Talk:Racialism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV dispute

Since El_C appears to be on vacation (User talk:El_C) I decided to clean up the article. It is ready to have the dispute header removed IMO. I will wait on that to see if there is disagreement. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no further problems with the article, though I expect El_C will want to readd some of the historical information when he returns. I've removed the dispute header for now. Thank you. — Schaefer 20:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine w any verifiable history and / or cited expert opinion. It was the POV slant I objected to. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment on clean-up of page

I was asked to comment on this page being cleaned up. I haven't been involved much in the debate so I don't feel I can contribute much. The only thing I would caution is that I don't believe the word "racialism" has ever had a fixed definition. It was always a word people used about their opponents. Even South African governments during apartheid would refrain from using the word "racialism," preferring "racial separation," "separatism," "separate but equal development," "apartheid." So I would say that, by definition, this is a political word -- not just politicized -- but inherently political, and therefore almost impossible to describe from an NPOV.

I accept that an argument can be mounted that "racialism" is not the same as "racism," but it's a tenuous argument given that "racism" is also a word with shifting meanings. Sorry if this isn't helpful! Slim 22:06, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Actually it is quite helpful. I agree with most of what you said, but will point out that some embrace the term "racialist", particularly in the american white separatist movement. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade rewrite

I don't understand the intention with this rewrite. The Sam Spade version is effectively a revert back to an older, less well written version. Even the opening sentence "Racialism is a term used in different ways by different people" is in my opinion an awful start, and nothing like the dictionary definition of racialism. In fact, it's not even a definition in the sense that it could be used to describe any word in any dictionary! Is it even gramatically correct? The Sam Spade version also removed a lot of contributions by other people, including all the pictures. --Rebroad 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest that rather than revert back to a version that Sam was obviously fond of, he instead allows the article to evolve, but that if there are any dubious non NPOV sentences, that these be modified in successive small edits, rather than what looks like a complete deletion of material that people have put time and effort into (not me though!). Many thanks, --Rebroad 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you didn't take part in the editing of this page, what makes you think you should come along and revert it to an outdated version nearly a month old? You can't just walk in and revert, disregarding concensus. I have been careful to check w other editors of this page to ensure they are comfortable w the current version, and I listed the page on RfC, etc... when the problem edits you re-inserted first appeared. Please be considerate of other editors, as welll as the applicable policies (NPOV, Wikipedia:Revert, etc..). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, from what I can see here it was you who performed a revert to a much older version, a week or two before I re-instated it (not a month ago as you suggested). In your comment, you merely mentioned it as a "re-write", but it seems clear you have omited quite a lot of well written (IMHO) information, much to the annoyance of the editor who spent time doing it. Please could you state your objections to the previous version, otherwise I shall see no reason not to re-add the parts you deleted. Cheers, --Rebroad 20:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since Sam hasn't responded to my last comment, I have reinstated the version prior to Sam Spade's original revert. Sam, so far you are the only person with an issue with this version, and I still haven't heard what your objections are. Please stop reverting it with comments like "reverted to consensus version". One persion (i.e. you) does not form a consensus! --Rebroad 00:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks familliar, somehow. :) El_C 00:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rebroad, this is a much better version. I've been wondering what to do with this page and have come here a couple of times for a tweak, but felt there was really no point in copy-editing it because it was all so wrong. I recently considered putting it up for VfD. I didn't think to check the history for a better version; silly me. Thank you. SlimVirgin 00:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Having read both, I agree that this consensus version is significantly better than the Sam Spade version. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I've reverted to Rebroad's version as there seems to be a consensus here that it's preferred. SlimVirgin 19:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could help, although I must say that really El_C deserves the credit, as I think he/she wrote much of what is the current version! --Rebroad 21:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

National Alliance (White Separatists)

Why is the National Alliance website, arguably a neo-nazi or white supremacist site, included in this article? The site does not have the words racialism or racialist on the home page. Is it supposed to be an example? -Willmcw 04:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'm going to delete the link. If someone wants to prepare a list and title it Examples of racialist websites then I suppose it would have a place. Until then, it has no context. - Willmcw 23:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it was supposed to be an example. I'd appreciate it if you help find another example, since you didn't like that one. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked into it, and disagree with your synopsis. I have restored the link in question, along with another. Our fearless readers deserve real-world examples of the subject at hand. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with examples, so long as they are put in context. I've added a descriptor. -Willmcw 21:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've left a couple of invisible requests for references in the text. SlimVirgin 06:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also took out the Vanguard site as it isn't racialist, according to the definition given on the page. SlimVirgin 06:17, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent article

The article as it stands is so biased as to provide minimal distinction from racism. If it is not completely rewritten, it needs to be redirected to racism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is almost no distinction, or no distinction at all, between racialism and racism, which is why I was very confused about the existence of the article as you wrote it. I remember responding to a request for comment when I first arrived at Wikipedia, and being very surprised to see it. The use of the term "racialism" as you wrote that it is used was, as I recall, entirely unreferenced, so it looked to me like a personal essay. This latest version has the merit of more accurately reflecting most people's understanding (in my view) of the term, though I'd have no objection to seeing it redirected to Racism. SlimVirgin 20:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that list of reading material under References. But are they references, in the sense of backing up material in the article (if so, which books/links support which points?), or are they Further reading? SlimVirgin 20:45, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

They are links to organizations which utilize the term, and in at least one case, their description of what they describe the term as. Feel free to look into them, but since I had nothing to do with the article as it now stands, they have precious little to do with any of the content within it. Assumably El C's literary references would have some correlation with the article content as it now stands. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As it stands? But Sam Spade kept all those references (all submitted by myself) for his own older, highly biased (and I challenge, relatively poorly-written) psuedoconsensus version to which they are -not- topical by any stetch, arguably to remain there indefinitely –seemingly, only to add credibility to a version which, I argue, clearly lacks it. If Sam Spade believes that my references have little to do with my version's contents, clearly, they have even less to do with his own (as my mostly historical works have far less to do with his restricted, demographically narrow, and not to mention limited by contemporarity as per the use of the term). I find this to be a highly questionable tactic, very similar, I maintain, to similar ones he had engaged in here, employed throughout the editing of this article. And I intend to hold him accountable for these; they are all a matter of public record. One way or another, the truth about the editing history of this article will be aired.

To Summarize: If the references I provided can be considered not that pertient to my consensus version, they are –totally and utterly– impertinent to Sam Spade's psuedoconsensus one. Don't take my word for, ladies & gentleman: simply review (or even glance) at the titles on that list and then compare both versions

—So why, then, would Sam Spade keep these on his own version?—

(A crucial question which needs to be addressed clearly and methodically)

El_C 13:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss the article on this page, and your opinion of my conduct elsewhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is very pertinent, in fact, ladies & genetlemen, as I will prove. Until then, I invite anyone to review the talk page, and especially, it's revision history. I did, though, find Sam Spade's polite, matter-of-fact, and nuance-free response to be both commendable and unexpected. Key details that shed light on the development of this article, it current and past content, editorial practices, and how these all relate, to be provided soon. Thanks for your patience. El_C 07:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I advise you to consult your advocate on the utility of your continued misuse of this talk page in the pursuit of a personal agenda, rather than its intended purpose (discussion regarding the of improvement of the article and its content). See Wikipedia:Talk Page. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's editorial practices, and his own seemingly personal agenda with regards to this article throughout, are very pertinent, I argue. I take exception to the insinuation, of course. It is false. The evidence will vindicate me. El_C 08:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could I suggest that the above "tiff" be taken to El_C's talk page and continued there. Perhaps include a one line link to it from this talk page? It seems to be more about El_C and SamSpade as individuals rather than the subject of Racialism... --Rebroad 12:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philological uniquness; historical and contemporary use

Might I be so bold as to suggest (again) that if one does not, in fact, concretely knows the import or lack thereof of the term as contradistinguished from racism, that they would be more catuious in recommending a redirect(?) As demonstrated on this talk page (and once again, I urge editors to read it closely –this includes the archives– prior to making comments on this), the term racialism tends to focus on policy versus attitudes. Simply because its use is more oblique -today- in the mainstream, does not take away from the notability of the term in this respect, historically; though contemporary use as such remains, as the two authoritative (1988 and 2000, respectively) references I provided on my very first comment on this talk page clearly illustrate. As such, a sample of prominent/key policy-centred events as well as a meta-historical overview are warranted.

My references, therefore, underscore two key areas:

1. This more 'historical' use.

2. Contemporary use whereby the term is used as policy-centred.

(3. Would be WS-specific works whereby the term itself (as defined by the movement) is particularly emphasized upon, but published materials on this front are limited; at least within the scholarly search tools at my disposal).

Now, it is easy to make widesweeping claims, but as the cliché goes, the details do make a difference. I suggest that editors here review these more closely. Thanks. El_C 13:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye 19 Nov 2004 :(

My last edit was on 00:37, 19 Nov 2004. Until today. That sucks. :( El_C 06:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)