chapter well. "White separatist" is a term that certain xenophobic organizations use: it's more precise than "racist", and it describes their proposed solution to the "problem" of People Who Don't Look Like They Do -- groups which prefer this particular label don't want to enslave people who are different (as a white supremacist might) nor annihilate them (as a few neo-Nazi–affiliated groups do); "white separatists" just want to deport everyone who's different. (Now racialist, on the other hand, is a purely propagandistic term: even racist swine realize that racist is a socially unacceptable term.) --67.70.75.211 04:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You sound a bit oinky yerself [ Sam Spade 04:32, 2 Apr 2004 ]
- Thanks for your commitment to constructive dialogue focused on improving the article—that's a quality all too rare these days. And yes, I'm familiar with the lingo of racists, but that no more makes me a racist than my knowledge of Latin makes me a Roman. --67.69.188.4 08:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You sound a bit oinky yerself [ Sam Spade 04:32, 2 Apr 2004 ]
-- "Remember 'racist' is POV" You're kidding, right? Next you'll say one can't refer to Hitler as an "anti-Semite". AndyL 05:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If we define racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race", then it's no more POV than any other term describing an ideology—like "anti-Semite" or "atheist"—and not really an inherently offensive term. There are, of course, varying degrees, motivations, and approaches within the larger ideology (Dobratz and Shanks-Meile's book explores some of them), so the only real objection I have to the term is that it's insufficiently precise, and it perhaps shouldn't be used if a more accurate word is available. —67.69.188.4 08:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)