Talk:Racialism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Racialism is not Racism but a prerequisite for racism

W. E. Dubois argues that racialism is the philosophical belief that differences between the races exist, be it biological, social, psychological, or in the realm of the "soul". He then goes on to argue that racism is using this belif to push forward the argument that one's particular race is superior to the others.

Therefore, Dubois separates the conditions of racism from racism itself. (I haven't read Dubois, but I ready Anthony Kwame Appiah summarizing Dubois' position in his book In my father's house, chapter 3) Racialism is a value neutral philosophy, while racism is a value charged ideology. Dubois needs to make this distinction clear, because he actually argues for the racialist "talent" of the black folk (he argued for black forms of intelligence, as expressed in the arts, dancing, singing, and so forth - a fairly naive essentialist position that would not necessarily be welcome today, but understandable given the realities of Jim Crow racism of the early 20th century)

Therefore, I find it unacceptable that there is a photo of hitler along with "racialism" and that it lists "black separatism" (as in Malcolm X's) along the same lines of Nazi white supremacy. I think the whole notion of putting nazi white supremacy next to black separatism is a POV opinion, specifically that of a supporter of the color blind perspective. (Color blind supporters argue that even talking about race furthers racial oppression, and that race should merely be "forgotten"; this is the official stance of the Republican Party at the United States, as well as little George.)

Racism should talk about the belief that a race is superior than another, while racialism should describe the belief that races have differences, be they qualitative (as in differential characteristics) or relative (as in hierarchies of better and worse races).

I'm not aware of other literature besides Dubois that talks about racialism, so someone correct me if wrong.

--Yonghokim 02:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are spot on, but due to the tendancy in england to smear the definitions of the two terms together, and the aggressive ignorance of certain editors regarding that fact, this page had become a worthless mirror of the racism article. I have restored the factually accurate, NPOV content. Sam Spade 16:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have restored the old non-NPOV version, which you seem to do every few months. Slim, Jay, Will, and Rebroad viewed it as the conensus one, and I in turn have restored it, again. If anyone wishes to add material on Dubois, they are more than free. But not as a pretext for restoring the old non-consensus version. We have been through all this before, at length. El_C 11:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

RfPP

A RfPP and RfC seem to be the next step. Or you could try research. Review Special:Whatlinkshere/Racialism, and familiarise yourself with the common international usage of the term. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Please spare me the snide innunedo, SS. Thanks. El_C 01:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that was a typo. Dosen't matter. I am hopeful that Wally is willing to continue to serve as my advocate in this case. Thanks. El_C 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As per the constructive suggestion for me to try research, I find it peculiar (and I mentioned this prior) how SS' version [1] employs the very same reference section I myself have compiled [2]. Again, I'm hopeful that trying to minimize the seemingly unending conflict with SS through the aid of my advocate will prove productive in resolving this. El_C 02:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Racialism and racism are not always synonyms. [3],[4], [5], identity politics, etc... Some of your references were not needed, and I trimmed them. The others seemed good, so they were kept. Good work on finding books of references the readers might find useful. Now please either a) study the subject, and realise that racialism and racism are not always synonyms, or b) realise that your usage is a synonym of racism, the cheifly British usage, and not applicable to this article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

see also fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialisme. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Sam, I reverted to El C's version because it seems to be the one with the consensus behind it, but I left your tag up, which hopefully still refers to the other version. Your edit introduced too many changes to be able to judge them at at once. It might make more sense to go through them on the talk page before putting them up. For example, I find it problematic to say in the intro that separatist groups don't use the term to imply racial superiority because some of them clearly do, so that assertion would have to be made much more precise with good sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if this is what passes for consensus, I havn't much hope for the wikipedia. Anyhow, I made the changes and added the citations requested, hopefully you'll get a chance to review them before my edits are reverted. It looks like this article needs alot more editors. As far as "Your edit introduced too many changes to be able to judge them at at once", that was done because the previous version was describing racism, not racialism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As above, please add any changes to the consensus version. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the distinction is a false one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you reviewed the differences between the two versions, and checked the various links and citations I have provided above before reverting an article and leaving terse and unenlightening comments on the talk page. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary

• version a

• basis:

version b is contrary to the definition of external sources, compare:

"Racialism is a term used to describe racial policy, in what is generally perceived to be a negative sense, as promoting stratification and inequality between racial categories"

With:

[6],[7], etc...

Racialism and racism are not always synonyms.

see also fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialisme

---

• Version b

• basis:

"It is, however, *most widely* used as a synonym for racism"

I still feel my version is representative of various interpertations from a number of authoritative sources:

1. Merriam-Webster Online = racism
2. New Websters Dictionray (print) =Race hatred or race discrimination.
3. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition / Dictionary.com = a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events. b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations. Chiefly British. Variant of racism.
4. dictionary.cambridge.org = racism (UK OLD-FASHIONED racialism) DISAPPROVING
5. Etymonline.com = 1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.
6. askoxford.com/concise_oed = DERIVATIVES racialist noun & adjective racialize (also racialise) verb."
7. encarta.msn.com/dictionary = U.K. sociology (dated ) Same as racism
8. Et cetera, Etc.

I think *most widely* is a fair statement, while arguing that this depiction amounts to being exclusively a synynoym, is not. Note that this *most widely* was employed in my very first edit to this article, on 18:03, 14 September 2004. I note that SS seems to praise consensus (or charge others for not adhering to it) when he feels it is in his advantage, and mocks it when it isn't. Which, as well, I find to be unfair of him. El_C 03:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What I mocked was that this would be consensus. My feelings about consensus itself are complex, and not worth discussing here. Suffice to say my definition is closer to unanimity than to supermajority, and far closer to the actual definition of the word than how it is normally used on the wikipedia.

Now, as to the substance of your argument. Your largely right. The word "Racialism" usually does mean racism. However there is an alternate usage, rooted in the etymology. Think "Racial". It basically is the implication that there is such a thing as racial differences of any sort whatsoever. My point is this: a) this article should describe this more specific meaning, while also explaining to the reader that the term often is used simply to mean racism (and I certainly agre racism should be linked to in the intro). or b) this page should simply redirect to racism. What the article has become, in your version, IMO, is an article I would like to see, and have been thinking about creating, something with a title like "State sponsored racism". This would describe circumstances wherin a state enforeces racism, as opposed to when it simply occurs among individuals. I happen to know from long wiki-experience that some feel that racism only occurs with state backing, and was indeed recently "invented" for such purposes in europe.

In any case, I feel that what is currently on this page is inappropriate 'for this page. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, more than entitled to feel that, and if you gain the consensus to reflect such feelings, I will certainly place far greater weight on these. But, I, above all other things, am interested in Wikipedia policy, especially as pertaining to verifiability, citing sources, and no original research. I challenge that I've provided authoritative sources whereas you have largely limited yourself to your own opinions (and/or currents from Racial Separatism, which ~1 year ago I argue were overrepresentative). I am especially concerned when you hail Corsstar's edit/focus, which I reverted and again, as limited to my POV in the edit summary (when you should know I had already designed the article with equale pro and anti racialist, in RS sense, link distirbution), while actually seemingly employing this as pretext to insert your own version. El_C 04:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for this article to be about racism. This article should rather be about something different, or be redirected. Please don't quote unrelated policies, I have amply cited my additions, which have been reverted and the citations removed. A quick click on my version of the article makes that abundantly clear. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there is not, but I contest these claims that my version duplicates the racism article, or that you have provided ample citations, or that the policies I cited above are "unrelated policies" (I find them quite pertinent, virtually always). El_C 05:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

In case it's of interest, when you look up racialism in the EB, you're directed to racism, where it begins: "Racism, also called racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others." It's really only the last part - that some races are innately superior to others - that Sam's version says is part of racism, as opposed to racialism, but the rest of it fits what we're saying racialism is. And I suppose the argument is that you never find the segregation bit without the presumption of superiority by the race that's in control, so it's hard to argue that the separatism doesn't necessarily involve the presumption of superiority. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the sections from my version about Reggie White and W.E.B. DuBois? They were not racial supremacists by any stretch, but they did believe in differences. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, wrtt W.E.B. DuBois, for example, have you read the sections from my version which reads: Before the notion of racial equality became ideologically dominant in the latter half of the 20th Century, one could be considered a non-racist (i.e. without antipathy) racialist. I still fail to understand why he cannot be encompassed within that general framework and in the context of such an overview. What do other editors think? El_C 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand you, what is wrtt? As far as W.E.B. DuBois being encompassed, it certainly is,m in my version anyhow. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That stands for: with respect to, that other t is a typo. The point is that you failed to integrate him into my version, even though several editors noted they considered it to be the consensus one. That is the point I advance wrtt (with regards to the) comment directly above. El_C 06:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing changes

Please bring proposed changes to talk. I've already noted, for example, that Rushton (which in your revision is featured on the lead) cannot be presented without qualification, as merely scientific. That is not an acceptable depiction and is divorced from academic consensus, I challenge. El_C 05:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR reminder

Just a notice that Sam Spade has reverted three times now; in case he has not noticed, so as avoid to him accidentally violating the 3RR. El_C 05:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My last 4 edits which you might try to call reverts (some of which I would vigorously insist included substantive, non-revert editing, such as addition of citations, and the like) were @:

07:22, 3 August 2005

06:55, 3 August 2005

04:25 2 August 2005

04:04 2 August 2005

as you can plainly see, I did not make 3 reverts within 24hrs, nor do I have any intent of doing so, much less the punishable 4th. Please restrain yourself, and review the applicable policy pages before you quote them to me. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Aherm, well, SS: Even if I made an error (which everyone does, too, I noticed), it was for your benefit, and I suggest you restrain yourself in general before reminding me of policy. Further, those were rvts since you added your v. every single time. That's it, for now. El_C 22:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I added my version plus citations, thus striving for consensus, thats hardly a revert. And I know not of your "Aherm", please stick to plain english on this talk page. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll use any English I see fit, incl. w whatever shortforms, etc. Please review the WP:3RR and WP:RV for the meaning and definition of rvts. El_C 00:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Complete Lack of Racialism By Non-Whites

There are dozens of non-white examples existing in history yet only white's acting as the racist exist in the article. Just to name a few are the Japanese during and before WWII, African massacre of whites (outside of S. Africa, there had been much racism towards whites in the past), or even certain tribes of American-Indians.

try that. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ive mentioned Rwanda, for example. Your diff is non-specific, no concerete additions are noted. If you wish to contribute, I suggest you attempt to integrate your edits into the v. which editors here view as consensus. Also, please review the WP:CON guidelines. El_C 00:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

POV trainwreck

Racialists often cite purportedly scientific works such as Race, Evolution and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton, IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn, and The Bell Curve by R.J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. This is often referred to by opponents as "scientific racism," and is overwhelmingly regarded by the scholarly community as amounting to pseudoscience.

First you make the leap that citing such texts is "scientific racism", then you make the claim that these texts are "overwhelmingly regarded by the scholarly community as amounting to pseudoscience." This is fast becoming one of the worst articles I have seen in a very long time. Thank God we have a replacement version so handy! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank goodness we have other editors here to confront your unremitting and uncritical bias ("!"), one utterly divorced from academic consensus, whereby you want to use Wikipedia as a platform to depict Rushton's theories as scientific per se. Have you read any criticisms of his works? Are you familliar with the view that his peers hold toward his theories? Your leaps here have been objected by many, and supported by few to none. El_C 22:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Have a glance @ NPOV and WIkipedia:Cite your sources. I am requesting a cite for "overwhelmingly regarded by the scholarly community as amounting to pseudoscience." (hint, you may want to set your sights a bit lower, and aim for quoting one of those aformentioned "peer"s making such statements) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, have a glance. I have requested a cite for "scientific" as per academic consensus for many months now.

I consistently find that East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants who average higher scores on these dimensions than do Africans and their descendants. I proposed a gene-based evolutionary origin for this pattern

Can you cite sources demonstrating the above as amounting to "scientific"? Modern social science overwhelmingly does not propose a "gene-based approach," Rushton is in a minority ,and is isolated in his position. (debate on CBC, with David Suzuki, for ex.).El_C 22:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor oversight

Indeed, I got confused and reverted to SS version by mistake, and now I am unable to self-correct myself and do a propper revert. That's fine, though, either someone else will choose to insert SlimVrigin's latest version, or my follow up to it, or exapnd ehat I refered to as a comrpomise (which I immediately intended to do) by noting that David Suzuki specifically uses the word pseudoscience which SS unwikified, and that his opinion does not exist in isolation (example: the Center for Evolutionary Psychology), or I will do this in 24 hours. Thanks for reading, everyone. El_C 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did my best to merge in the changes your suggest. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that other sections were added without discussion from your version, which still makes this your version. Just so we're clear about that, I am very much against you seemingly sneaking these through the backdoor. El_C 05:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what your talking about, i did what SV and Jayjg have been asking me to do all along, I merged the two versions, one edit at a time, pursuing consensus w compromise. Please keep the personality politics out, and focus on the edits and the article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please avoid personality politics and tactics and emphasize on editing an encyclopedia. Since you still have the two versions tag up, and your current changes account as part of your version. I want to make that prefectly clear. El_C 05:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

More obstruction

SS just removed the tag, falsely claiming his version to be the consensus one. I dispute it. El_C 06:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, there are too many changes to keep track of. Can we deal with it section by section, rather than going back and forth? Which are the crucial points you want to make or want to delete? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand any of the above. I made edits section by section, discussing them as I went, pursuing consensus with compromise. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Could all editors discuss issues rather than reverting and editing with no more than a series of edit summaries? I'll unprotect the article when it seems that editors are seeking consensus rather than just waging a war of attrition. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Two major problems with the protection

1. The totally disputed header is removed, dispite the necessary corrections having been reverted
2. The wrong version is linked to on the two versions header.

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Which version should the tag refer to, so I can correct it? I'm sure that sort of thing is allowed during protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

20288844

or

20319736

(A and C below, respectively), either one would be fine. Also, please reinstate the {{TotallyDisputed}} header as it is the article is agressively inaccurate and opinionated. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Three versions

There are now three versions of this article, which I urge thoughtful and interested parties to continue to edit, albeit with care

• /Version A Largely written by User:Sam Spade, it is his prefered version.
• /Version B Largely written by User:El C, it is his prefered version, and closest to what is on the article at present.
• /Version C, the compromise version, which I urge all thoughtful and interested parties to edit, and attempt compromise regarding.

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, but no thanks. I fail to see any substantive difference between your version (A) and the version you're asking others to get behind ("...which I urge all parties to edit... etc.") here (C). Both of which you created, I should note. It appears you're attempting game the system by using your preferred version (with very minor differences) as starting point for others. Why not version B? Both A and C are inferior to the article as it stands. I endorse the current article, or version B as my second choice. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making clear your most recent personal attack [8] for all to see, Sam. Move along now and either make a case for your position or cede to the consensus of the participants. FeloniousMonk 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I've added the totally disputed tag back, and corrected the number to reflect your preferred version, as El C's preferred one (or close to it) is the one on the page. I don't think I've looked at C yet, but I will either later today or over the weekend. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph One

In the first paragraph we find "Whenever the term is employed, especially in academia, it serves the purpose of a contradistinction with the term racism. It is, however, widely used as a synonym for racism." So whenever "racialism" is used it serves the purpose of contrasting with "racism" which is widely used as a synonym. So "racialism" is used to contrast with a word that means the same thing. Some contrast. The rest of that version is just as bad. Sam's is better, but is a mere beginning (but why put even MORE work into it if one is just going to be reverted anyway?). Make progress, guys, replace this garbage with Sam's and FREELY edit from there. WAS 4.250 16:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The text is reasonably clear:

1. Academic world: "racialism" used to mark distinction with "racism".
2. Non-academic world: "racialism used as synonym for "racism".

The text doesn't say that they mean the same thing, and doesn't have the implication that worries you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I also thought it was reasonably clear, much more so than SS inferior version, which attempts without any qualifications, to depict racialist social-scientists as being a part of acedemic consensus, which is false. The progress the above editor seeks is "clearly" non-NPOV. El_C 20:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

He suggested that we allow the wikiprocess to determine the flow of the article, editing rather than blindly revert waring. Please, come lend a hand at Talk:Racialism/Version C, thats got to be more fun than discussing one another. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, he called one version with a lot of support "garbage" on the basis of a personal misunderstanding of what it said, and then did a cheerleading dance for using your version as a starting point. While I understand your reason for defending him, it doesn't stand up. (There were also no personal remarks, so I'm not sure what your dig was intended to refer to.)

This business of different versions is distracting and more of a hindrance than a help (especially as Talk:Racialism/Version C (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Racialism/Version C|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) involves SS reverting the only editor to try to work on it); why not discuss and work on improving the article that's here? The sooner that starts happening, the sooner the article is unprotected and everyone can get back to making an encyclopædia. Protecting an article to stop edit-warring isn't supposed to start editors edit-warring on temp versions — and that certainly doesn't boost my confidence that the article can be unprotected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that you have an inappropriate level of involvement here for a protecting admin. I think you need to step back and reassess your role. POV partisan or neutral administrator, but clearly it is inappropriate to continue wearing both hats. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 10:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, assuming that it isn't clear to anyone else, would you give your reasons for this claim? I've not edited the article, nor commented on the issues, so it's difficult to see where the evidence will come from, but I'll keep an open mind. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just scroll up and read over your comments here, particularly the one made at 09:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC). ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Take it to AN/I, or RfC; see what they say there about my comment. If they agree that it shows me to be a PoV partisan or non-neutal, I'll unprotect the page and leave it alone for good. Now, I can't say fairer than that. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to drop the conceit that any comment critical of you must for that reason be partisan, and get on with discussing the article, that would be even better. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, may we get back to the article? "Whenever the term is employed, especially in academia," is not the same as "Academic world: "racialism" used to mark distinction with "racism"." or does "whenever" mean something different in the UK than the US? Mel, are you confused again? Or maybe its just the old debugging one's own code problem? By the way, I was and am perfectly aware of what you INTENDED to say. My point is that you are not ACTUALLY saying what you think you are. And I find more problems like that in the one version than in the other, therefore the one with the most least problems should be used and freely edited (rather than create some third version "off-line") and the problem version thrown away. Things thrown away are "garbage". I apologize if my use of the word gave offense. WAS 4.250 16:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If all that you meant was that the first paragraph is poorly worded, then why not say so, and suggest a rewording? That would be much more constructive. It's that sort of thing that I mean when I say that I'm looking for signs that genuinine collaborative editing is going to take place, not more squabbling and edit-warring. I don't like keeping the page protected, and I'm looking for a reason to unprotect it, not trying to find an excuse to keep it protected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried to add " And even if you DO accurately say what you intend: Is it true? Says who? This assertion is debateable enough to need to be backed by a reference. Debateable enough, maybe some other way of indicating people define the term differently. Sam's version avoids all these problems with this first paragraph. I come to similar conclusions with many other paragraphs." to my above comment and would up in an edit conflict with you. Sorry, I'm not being more clear. WAS 4.250 17:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I am about to ask for page unprotection from a neutral admin, since nobody is discussing anything anymore, and I get the idea that a number of "interested" parties arn't really all that interested at all. The resounding lack of compromise edits to Talk:Racialism/Version C is particularly telling. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Request_to_unprotect:_Racialism

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a purposeless discussion, marred by negativity. SS will continue to make massive changes without discussion, resulting in another revert war — not dialogue and improvement, but controversy and conflict. And round n' round we go. El_C 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree — but it's still important that editors start discussing and editing, otherwise the page will just be unprotected by one of SS's few remaining supporters, or even by a genuinely neutral admin (like me, incidentally) who doesn't want to see indefinite page-protection that simply freezes in place one version of a controversial page.

In other words: hop to it, people. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and refrain from personal comments. If you can do that, and would like to discuss Talk:Racialism/Version C, I would be glad to do so. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the sort of assumption of good faith that involves the sneering reference to a "neutral admin"? You might at least try to look consistent, and to follow the rules that you throw in other editors' faces. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of hypocracy? if so, I suggest you read over ad hominem. Just because you don't think I follow my own advice doesn't make it any less true. Now, can we please discuss the edits, instead of each other? Wikipedia:Talk page and all of that... ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The article

I think Talk:Racialism/Version C is really great, what do you think? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)