[WikiEN-l] Fwd: National Alliance article (was Communist Censorship)

[David Gerard]

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.