[WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs

[Brian Corr]

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?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.