Talk:Racialism/Archive 3

message: 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. Sam Spade Arb Com election 15:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm fine w any verifiable history and / or cited expert opinion. It was the POV slant I objected to. Sam Spade Arb Com election 21:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: 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. Sam Spade Arb Com election 00:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on clean-up of page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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..). Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 01:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sam Spade rewrite 

message: 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.</br>
2. Contemporary use whereby the term is used as policy-centred.</br>
(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).</br>
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)
thread_title: Philological uniquness; historical and contemporary use

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