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/-/0801865379/102-0949346-133850…
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.