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.