"First, it sounds like you're trying to exercise inappropriate control over the editing of the page, and the flow of Talk. You deserve to be proud of your work on the article, and your long efforts in Talk. However, it's a bad reflection on you if you come across as if you own the page, especially since you personally identify with one of the viewpoints discussed in the article. Is there a way you can dispel this impression? Secondly, I think you were too quick to throw around hyperbolic claims about people's motivations. You talk about ""bulldozing indigenous peoples"" and that it would be ""racism"" to interpret WP policy differently than you. This makes you sound intransigent, not assuming good faith, and like you're (disruptively) making for a more heated conversation. I'm hoping that you just lost your temper and will somehow diplomatically distance yourself from such claims about my (or others') good faith efforts here. Finally, maybe due to your anger or impatience, you jumped to the conclusion that I (and LarryQ, as it turns out) was saying (like Jere?) that the/your nationalist view is a ""fringe"" view. This misunderstanding has dragged us down a bit and confused some other commentators. As I think you now realize, I agree that it's a ""significant minority"" view. LarryQ and Arjuna say something similar. So, as I've now replied on Talk, the key question is whether a ""significant minority"" view should be given proportionate coverage (owing to WP:UNDUE) or ""equal coverage"" as you are arguing. I certainly don't know you well, but I respect your knowledge and passion for the topic. I hope we can end up with a collaborative working relationship. Sincerely,  |   
 - 
 Ok, to address your points: 

 1)I understand that it may feel to you as though I sound like I think I ""own the page"".  However, I don't think this and it's already been explained quite thoroughly.  I feel that it is kind of the responsibility of anyone who has a problem with this to look it up.  If they have specific concerns that have not been addressed yet, just ask me and I'll do my best to work with them.   

 2)You are somewhat misconstruing what I've said.  I am not calling any editor racist, but systemic racism does exist when minority views are deliberately portrayed as less valid, especially when the discrepancy is at least partly a deliberate creation of forces of the majority. 

 3)First of all, I am not a nationalist.  This is a good example of the kind of assumptions I ask you to check before jumping to conclusions that I've already clarified otherwise, especially ones that stereotype the ""illegality"" viewpoint (which has been a major problem in this discussion).  It's rather frustrating, you know.  Try a little harder for understanding, please?  Or at least read obvious things like my  before jumpin' all over me, because it's right there.   

 I absolutely agree that proportionate and/or equal coverage is the key question.  I wish this had been clearer in the RFC.  I say that these are not exclusive, and that for this page, both are warranted.  It's complex, but it does make sense if you follow the whole logical ""lei"" through.  The problem is that there is no opportunity to do this, because this whole ""undue weight"" thing is being pushed so frickin' hard, without any chance to examine the complex factors involved.   

 To me, the correct way to do it would be to build the page first (or at least tell me where there's any ""undue weight"" in the actual proposal I outlined??) and then raise any NPOV questions you want.  I'm open to fair restructuring, but I do resent being forced into this particular discussion at this particular time in this particular way.   

 You know, I must say that while I appreciate your efforts to do good things here, I'm having some problems with your style.  I feel rather unfairly judged, to tell the truth.  I know that you find some of the comments I have made in frustration excessively abrasive, and that's fair on your part.  However, 1)I do not feel that you are doing adequate evaluation of the context of my frustration (for example, people do get frustrated when they are forced to spend days re-justifying things they've already been through in ""same problem, different editor"" syndrome), 2)you have a tendency to formulate conclusions prematurely, such as those I noted above, along with what may be some more serious presumptions about the actual subject, and 3) you seem to desire and expect me to change, yet, in absolute honesty, you  do not seem to be making a lot of effort to change very much yourself.  Even my arch-nemesis Jere K. can be credited with making an ho