New subject: Fwd: National Alliance article (was Communist Censorship)

23 Jul 2004

Fred Bauder wrote:

...
 Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy and
progaganda. (from
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]). His statement, "We are not White
supremacists because we do not feel the need to rule over other people of
different races, we simply want seperation because we feel this is best for
our people.", whether true or not, basically says it all. He is here editing
in order to advocate a political position and engaging in disseminating
propaganda to that end. 

Indeed. But we can put up with the Church of Scientology sending an
editor for the same purpose; dealing with neo-Nazis, IME the hard part
is *not* exploding their heads with unfair tactics like logic, history
and joined-up thinking. One day I may be proven wrong ...

Jimmy Wales wrote:

...
 One thing I discovered in my conversations with Paul
Vogel is that
they prefer to be called "white separatists".  I think we can safely
use that terminology as well, because it's more accurate.
<POV>
If they think that "white supremacist" is a pejorative insult, whereas
"white separatist" is a delightful explanation of their terribly
enlightened ideals, well, the joke is on them.  They still sound like
morons to me.
</POV> 

The reason I ask for checkable references is that every neo-Nazi who
comes through seems to want the articles with different
euphemisms^Wterms for the same things and insist on their correctness.
Saying "this group maintains" when it's really a case of "this editor
insists" is not ideal IMO - a bit much of that made it into the
articles in question in an effort to work with Vogel.

(I'm real big on references this month.)

- d.