Well, I took Jimbo's advice to heart and rewrote the article. It was only a few minutes later that Paul Vogel edited it. To his credit (and I guess mine too) he left most of what I wrote, although he did add in some stuff about Palestinians and Jewish supremacy. Here's the difference between the two: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&curid=477296&diff=0&oldid=2533889
However, the main problem -- and the same problem as before -- is that his goal is to include two paragraphs about the supposed distinctions. All of his previous edits to [[White separatist]] consisted only of those paragraphs. This time he added them into the article, and also noted that they are quotes -- he says " According to a white separatist website:"
Anyway, I wanted to 1) let you know it was good advice and we've made some progress it seems, and 2) ask some other folks to step in. I want to step away from this day-long conflict.
Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
On 2/25/04, Jimbo wrote:
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...
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.
Well, in my opinion, Pau Vogel is going to end up banned soon anyway.
But, good job.
Brian Corr wrote:
Well, I took Jimbo's advice to heart and rewrote the article. It was only a few minutes later that Paul Vogel edited it. To his credit (and I guess mine too) he left most of what I wrote, although he did add in some stuff about Palestinians and Jewish supremacy. Here's the difference between the two: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&curid=477296&diff=0&oldid=2533889
However, the main problem -- and the same problem as before -- is that his goal is to include two paragraphs about the supposed distinctions. All of his previous edits to [[White separatist]] consisted only of those paragraphs. This time he added them into the article, and also noted that they are quotes -- he says " According to a white separatist website:"
Anyway, I wanted to 1) let you know it was good advice and we've made some progress it seems, and 2) ask some other folks to step in. I want to step away from this day-long conflict.
Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
On 2/25/04, Jimbo wrote:
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...
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l