Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 20:45, 13 February 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Racialism/Archive 5 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archive

Archive 1 /archive 2

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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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, Misplaced Pages:Revert, etc..). ] 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 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)

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. ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• Old requests for peer review