Racism, On Wikipedia Options

[Emperor]

Racism

They seem to have some idea what the definition is but not in the first lines of the article.

Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e. which harms particular groups of people), and which is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science. Racism is popularly associated with various activities that are illegal or commonly considered harmful, such as extremism, hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc.

Chock full of garbled English and debatable definitions (that differ from Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com).

Also note the gigantic Bank of America banner in the middle of the article.

[Selina]

Oh, somehow the racists managed to get a separate article for "racial separation" as somehow 'not part of the racist article and so not racist at all' too wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nation_of_Islam#Sources -.-

[Mister Die]

It's very obvious sometimes that certain articles were written by the subjects being covered, who do their best to make racism and even neo-nazism seem totally rational by hiding it behind euphemisms or less "offensive" words ("white nationalist" as opposed to racist.)

[Emperor]

It's very obvious sometimes that certain articles were written by the subjects being covered, who do their best to make racism and even neo-nazism seem totally rational by hiding it behind euphemisms or less "offensive" words ("white nationalist" as opposed to racist.)

True. Look at how they pull off the World War II article. Nazism is reduced to "a radical, racially motivated revision of the world order" and the few German war crimes mentioned are briefly crammed in near the end of the article, along with a few Allied crimes to give the appearance, "hey it's war so what?". If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

It's been a target for so many years, and the kids in charge of it really are so impressionable it's basically all they know.

[Mister Die]

If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

Nah, it isn't conspiratorial enough. It needs info on the "Jewish Declaration of War," how Poland just might have been a threat to Germany, how the USSR wanted to launch an invasion of Europe from Poland to Spain which Hitler stopped dead in its tracks, how [insert random high-ranking Nazi officials] were bastardizing Hitler's brilliant policies on the war effort and thus bringing harm to it, and so on.

Finally it'd need to claim that either Hitler actually wanted to save the Jews and that [insert Nazi officials] subverted this process (followed by citing D. Irving), or simply have a quasi-weasel way of getting out of this like "[insert Jewish academics] claim that the German Reich murdered millions of Jews and [insert], but these claims are disputed by [insert some Holocaust deniers and/or Neo-Nazi websites.]"

Then it'd look like a Neo-Nazi article, whereas as it stands it's just lame. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Emperor]

If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

Nah, it isn't conspiratorial enough. It needs info on the "Jewish Declaration of War," how Poland just might have been a threat to Germany, how the USSR wanted to launch an invasion of Europe from Poland to Spain which Hitler stopped dead in its tracks, how [insert random high-ranking Nazi officials] were bastardizing Hitler's brilliant policies on the war effort and thus bringing harm to it, and so on.

Finally it'd need to claim that either Hitler actually wanted to save the Jews and that [insert Nazi officials] subverted this process (followed by citing D. Irving), or simply have a quasi-weasel way of getting out of this like "[insert Jewish academics] claim that the German Reich murdered millions of Jews and [insert], but these claims are disputed by [insert some Holocaust deniers and/or Neo-Nazi websites.]"

Then it'd look like a Neo-Nazi article, whereas as it stands it's just lame. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

That's what they're thinking, yes, but it would be spotted a mile away. The guys working on the article are subtle, and they know what they're doing and are good at it. Their plan is: baffle them with bullshit, hide the human stuff in nondescript one-liners here and there and deemphasize it.

You really have to look no further than the picture of Wilhelm Keitel at the top of the article to know they're hiding something.

[radek]

If I were a neonazi this would be exactly the article I would write.

Nah, it isn't conspiratorial enough. It needs info on the "Jewish Declaration of War," how Poland just might have been a threat to Germany, how the USSR wanted to launch an invasion of Europe from Poland to Spain which Hitler stopped dead in its tracks, how [insert random high-ranking Nazi officials] were bastardizing Hitler's brilliant policies on the war effort and thus bringing harm to it, and so on.

Finally it'd need to claim that either Hitler actually wanted to save the Jews and that [insert Nazi officials] subverted this process (followed by citing D. Irving), or simply have a quasi-weasel way of getting out of this like "[insert Jewish academics] claim that the German Reich murdered millions of Jews and [insert], but these claims are disputed by [insert some Holocaust deniers and/or Neo-Nazi websites.]"

Then it'd look like a Neo-Nazi article, whereas as it stands it's just lame. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Most of the neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers on Wikipedia - at least those who aren't American - are a bit more wily than that. Basically, it's rare that you come across a stereotypical "caricature" of a neo-Nazi (and usually these get ban hammered pretty quickly). I think I even read something about how Stormfront was instructing its members in how to edit Wikipedia without giving one self away as a neo-Nazi.

The two common ways they do the POV pushing is the "the Germans were the real victims of World War II" trope and the "the Allies were just as guilty of war crimes as the Nazis" trope. Of course each one of these has a very small grain of truth to it - in the last phase of the war and right afterward German civilians did suffer at the hands of the Soviet army and/or new communist governments installed in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and the Allies did commit *some* war crimes. Of course in both instances it's a question of scale - you can't ethically compare the war crimes committed by the Allies or the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe to the Holocaust, or even the genocide/ethnic cleansing carried out by the Nazis on the non-Jewish populations of Poland, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia etc. But "scale" is precisely the kind of thing that a skillful POV pusher can stretch as much as they want to.

So you have folks like Stor stark7 (I don't know if that guy is a Nazi, but at least a fellow traveler - also see this "innocent question" about the viability of the 6 million number he made early on in his Wikipedia career - he got a lot smarter shortly there after, once he realized that stuff like that was gonna get him banned) writing endlessly about the suffering of German civilians "under Allied occupation" or the "atrocities committed by Allied troops". Etc.

Lots of this tactic actually comes from the development of the extreme right in Germany itself and other countries where Holocaust denial is illegal. Basically, in those countries, the early far-right neo-nazis got arrested, so subsequent generations developed a lot of "wink-wink, know what I mean" methods and double talk. And you can find writings by them explicitly calling on their supporters to avoid explicit Holocaust denial (since that would get them into trouble) and instead focusing on the "Germans were the main victims of World War II" and the "the Allies were just as bad as the Nazis" approaches to "dilute" the significance of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes in general.

[Mister Die]

Yeah, I'm aware that only inept types just go out and be like "Hitler was a genius and the Jews got what was coming to them[1] (source: HITLERWASRIGHT DOT COM)," I was just being humorous.

This does remind me, though, of a criticism all the way back in 2005 that still holds just as much today: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo2.htm#Massacres

This is the big problem with purely volunteer activities. You only get people working on things they care deeply about. In this case, we've had Polish nationalist contributors wanting to show how badly their country has suffered at everybody's hands. (Not just Germans, but Lithuanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Soviets have kicked the Poles around on this list.) We've had neo-Nazi contributors trying to prove that Germany was surrounded by big bad enemies, so of course the Nazis were justified in invading them. We've had anti-American contributors wanting to show that the USA is (and always has been) worse than almost everyone else in history, even worse than the Soviets (7 massacres by Americans versus 1 by the Soviets.). Meanwhile, no one really cares what the Japanese did in Singapore, or what the Italians did in Yugoslavia. ("Whatever. It was a long time ago.")

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Malik Shabazz]

Oh, somehow the racists managed to get a separate article for "racial separation" as somehow 'not part of the racist article and so not racist at all' too wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nation_of_Islam#Sources -.-

Nice argument: "Those I disagree with must be racists. Or members of the Nation of Islam." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Selina]

Whatever team of POV pushers made the "racial separatism" articles probably called themselves "racialists" rather than racists, but it's still racism...

sourced statement saying "NOI founder Farad Muhammad (W.D. Fard) taught the white race was produced thousands of years ago in a failed laboratory experiment by an evil wizard named Yacub", but most Islam does not actually teach that - That seems rather relevant to the divide to me? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

start over with a new article, using neutral sources like The Black Muslims in America, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the Black Muslims, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A hate group is a hate group is a hate group, would you suggest to do the same to the klan article? 'Nuff said. As for your sources, they're not even linked to anything, and the titles don't even look remotely neutral. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been avoiding this argument and the reverting on purpose due to how heated this is getting, like I suspect Will Beback has since his last comments above - but I thought someone else should chip in here: There is no difference between racial supremacy and "racial separatism", no different than how racists prefer to call themselves "racialists", I have dealt with people from very racist websites before attempting to push their crap... Sure, the KKK may say they don't want to kill people but just put everyone who doesn't fit their standards on a boat somewhere "separate", but that's still racial supremacism... Do you really really think anyone would agree with you Malik that apartheid is NOT a kind of racial supremacism? Face-sad.svg MLK would be ashamed to have his picture attached to your defending of these kind of people Face-sad.svg "NOI founder Farad Muhammad (W.D. Fard) taught that the white race was produced thousands of years ago in a failed laboratory experiment by an evil wizard named Yacub. (“The Nation of Islam: The Relentless Record of Hate.” Anti-Defamation League (New York):1995. p.3) They state that it is impossible for blacks and whites to co-exist. (“The Nation of Islam: The Relentless Record of Hate.” Anti-Defamation League (New York):1995. p.22)" (the userbox on my page used to be MLK before "the userbox wars" started) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 05:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:COI issue with this article?

"Separatism" is one and the same as supremacy as I said, it is intrinsically connected to a racist viewpoint of the world, I don't see how you could have taken my comments any other way or are choosing to misunderstand... Do you think separatism, apartheid is not racist? Because nearly anyone else would disagree... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


I can't think of anyone outside the internet who would agree with you there... As well as apartheid, the nazis used to explain away concentration camps to the majority of the populace as "sending Jews away", and then you have all the modern racist organisations constantly talk about "separating" people that don't fit the race they want by "sending them away" too... It's one and the same... Different methods, same ideology --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to get sucked into this debate (not being sarcastic), may I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit insulting, my point is as I already said before the argument as to whether people calling for separating races because they think they are inferior are racial supremacists, or not, is a red herring when it is racism by definition... You are saying that sources saying they want to divide people up on race cannot be used to prove they are racists, when it is racism by definition... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your inability to distinguish between black supremacy and black separatism astounds me. Talk about common sense! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

google.com/search?q=bnp "common sense"

+

google.com/search?q=bnp separatism

Search About 1,610,000 results
White separatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wikipedia.org/wiki/White separatism
White separatism is a separatist political movement that seeks separate economic ... Samuel T. Francis · Nick Griffin (Current president of the BNP)

Racism is racism is racism... A nazi salute is still a nazi salute if you're wearing a black glove on it...

[Emperor]

Also note the gigantic Bank of America banner in the middle of the article.

Heh. Silver seren took it down.

[EricBarbour]

Now, you guys are onto something. The secret of controlling Wikipedia content is to be sneaky and subtle.
In the past, clueless people would show up and tip their hand in the process of inserting their
bias, and get caught quickly. Because so many of the admins (especially the patrollers) are
arrogant young men who aren't very smart, and can catch obvious things easily but are simply
incapable of recognizing sneaky POV editing. as time wears on, more people with a political or
social agenda will figure out how to edit, and we will see even more bias in articles--but subtle
bias. The result is more likely to be unreadable articles, not obviously-biased ones.

Perfect example of an incompetent patroller: Tedder.
I just got done looking at his history. He's a dummy. (I'd show you his vanity website, but it's very embarrassing.)

This is how the extreme Zionists got the upper hand--they simply showed up first, and were very
aggressive from the start. That tide is starting to turn, as more of their opponents show up and
figure out the "rules". And I don't mean the "written policies", I mean the REAL rules.

First rule of editing Wikipedia: do not talk about editing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is a Fight Club, and
Jimbo Wales is Tyler Durden, a mass delusion.

[Selina]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists... in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist, or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

In September 2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism of the British Parliament published the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism [..] The report states that left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for antisemitism,(Critics of Israel 'fuelling hatred of British Jews', The Observer, February 3, 2006.) and that the "most worrying discovery" is that antisemitism appears to be entering the mainstream.(MPs deliver anti-Semitism report, BBC News, September 6, 2006.) It argues that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, the report states, traditional antisemitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is "at the core of the 'New Antisemitism', on which so much has been written," adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements."(Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, September 2006, p. 22.)

[nableezy]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

Is this the WTF? thread? Because that was truly a WTF statement.

[Malik Shabazz]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

Is this the WTF? thread? Because that was truly a WTF statement.

While I don't pretend to understand Selina, I would agree that some (many? most?) racists use the word Zionists when they mean Jews -- if that's what she's saying.

[nableezy]

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists in the same way as "racialist" instead of racist or in the same way pedophiles call themselves "pederasts" or "boylover"/"girl-lover"...

Is this the WTF? thread? Because that was truly a WTF statement.

While I don't pretend to understand Selina, I would agree that some (many? most?) racists use the word Zionists when they mean Jews -- if that's what she's saying.

I think her post is a bit more encompassing than that. Especially in the context of a reply to Eric's. She seemed to be saying that when somebody uses the word "Zionist" that they are in fact a racist using that as code for "Jew".

[lilburne]

Just a reminder.

[Kelly Martin]

She seemed to be saying that when somebody uses the word "Zionist" that they are in fact a racist using that as code for "Jew".

No, that's not what she said. That you choose to think that she did, says more about you than it does about her.

[Selina]

I never said it always means it, no - but neo-nazis practically always use it as a code word yeah (even on their own sites they get so used to it). We had people come here from neo-nazi sites years ago, I did a lot of browsing after that and got attempted stalking for fighting them too - seen it all

lilburne: It's not about politics or israel so I'm not sure what your point is?

[nableezy]

She seemed to be saying that when somebody uses the word "Zionist" that they are in fact a racist using that as code for "Jew".

No, that's not what she said. That you choose to think that she did, says more about you than it does about her.

Really? Eric's post said the following:

This is how the extreme Zionists got the upper hand--they simply showed up first, and were very aggressive from the start. That tide is starting to turn, as more of their opponents show up and figure out the "rules". And I don't mean the "written policies", I mean the REAL rules.

To which Selina replied

"zionist" is pretty much used as a codeword for "jews" by most racists

Those were the only instances of the word Zionist on this page at the time. You really want to tell me that a reply to somebody using the word Zionist that says that racists use that as code for Jew is not making the implication that I say it is? OK, but I think that says more about you than it does me.

[Selina]

The fact that mentioning "jew" around some people is enough to start them into a rant about "zionists and israel" pretty much says it all.

It's exactly the same thing as people who just need the tiniest excuse to go off on one about how bad <insert-race-here> people are...

[nableezy]

The fact that mentioning "jew" around some people is enough to start them into a rant about "zionists and israel" pretty much says it all.

And where pray tell did this happen?

[Emperor]

And where pray tell did this happen?

SOCK SOCK SOCK SOCK SOCK SOCK

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'll talk to Eric, or Nableezy. Pick one.

[nableezy]

And where pray tell did this happen?

SOCK SOCK SOCK SOCK SOCK SOCK

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'll talk to Eric, or Nableezy. Pick one.

Confused, but talk, son.

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Emperor]

Anyway Radek, Mr Die, Selina, thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Radek, one of these days we've got to discuss whether it's smart to keep trying to improve Wikipedia. You do realize that by helping, you're making all this subtle neonazi stuff more believable? It's like a perfect breeding ground for them, having normal people around, saying normal things, makes the kids feel safe... and then the racists distort stuff just enough to get their point across.

I already feel bad for pointing out that Bank of America thing.

[radek]

Anyway Radek, Mr Die, Selina, thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Radek, one of these days we've got to discuss whether it's smart to keep trying to improve Wikipedia. You do realize that by helping, you're making all this subtle neonazi stuff more believable? It's like a perfect breeding ground for them, having normal people around, saying normal things, makes the kids feel safe... and then the racists distort stuff just enough to get their point across.

I already feel bad for pointing out that Bank of America thing.

Yeah, that's been bouncing around my head for awhile. The good edits legitimize bad edits. To what extent? At what point does it tip so that good edits do more harm than good?

[radek]

Yeah, I'm aware that only inept types just go out and be like "Hitler was a genius and the Jews got what was coming to them[1] (source: HITLERWASRIGHT DOT COM)," I was just being humorous.

This does remind me, though, of a criticism all the way back in 2005 that still holds just as much today: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo2.htm#Massacres

This is the big problem with purely volunteer activities. You only get people working on things they care deeply about. In this case, we've had Polish nationalist contributors wanting to show how badly their country has suffered at everybody's hands. (Not just Germans, but Lithuanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Soviets have kicked the Poles around on this list.) We've had neo-Nazi contributors trying to prove that Germany was surrounded by big bad enemies, so of course the Nazis were justified in invading them. We've had anti-American contributors wanting to show that the USA is (and always has been) worse than almost everyone else in history, even worse than the Soviets (7 massacres by Americans versus 1 by the Soviets.). Meanwhile, no one really cares what the Japanese did in Singapore, or what the Italians did in Yugoslavia. ("Whatever. It was a long time ago.")

Oh yeah, I used to really appreciate Mr. White's website. Back in the day before Wikipedia became all encompassing it was the first hit on search engines if you wanted to look up a lot of military history stuff or massacres or wars or whatever. It was/is a "amateurish" (I think) but in a good sense - an "amateur" who knows his stuff, is passionate about it, and can back up his position and ideas with sources. And then he got squeezed out by Wikipedia, whose comparative collection of information is pathetic.

He also tried editing Wikipedia at one point and just gave up, I think. Is this someone I'm supposed to know? Anyone from the present company? (If so I apologize in advance for not being aware).

[Selina]

Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, wrote the forward to a new anti-Semitic book, The Synagogue of Satan (2006) - found that when looking at larouche stuff (who is apparently just as bad)

[radek]

Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, wrote the forward to a new anti-Semitic book, The Synagogue of Satan (2006) - found that when looking at larouche stuff (who is apparently just as bad)

I don't understand how that is relevant to anything.

[Emperor]

Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, wrote the forward to a new anti-Semitic book, The Synagogue of Satan (2006) - found that when looking at larouche stuff (who is apparently just as bad)

I don't understand how that is relevant to anything.

If I chose to name my account, "David Duke", would it mean anything to you?

[Selina]

I wish I didn't know who that was Emperor...

Anyway @radek, look at Malik's userpage

Malik why do you use the name Malcom X chose when he joined the racist Nation of Islam organisation, which he later denounced, and was murdered by, then?

Malcom X, IMDB

The film shows a white student girl who offers her help to Malcolm X and then gets rudely denied. It's actually based on a real-life event about which after leaving NOI Malcolm X regrets, saying "Brother, remember the time that white college girl came into the restaurant - the one who wanted to help the Black Muslims and the whites get together - and I told her there wasn't a ghost of a chance and she went away crying? Well, I've lived to regret that incident. In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a Black Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then - like all Black Muslims - I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years."

(n.b. the "black muslims" is not a literal meaning, but referring to the political movement, he still supported Islam because he thought that was the best way to peace in his own views) malcolm-x.org/docs/int_parks.htm

I wanted firsthand views of the African leaders -- their problems are inseparable from ours. The cords of bigotry and prejudice here can be cut with the same blade. We have to keep that blade sharp and share it with one another." Now he was sounding like the old Malcolm: "Strangely enough, listening to leaders like Nasser, Ben Bella, and Nkrumah awakened me to the dangers of racism.

I realized racism isn't just a Black and white problem. It's brought bloodbaths to about every nation on earth at one time or another

[radek]

Anyway @radek, look at Malik's userpage

Malik why do you use the name Malcom X chose when he joined the racist Nation of Islam organisation, which he later denounced, and was murdered by, then?

Well, yes, I know who Malik is named after. And yes, I know the story, I've read the autobiography (twice), and tried to watch the movie once or twice. I still don't get it. The other Malik can correct me on this but I'm pretty sure Malcolm X retained the name "Malik Shabazz" even after he left NoI. And he remained a Muslim to the end, just not NoI.

[Selina]

They murdered him only two days later.

[radek]

They murdered him only two days later.

And how does this relate to the Wikipedia Malik Shabazz?

(Edit: Also I'm not sure what the "two days later" refers to. Two days after what?)

This post has been edited by radek:

[Selina]

Because he supports them... wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=36931&view=findpost&p=298721

edit: After Malcom X said that.

btw the userbox on my page since 2006 was Malcom X but Tony Sidaway shoved it around then Cyde deleted it "DO NOT RECREATE" -.-

This post has been edited by Selina:

[radek]

Because he supports them... wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=36931&view=findpost&p=298721

edit: After Malcom X said that.

I don't think that shows that he "supports them" (though he might, I don't know, he can speak for himself). Other than extensive quotes from yourself, the only Malik quote is:

"start over with a new article, using neutral sources like The Black Muslims in America, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the Black Muslims, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, etc."

These would be these three sources.

The first one is a University of North Carolina Press source. I don't think that shows that "Malik supports NoI"

I'm not familiar with the publishers of the other two but they appear to be... Christian publishers. And they do appear to be mainstream, regular and reliable sources.

This post has been edited by radek:

[Selina]

I'm not talking about the sources, I'm talking about the words. And I think from Malcom X's words, he'd be pretty sickened to see people defending racist "separatism", as I tried to explain there :|

It's something the neo-nazis know well, if you indoctrinate people when they are young it's hard for them to change their views later (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[radek]

I'm not talking about the sources, I'm talking about the words. And I think from Malcom X's words, he'd be pretty sickened to see people defending racist "separatism", as I tried to explain there :|

It's something the neo-nazis know well, if you indoctrinate people when they are young it's hard for them to change their views later (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Which words? The admonishment to use neutral sources? You've lost me.

[Selina]

Read the whole post instead of just skimming it then especially the bottom quote :| Unless you're missing the point entirely in which case I just give up (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[radek]

Read the whole post instead of just skimming it then especially the bottom quote :| Unless you're missing the point entirely in which case I just give up (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I did read the whole post. Not seeing it.

[Malik Shabazz]

Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, wrote the forward to a new anti-Semitic book, The Synagogue of Satan (2006) - found that when looking at larouche stuff (who is apparently just as bad)

I don't understand how that is relevant to anything.

If I chose to name my account, "David Duke", would it mean anything to you?

If you had been using the name David Duke longer than "David Zulu Duke", you'd be pissed off. I've been using the name Malik Shabazz in various online forums since the early 1990s.

Malik why do you use the name Malcom X chose when he joined the racist Nation of Islam organisation, which he later denounced, and was murdered by, then?

First, Malik Shabazz isn't the name Malcolm X (spelling counts!) chose when he joined the Nation of Islam.

Second, I was under the impression until I read Manning Marable's 2011 biography, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, that Malcolm X adopted the name Malik Shabazz after he left the Nation of Islam and made his pilgrimage to Mecca. Marable says the name Malcolm Shabazz or Malik Shabazz was adopted during the 1950s.

Finally, do you really think you have to lecture me about Malcolm X? I wrote the Wikipedia (featured) article about him.

They murdered him only two days later.

Two days after what?

He left the Nation of Islam on March 8, 1964, and was assassinated on February 21, 1965. By my count, that's 11, almost 12 months.

They murdered him only two days later.

Two days after what?

He left the Nation of Islam on March 8, 1964, and was assassinated on February 21, 1965. By my count, that's 11, almost 12 months.

Sorry, now I see what you mean. Two days after his last conversation with Gordon Parks.

Read the whole post instead of just skimming it then especially the bottom quote :| Unless you're missing the point entirely in which case I just give up (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Selina, I'm afraid you have me confused with somebody else. I'm not a member of the Nation of Islam, nor am I sympathetic toward them -- I just think they deserve the benefit of Wikipedia rules like WP:V and WP:NPOV.

If a source says the Nation of Islam is a Black separatist movement, it can't be used to support a statement in the article that the NoI is a Black supremacist movement. Not because of what I think or you think, but because the source says A and the article says B. We can't wave our hands and say "racism is racism is racism" and pretend all the sources support all the evil things editors want to attribute to the Nation of Islam. If you want to say the NoI is a Black supremacist movement, you need sources that say it's a Black supremacist movement. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

(Mod note: Quadruple posting does not give you "word score", please click Quote on posts you want to quote before Add Reply'ing! - Selina)

This post has been edited by Selina:

[Wikifan]

Selina, I'm afraid you have me confused with somebody else. I'm not a member of the Nation of Islam, nor am I sympathetic toward them -- I just think they deserve the benefit of Wikipedia rules like WP:V and WP:NPOV.

give me a break. you're biased just like every editor. nation of islam is a joke.

This post has been edited by Wikifan:

[Mister Die]

It shouldn't be too hard to find sources that note the NoI as an organization whose ideology, in the end, does promote racism and black supremacism. Their main story is, after all, that Jacob (Yakub) created white people as more or less inherently evil types. Their black separatism is basically identical with the white separatism of George Lincoln Rockwell and Co., in contrast with the view that the remnants of slavery (share-cropping) plus capitalism created an oppressed "black nation" in the south (as was the view of the Comintern and some black socialists in the 60's and 70's), whereas the NoI held the view that whites and blacks had inherently unequal relations between each other based on racist "theories" and that both "white nationalists" (Neo-Nazis) and "black natonalists" (NoI) must cooperate to secure the peaceful separation of both "races."

For what it's worth I have a few actual encyclopedia volumes, and in Grolier's Encyclopedia of Knowledge Vol. 3 it states on the Black Muslims (as the NoI are called), p. 163, that: "Preaching an antiintegrationist message, Elijah Muhammad frequently voiced warnings about 'the human beast the people or race known as the white.'" Then it notes their racial separatism. I think Wikipedia can manage to note both.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Web Fred]

Just a reminder.

A great and thought provoking speech from my MP (who usually is a bit of a twat).

[Selina]

The sad thing is though that this thread was crap all to do with "zionism", just some people seem to take anything as an excuse to rant about jews... spectacularly inappropriate thread to start it in too :|

@Emperor: I'd say you're right, after having a look around, I'm 90% sure "nableezy" is a sockpuppet of EricBarbour who otherwise makes good points here most of the time. Disappointing, seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)



@Malik: "WP:V"? That's not the kind of "common sense" you were talking about before... I don't think asking any normal people outside Wikipedia would classify the BNP or "nation of islam" as "separatist movements" than racist organisations...

[lilburne]

A great and thought provoking speech from my MP (who usually is a bit of a twat).

I thought you said you DIDN'T live in a Liverpudlian suburb.

[Malik Shabazz]

@Malik: "WP:V"? That's not the kind of "common sense" you were talking about before... I don't think asking any normal people outside Wikipedia would classify the BNP or "nation of islam" as "separatist movements" than racist organisations...

Well then change Nation of Islam to describe the NoI as a racist religious movement instead of a Black supremacist religious movement. Then remove the sources that describe it as Black supremacist and find sources that describe it as racist. That shouldn't be hard.

Surely you don't need me to explain to you how to edit Wikipedia.

[Fusion]

A great and thought provoking speech from my MP (who usually is a bit of a twat).

Yes indeed in this clip he sounds like one. Anyway, thanks for letting me learn a new word. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mod's note: Selina has blocked Nableezy until the year 2028, on the grounds that he is Eric Barbour's sockpuppet. Meanwhile, at Wikipedia, Nableezy (T-C-L-K-R-D) and EricBarbour (T-C-L-K-R-D) are still regarded as two separate and distinct individuals.

[Fusion]

Mod's note: Selina has blocked Nableezy until the year 2028, on the grounds that he is Eric Barbour's sockpuppet. Meanwhile, at Wikipedia, Nableezy (T-C-L-K-R-D) and EricBarbour (T-C-L-K-R-D) are still regarded as two separate and distinct individuals.

As Eric Barbour was blocked three years ago I doubt that anyone has been checking lately. Anyway, is not Wikipedia far from a reliable source? What it says proves nothing!

[Wikifan]

Well then change Nation of Islam to describe the NoI as a racist religious movement instead of a Black supremacist religious movement. Then remove the sources that describe it as Black supremacist and find sources that describe it as racist. That shouldn't be hard.

yeah, good luck with that. you've already set yourself as the protector of malcolm's x legacy and shown a very possessive view on the movement.

nation of islam is a just mutant religious cult. an unoriginal one too.

LF:

The international bankers have always wanted what they called a "balance of power in the world... The Warburgs, the Rothschilds who financed Hitler. German Jews financed Hitler right here in America.... International banks financed Hitler and poor Jews died while big Jews were at the root of what you call the Holocaust....Little Jews died while big Jews made money. Little Jews [were] being turned into soap while big Jews washed themselves with it...."We [blacks] didn't kill one Jew...We were not involved there...That was your white brother, Hitler...How in the hell can you call us anti-Semitic?" _ February 26, 1995: Saviour's Day speech in Chicago: "They [banks] would loan money to both sides in the conflict, `cause they really didn't care who won or who lost. I mean it's hurtful, but a Jew--Rothschild--loaned money to Adolf Hitler. A Jew. Rothschild. Goddamnit you better not open your mouth to call me no anti-Semite! Rothschild and Paul Warburg loaned money. Hitler killed little Jews while Rothschild and Warburg stayed in the finest hotels in Europe. But damn it, if you can't call Rothschild anti-Semitic and Warburg an anti-Semite, then you don't open your mouth against me..

sourced from ADL but quotes are available elsewhere.

To the whites and `white Jews' in the audience, I say: It's gonna be a rough ride, buddy....Buckle your seat belts...because I didn't come to pin the tail on the donkey, I came to pin the tail on the honkey...bring me your rabbis and I'll strip your butts naked

yeah, totally not racist at all.

This post has been edited by Wikifan:

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

The international bankers have always wanted what they called a "balance of power in the world... The Warburgs, the Rothschilds who financed Hitler. German Jews financed Hitler right here in America.... International banks financed Hitler and poor Jews died while big Jews were at the root of what you call the Holocaust....Little Jews died while big Jews made money. Little Jews [were] being turned into soap while big Jews washed themselves with it...."We [blacks] didn't kill one Jew...We were not involved there...That was your white brother, Hitler...How in the hell can you call us anti-Semitic?" _ February 26, 1995: Saviour's Day speech in Chicago: "They [banks] would loan money to both sides in the conflict, `cause they really didn't care who won or who lost. I mean it's hurtful, but a Jew--Rothschild--loaned money to Adolf Hitler. A Jew. Rothschild. Goddamnit you better not open your mouth to call me no anti-Semite! Rothschild and Paul Warburg loaned money. Hitler killed little Jews while Rothschild and Warburg stayed in the finest hotels in Europe. But damn it, if you can't call Rothschild anti-Semitic and Warburg an anti-Semite, then you don't open your mouth against me..

sourced from ADL but quotes are available elsewhere.

What are you implying by bolding that particular sentence?

[The Joy]

Mod's note: Selina has blocked Nableezy until the year 2028, on the grounds that he is Eric Barbour's sockpuppet. Meanwhile, at Wikipedia, Nableezy (T-C-L-K-R-D) and EricBarbour (T-C-L-K-R-D) are still regarded as two separate and distinct individuals.

That makes no sense, whatsoever. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Wikifan]

The international bankers have always wanted what they called a "balance of power in the world... The Warburgs, the Rothschilds who financed Hitler. German Jews financed Hitler right here in America.... International banks financed Hitler and poor Jews died while big Jews were at the root of what you call the Holocaust....Little Jews died while big Jews made money. Little Jews [were] being turned into soap while big Jews washed themselves with it...."We [blacks] didn't kill one Jew...We were not involved there...That was your white brother, Hitler...How in the hell can you call us anti-Semitic?" _ February 26, 1995: Saviour's Day speech in Chicago: "They [banks] would loan money to both sides in the conflict, `cause they really didn't care who won or who lost. I mean it's hurtful, but a Jew--Rothschild--loaned money to Adolf Hitler. A Jew. Rothschild. Goddamnit you better not open your mouth to call me no anti-Semite! Rothschild and Paul Warburg loaned money. Hitler killed little Jews while Rothschild and Warburg stayed in the finest hotels in Europe. But damn it, if you can't call Rothschild anti-Semitic and Warburg an anti-Semite, then you don't open your mouth against me..

sourced from ADL but quotes are available elsewhere.

What are you implying by bolding that particular sentence?

just pointing out the fact that the jews financed hitler. NOI says so so it MUST be true.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

What are you implying by bolding that particular sentence?

just pointing out the fact that the jews financed hitler. NOI says so so it MUST be true.

You appear to have leapt to a conclusion based not on historical knowledge but on your gut reactions to antisemitic rhetoric. In the '30s, Wall Street financiers liked Hitler not because of their opinions one way or another about his demagoguery, but because the German economy began to show signs of revival after he rose to power. Wall Street was also financing Japanese empire-building during this time period, over the objections of the U.S. government.

These are the kinds of things you learn in college. Speaking of which, if memory serves, you're about 17, right? How's your college application process going?

This post has been edited by Ego Trippin' (Part Two):

[Emperor]

These are the kinds of things you learn in college. Speaking of which, if memory serves, you're about 17, right? How's your college application process going?

Oh the "my education is bigger than your education" argument. Always persuasive.

[Wikifan]

You appear to have leapt to a conclusion based not on historical knowledge but on your gut reactions to antisemitic rhetoric. In the '30s, Wall Street financiers liked Hitler not because of their opinions one way or another about his demagoguery, but because the German economy began to show signs of revival after he rose to power. Wall Street was also financing Japanese empire-building during this time period, over the objections of the U.S. government.

so wall street financiers=jews? LF and other noi trolls are notorious for their rabid antisemitism and fascination with jewish conspiracies. when anyone engages in that kind of verbal diarrhea they lose all credibility.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

You appear to have leapt to a conclusion based not on historical knowledge but on your gut reactions to antisemitic rhetoric. In the '30s, Wall Street financiers liked Hitler not because of their opinions one way or another about his demagoguery, but because the German economy began to show signs of revival after he rose to power. Wall Street was also financing Japanese empire-building during this time period, over the objections of the U.S. government.

so wall street financiers=jews? LF and other noi trolls are notorious for their rabid antisemitism and fascination with jewish conspiracies. when anyone engages in that kind of verbal diarrhea they lose all credibility.

Not all of them were Jews, of course, but some were. The fundamentally antisemitic premise adopted by the NOI, apparently, is that Jews controlled all of international banking in the 1930s and were able to use that control for their own sinister purposes. We can reject that premise without denying, as I think you did, that some American Jews were involved in financing Nazi Germany. The same goes for Japan, although naturally most people wouldn't find Jewish involvement with that curious, because the Japanese weren't behind the genocide of millions of Jews.

I'm not saying that the NOI has any credibility, but I am saying that there was a kernel of truth to the sentence you bolded. That sentence obviously twisted the truth for its own antisemitic ends.

These are the kinds of things you learn in college. Speaking of which, if memory serves, you're about 17, right? How's your college application process going?

Oh the "my education is bigger than your education" argument. Always persuasive.

You're right; my first three sentences stood on their own, and that fourth was unnecessarily nasty. My shitty mood brought out my mean streak. I apologize for the dig, Wikifan.

This post has been edited by Ego Trippin' (Part Two):

[Wikifan]

Not all of them were Jews, of course, but some were. The fundamentally antisemitic premise adopted by the NOI, apparently, is that Jews controlled all of international banking in the 1930s and were able to use that control for their own sinister purposes. We can reject that premise without denying, as I think you did, that some American Jews were involved in financing Nazi Germany. The same goes for Japan, although naturally most people wouldn't find Jewish involvement with that curious, because the Japanese weren't behind the genocide of millions of Jews.

so then what's your beef?

the need to explain all the world's problems and issues are the fault of some mafia-pack of wild jews out making $$$ at our expense is just lazy thinking man. it's not even worth debating.

so NOI has that awesomepossom jew-hatred anthem, in addition to the weird cult worship of louis farrakhan. i dont understand why this appeals to malik.

[Fusion]

Not all of them were Jews, of course, but some were.

This reminds me very of the sort of language there was in the USSR under Stalin. The main enemy of the USSR was the capitalists, since obviously the great majorty of the workers, those who had not been anyway brainwashed, supported the USSR. Many of the capitalists were Jews, so in fact this was a Jewish conspiracy organised by the Jewish Trotsky. One of his biggest hate figures was Montagu Norman (T-H-L-K-D), Governor of the Bank of England. I was surprised recently to discover that he was not Jewish.

Anyway, I am disturbed to find Stalinism alive and well and living here.

[Mister Die]

I don't see how Trotsky was said to be involved in a "Jewish conspiracy." The Great Purges were about how Trots and the Right (Bukharinites, etc.) were said to have "collaborated" with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Poland, the British via Persia and such, and so on. There was no talk of bankers or what have you.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

so then what's your beef?

the need to explain all the world's problems and issues are the fault of some mafia-pack of wild jews out making $$$ at our expense is just lazy thinking man. it's not even worth debating.

This reminds me very of the sort of language there was in the USSR under Stalin. [...]

I am disturbed to find Stalinism alive and well and living here.

And I am disturbed to find that dispassionately bringing up a historical fact (albeit an unsavory one) here gets me accused of being a Stalinist and having a "beef" (with whom I don't know). If you read my posts and thought that I was implying the existence of a global Jewish conspiracy, I think that says more about you than it does about me. Good day to you both.

[lilburne]

And I am disturbed to find that dispassionately bringing up a historical fact (albeit an unsavory one) here gets me accused of being a Stalinist and having a "beef" (with whom I don't know). If you read my posts and thought that I was implying the existence of a global Jewish conspiracy, I think that says more about you than it does about me. Good day to you both.

When I was a member of the CPGB a number of the secular Jewish member were Stalinists.


They were also anti-Zionist, and were at the front of the queue when it came to confronting the NF and the BNP, during the anti-fascist marches.





This post has been edited by lilburne:

[Malik Shabazz]

i dont understand why this appeals to malik.

Have I told you lately that you're an asshole?

[Detective]

Sockhunting by similarity of views is great fun. Take this eccentric piece of politics:

From over here in UK land, Bush was a bad president because he (or his team) were too pushy and heavy-handed, while Obama is a bad president because he is too weak. Netanyahu, for example, has him wrapped around his little finger.

Over here from up close they look very similar.

While Cheney is known to have adored
Electrodes and a waterboard,
Obama loves to send the drones with apps installed on mobile phones,
What an overlord!
Yes, they're cousins, identical cousins, and you'll find,
They sigh alike, ally alike, invade and occupy alike --
And they've lost their minds!
When cousins -- are two of a kind!

It's nearly as daft as the idea that Obama is some sort of socialist! But is it really conceivable that two different people on WR could share it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Wikifan]

i dont understand why this appeals to malik.

Have I told you lately that you're an asshole?

NOI is a joke and run by racist trolls.

When I was a member of the CPGB a number of the secular Jewish member were Stalinists.


They were also anti-Zionist, and were at the front of the queue when it came to confronting the NF and the BNP, during the anti-fascist marches.

funny thing about soviet union, they basically wrote the book on modern day anti-zionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Anti-Zionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionist_...e_Soviet_Public

some jews thought by forfeiting their jewish identify and pledging allegiance to communism, they would be saved. but they got purged just like everybody else.

This post has been edited by Wikifan:

[lilburne]

When I was a member of the CPGB a number of the secular Jewish member were Stalinists.


They were also anti-Zionist, and were at the front of the queue when it came to confronting the NF and the BNP, during the anti-fascist marches.

funny thing about soviet union, they basically wrote the book on modern day anti-zionism.

Yeah I was regional youth organiser for the Party in the 1970s. It wasn't until after I joined that my father started telling me about the organising of the Cable Street resistance back in 1936, three weeks later he was in Paris signed up for the International Brigade and shipped out to Barcelona.

[radek]

I don't see how Trotsky was said to be involved in a "Jewish conspiracy." The Great Purges were about how Trots and the Right (Bukharinites, etc.) were said to have "collaborated" with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Poland, the British via Persia and such, and so on. There was no talk of bankers or what have you.

I think somebody got their Stalinist purges mixed up. Trotsky was one thing, and yeah, that didn't have much to do with anti-semitism. The anti-semitic purge was the Doctor's Plot.

[Mister Die]

I don't see how Trotsky was said to be involved in a "Jewish conspiracy." The Great Purges were about how Trots and the Right (Bukharinites, etc.) were said to have "collaborated" with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Poland, the British via Persia and such, and so on. There was no talk of bankers or what have you.

I think somebody got their Stalinist purges mixed up. Trotsky was one thing, and yeah, that didn't have much to do with anti-semitism. The anti-semitic purge was the Doctor's Plot.

Yes, the "plot" and the campaign against "rootless cosmopolitans" definitely had some anti-semitic undertones.

Erik Van Ree in his book The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin notes that, although Stalin was not free of prejudice vis-à-vis Jews, he actually did criticize open anti-semitism, and gives examples for instance of Stalin criticizing those who, in newspapers during the late 40's, would put down someone's original Jewish surnames in brackets next to their present surnames while criticizing them. Stalin's daughter also noted that her father probably didn't believe the charges against the doctors. Both were still odious events, though.

Soviet anti-semitism became widespread in the 70's and 80's. At that point you had some people who were basically just writing about traditional Jewish conspiracy theories (Protocols-type stuff) while employing Soviet terminology and quoting Marx, Engels and Lenin a few times to evade censors.

[Emperor]

They've also got the flag of Sardinia there, which if you believe the Flag of Sardinia article was replaced with a new non-racist flag in 1999.

I don't know much Sardinian history. What's the deal?

[Web Fred]

A great and thought provoking speech from my MP (who usually is a bit of a twat).

I thought you said you DIDN'T live in a Liverpudlian suburb.

I don't, and neither does Kaufman.

[Detective]

I thought you said you DIDN'T live in a Liverpudlian suburb.

I don't, and neither does Kaufman.

Interestingly, CL may be right here, or at least partly right. Mr. Kaufman is MP for the constituency of Manchester Gorton. (For the benefit of Americans, Manchester is a city distinct from Liverpool although in the same general area.) I cannot, however, find Mr. Kaufman's private address so cannot confirm whether it is in Manchester, Liverpool or elsewhere.

[Text]

They've also got the flag of Sardinia there, which if you believe the Flag of Sardinia article was replaced with a new non-racist flag in 1999.

I don't know much Sardinian history. What's the deal?

What's racist about the Moor's head?

The origin of the symbol is unknown, but there seem to be some link to the Crown of Aragon's symbols, because Sardinia was part of the Crown of Aragon, and then part of the Spanish Empire, from 1297 (nominally) to 1720. After that it became part of the Kingdom of Savoy, and then part of the Banana Republic.

Spanish tradition considers the Moor's head a creation of King Peter I of Aragon, to celebrate the victory at Alcoraz (1096). The battle was won with the help of Saint George, whose symbol is a red cross on a white background, and he would have cut off the heads of four Moorish kings.

Sardinian and Pisan tradition links the symbol to the gonfalon which Pope Benedict VIII gave to the Pisans, who were helping the Sardinians against the Saracens of Mujāhid al-ʿĀmirī, who were trying to conquer the italian peninsula and Sardinia.

Some other scholars think the flag of the four Moors may have been created by the Templars.

[jsalsman]

Does anyone remember the 2008 article "Wikipedia on Race" by Nicholas Stix? That is the best item-by-item critique of Wikipedia I've ever seen: http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/07/index.html

Someone should go through all the articles it mentions and see how much got addressed. I just did a quick sampling and it looks like less than half.

[Edit: Nobody took the bait! For the record, I was being sarcastic. Stix is a white power nutcase.]

This post has been edited by jsalsman:

[lilburne]

I thought you said you DIDN'T live in a Liverpudlian suburb.

I don't, and neither does Kaufman.

Interestingly, CL may be right here, or at least partly right. Mr. Kaufman is MP for the constituency of Manchester Gorton. (For the benefit of Americans, Manchester is a city distinct from Liverpool although in the same general area.) I cannot, however, find Mr. Kaufman's private address so cannot confirm whether it is in Manchester, Liverpool or elsewhere.

For the benefit of non-UK citizens there is an intense rivalry between certain pairs of UK cities where each views the other as some lesser place. For example after the London Tube bombings the BBC were out interviewing Muslims in Leeds about what they thought about people from the Leeds area being responsible, there were some wonderful Yorkshire accents on display:

No Leeds lads? Nay I can't believe Leeds lads would do that. Not Leeds lads, nay. Bradford! They'd do it!

[Web Fred]

I thought you said you DIDN'T live in a Liverpudlian suburb.

I don't, and neither does Kaufman.

Interestingly, CL may be right here, or at least partly right. Mr. Kaufman is MP for the constituency of Manchester Gorton. (For the benefit of Americans, Manchester is a city distinct from Liverpool although in the same general area.) I cannot, however, find Mr. Kaufman's private address so cannot confirm whether it is in Manchester, Liverpool or elsewhere.

For the benefit of non-UK citizens there is an intense rivalry between certain pairs of UK cities where each views the other as some lesser place. For example after the London Tube bombings the BBC were out interviewing Muslims in Leeds about what they thought about people from the Leeds area being responsible, there were some wonderful Yorkshire accents on display:

No Leeds lads? Nay I can't believe Leeds lads would do that. Not Leeds lads, nay. Bradford! They'd do it!

I'm not in rivalry with anyone. Both cities are rather large water closets. The only difference twixt Manchester and Liverpool is that Scousers use bricks to replace wheels, whereas Manchunians use breeze blocks.

[Emperor]

The more I read the article the more I realize what a steaming pile of crap it is.

The United States, Western Europe, and South Africa take their lumps, little countries like the Dominican Republic and Israel are singled out, but what about:

RUSSIA , TURKEY, and JAPAN

not exactly lightweights in the racism department

(or am I just too mired in the early 20th century)

or

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL

well ok Brazil has a pic of some protester with a clown nose about quotas or something, nevermind a few hundred years of African slavery

[Wikifan]

RUSSIA , TURKEY, and JAPAN

not exactly lightweights in the racism department

(or am I just too mired in the early 20th century)

or

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL

well ok Brazil has a pic of some protester with a clown nose about quotas or something, nevermind a few hundred years of African slavery

this is just my synthesis, but most of the whole "anti-racist" far-left philosophy has less to with about opposing racism and more to do with a deep seated hatred for america. russia was for quite awhile the polar opposite of the US in almost every fashion. that's why many of the old left were gushing supporters of the regime or sympathizers of the various proxies inserted by the soviet union throughout the world.

most muslim countries are painted as victims of the united states and its allies, so they get a pass.

the real puzzler is south africa vs. australia. south africa was hit with international sanctions, but australia was the original apartheid state and south africa's apartheid government was inspired by australia.

australia never ended its apartheid policies until the late 1970s, and today the difference is felt. white australians live to be 80, natives live to be 50 - if they're lucky. i guess south africa fought a few wars during the cold era while australia was mostly passive i guess.

turkey gets a pass because it successfully positions itself as a bulwark of the united states and israel, even though the US has 3,000 troops in turkey and what - 50 nuclear silos?

notice how noam chomsky - the holy cult leader of new left philosophy - has a raging boner for turkey yet totally opposes israel's existence? turkey's colonization of cyprus, turkey's invasion of iraq, turkey's war with the kurds, etc...doesn't matter.

i'm surprised israel only has a few mentions in the article. it is not surprising its mention is not supported by sources:

none of the three refs even mention israel/australia link.

whatever you read in the article i wouldnt take it too seriously. im sure half of its original research/opinion of editors.

This post has been edited by Wikifan:

[Emperor]

Makes sense, kind of fits with the wacky Wikipedian view of the world. Rwanda is mentioned only as a link.

Niger takes a hit for deporting 150,000 Arabs in 2006. I never heard that before.

[Wikifan]

Makes sense, kind of fits with the wacky Wikipedian view of the world. Rwanda is mentioned only as a link.

Niger takes a hit for deporting 150,000 Arabs in 2006. I never heard that before.

soviet union deported 200,000 muslims.

This post has been edited by Wikifan:

[Alexkrsz]

RUSSIA , TURKEY, and JAPAN

not exactly lightweights in the racism department

(or am I just too mired in the early 20th century)

or

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL

well ok Brazil has a pic of some protester with a clown nose about quotas or something, nevermind a few hundred years of African slavery

this is just my synthesis, but most of the whole "anti-racist" far-left philosophy has less to with about opposing racism and more to do with a deep seated hatred for america.

Conflating the culture, people, government and policies of the United States is a popular right-wing straw man to attack people who strongly oppose the country's policies.
If you opposed the Soviet Union, you did not hate the culture or people, but its government and their actions.

russia was for quite awhile the polar opposite of the US in almost every fashion. that's why many of the old left were gushing supporters of the regime or sympathizers of the various proxies inserted by the soviet union throughout the world.

Both USA/UK and the Soviet Union tried to extend their influence as much as possible in the Third world. Who crushed independent nationalism throughout the world and installed right wing dictatorships?
The Soviet threat in the Western hemisphere was non-existent. The allegations of a "Soviet/Cuban connection" in Nicaragua for example weren't entirely false. When the US imposed arms/weapons embargoes and the Contras attacked Nicaragua, the people there had to defend themselves and had to rely on communist regimes (and France) for arms. Then the US could justify the destruction of a whole country as they did everywhere with the same/similar pretext.

most muslim countries are painted as victims of the united states and its allies, so they get a pass.


the real puzzler is south africa vs. australia. south africa was hit with international sanctions, but australia was the original apartheid state and south africa's apartheid government was inspired by australia.

In the 80s most countries had imposed sanctions on South Africa, but Reagan was strongly supportive of the Apartheid regime and did not impose any sanctions. When the US finally did, it quickly collapsed.
You are very clueless about the Middle East. A good start would be to learn about European/American involvement over the centuries.

turkey gets a pass because it successfully positions itself as a bulwark of the united states and israel, even though the US has 3,000 troops in turkey and what - 50 nuclear silos?

notice how noam chomsky - the holy cult leader of new left philosophy - has a raging boner for turkey yet totally opposes israel's existence? turkey's colonization of cyprus, turkey's invasion of iraq, turkey's war with the kurds, etc...doesn't matter.

Turkey got and still gets a free pass for being a military outpost of Europe/America, just like Saudi-Arabia, Israel or Egypt to maintain control of the region.
To quote our cult leader:
"In the 1990s, it was the Kurdish population of Turkey that suffered the most brutal repression. Tens of thousands were killed, thousands of towns and villages were destroyed, millions driven from the lands and homes, with hideous barbarity and torture. The Clinton administration gave crucial support throughout, providing Turkey lavishly with means of destruction. In the single year 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the US sent to this major ally during the entire Cold War period combined up to the onset of the counterinsurgency operations. Turkey became the leading recipient of US arms, apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category. Clinton provided 80% of Turkish arms, doing his utmost to ensure that Turkish violence would succeed. Virtual media silence made a significant contribution to these efforts." Source

Where the heck do your "facts" come from? Think before you post, even Wikipedia isn't that bad for relevant factoids to sound smarter in discussions.

(sorry for off topic, have not been involved in Wikipedia for some time, but felt like responding to this crap)

This post has been edited by Alexkrsz:

[Emperor]

Is this some kind of defense of Noam Chomsky or something?

[radek]

Does anyone remember the 2008 article "Wikipedia on Race" by Nicholas Stix? That is the best item-by-item critique of Wikipedia I've ever seen: http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/07/index.html

Someone should go through all the articles it mentions and see how much got addressed. I just did a quick sampling and it looks like less than half.

Which of the issues in that article do WRers think are the most substantial?

Nah, it's an article in a racist piece of trash magazine which is using real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures as an excuse to present a laundry list of standard racist complaints and canards.

Are you seriously promoting this junk or were you just unaware of the connection here/are not a very discerning reader?

[Selina]

The Jeffrey Latham who who has been screaming against me on Facebook is known as Blu Aardvark on the neo-nazi site Stormfront (and was the same on Wikipedia too until getting banned - no doubt returned, and I wouldn't be surprised if was involved in creating the racial-totally-not-racist "separatism" articles):
google.com/search?q=site:stormfront.org "Blu Aardvark"

Whether or not a person agrees with the media stereotype, one cannot deny that the media stereotype is precisely how most Americans view the Klan. The robes might make a statement of pride in one's own race, but it's a statement that none will hear except for those who are already aware, because of the negative stigma attached to those robes.

Why do Racists have low IQ's?
First, allow me to clarify that this is *not* my viewpoint. Rather, it is the title of an article by a group of PSU students who are quite obviously biased in their views and reporting.

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

I'm just curious as to people's thoughts related to this excellent "research"

Re: This election is proof that racism is losing it's grip in the US
Barack Hussein Obama produced a birth certificate, yes, but evidence indicates that he has not produced a valid one

I am disgusted by the pack of lies that are sold with it. The Jews were hated because of what they had done to the Germans, not because of some twisted belief in racial superiority

But please, to those offering proof that the Holocaust happened, and that six million Jews were pwned by the Germans, try to avoid falling onto the same tired arguments.

Re: U.K. Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
Hmm. So maybe it's not because of the fear of offending Muslims, but rather because they fear being asked questions they can't answer in relation to the alleged atrocities.

Or maybe it's because the Jews know they can't possibly extort money from the Muslims, and thus, won't waste valuable time in doing so when they can be brainwashing more gullible peoples.

There are white men and women who are [apparently] unconnected to the Zionist cause, who have nonetheless done great damage to our nation. Zionism is indeed a significant concern

I was a Wikipedia editor, and ended up butting heads with several of the Jewish editors there over, and the accusations of antisemitism started flying. I've since learned that this is an entirely programed response, to be expected. But it really troubled me when I first encountered it.

I know that in the American system, at least, if a student shows any degree of independent expression and thought, they are branded as having some form of "mental disorder" or another, medicated, and sent back to school in a drug-induced stupor

This post has been edited by Selina:

[Wikifan]

Is this some kind of defense of Noam Chomsky or something?

nah, just typical far-left reactionary noise. funny thing how something so wicked as racism becomes a partisan issue.

This post has been edited by Wikifan:

[Somey]

nah, just typical far-left reactionary noise. funny thing how something so wicked as racism becomes a partisan issue.

Gee, the way I read it, you were caught pulling statements about Noam Chomsky's treatment of Turkey directly out of your ass. If that's "typical far-left reactionary noise," then let's have more of it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[jsalsman]

Does anyone remember the 2008 article "Wikipedia on Race" by Nicholas Stix? That is the best item-by-item critique of Wikipedia I've ever seen: http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/07/index.html

Someone should go through all the articles it mentions and see how much got addressed. I just did a quick sampling and it looks like less than half.

Which of the issues in that article do WRers think are the most substantial?

Nah, it's an article in a racist piece of trash magazine which is using real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures as an excuse to present a laundry list of standard racist complaints and canards.

Are you seriously promoting this junk or were you just unaware of the connection here/are not a very discerning reader?

I am not seriously promoting it. It is very useful for this illustration of inherent subjectivity. I wanted to see how WR would characterize it -- whether hatred of Wikipedia would trump the racism. Both seem to have about the same intellectual validity to me.

So are the "real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures" -- to exclude the racist POVs in this case -- irrelevant because you agree with them, or because they serve a greater moral purpose here?

And the bigger question is, are Wikipedia failures only relevant when you oppose their results? If so, then are they substantial failures at all or just manifestations of difference of opinion?

[iii]

So are the "real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures" -- to exclude the racist POVs in this case -- irrelevant because you agree with them, or because they serve a greater moral purpose here?

And the bigger question is, are Wikipedia failures only relevant when you oppose their results? If so, then are they substantial failures at all or just manifestations of difference of opinion?

Wikipedia's failures are primarily systemic. Encyclopedic content is secondary to the actual purpose of that website. Any ostensible reference work that is set-up will be subject to someone disputing the content, but the question is whether the Wikipedia model in terms of governance, community, accountability, and organization is one that merits praise, pity, or scorn. What you'll find here are people who, for various reasons, come down on the side of scorn. Sometimes it's because of underlying frustration with content, but that critique plays second fiddle to the major "reviewing" that goes on here, in my opinion.

[thekohser]

The Jeffrey Latham who who has been screaming against me

Selina, have you noticed how many situations you seem to describe as people "screaming" at / about / against you?

What do you think the common thread is there, I ask calmly and quietly?

[Emperor]

The Jeffrey Latham who who has been screaming against me

Selina, have you noticed how many situations you seem to describe as people "screaming" at / about / against you?

What do you think the common thread is there, I ask calmly and quietly?

Please connect your answer somehow to the Wikipedia article called "Racism" or simply ignore the question or answer it somewhere else.

And Greg, come on. Enough already.

[thekohser]

And Greg, come on. Enough already.

Okay, how's this...

A possible explanation for how racism is documented and manifested on Wikipedia lies here. That's Wikimania 2006. How many non-white, non-Asian attendees do you spot? I see two in a room of about 106 race-identifiable people. That's 1.89%.

Boom. We're back on topic.

[Emperor]

Okay, how's this...

A possible explanation for how racism is documented and manifested on Wikipedia lies here. That's Wikimania 2006. How many non-white, non-Asian attendees do you spot? I see two in a room of about 106 race-identifiable people. That's 1.89%.

Boom. We're back on topic.

Might have something to do with it.

[radek]

So are the "real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures" -- to exclude the racist POVs in this case -- irrelevant because you agree with them, or because they serve a greater moral purpose here?

You didn't read the answer correctly, hence your question is ill posed. "real but irrelevant" - that word "irrelevant" in there means that exclusion of racist POVs is NOT - more precisely, would NOT be - one of Wikipedia's failures. There are other failures, not connected to this issue, but this ain't one of them (assuming that this really does happen - I've seen way to much racist pov pushing slide through on Wikipedia to believe that though).

[Selina]

The common thread is I upset slimeballs with egos bigger than their brains who don't realise just how much I destroy the life of people that deserve it.

I've been trying to be nice to you, you continue taking it as weakness and that can stop and go on the list with the rest of people that need to be taken down a peg - I'm really sick of two-faced people.

This post has been edited by Selina:

[The Joy]

The common thread is I upset slimeballs with egos bigger than their brains who don't realise just how much I destroy the life of people that deserve it.

I've been trying to be nice to you, you continue taking it as weakness and that can stop and go on the list with the rest of people that need to be taken down a peg - I'm really sick of two-faced people.

Well, you were kidnapped by Two-Face in Arkham City. That may explain it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Selina]

youtu.be/Z6MRdL89CzQ#t=1m50s

This post has been edited by Selina:

[Wikifan]

nah, just typical far-left reactionary noise. funny thing how something so wicked as racism becomes a partisan issue.

Gee, the way I read it, you were caught pulling statements about Noam Chomsky's treatment of Turkey directly out of your ass. If that's "typical far-left reactionary noise," then let's have more of it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

not to derail the thread, but since you asked:

Germany is one of the European countries which has had a “rightwing backlash against Muslim immigrants” and, “It is the background reason why Turkey is unlikely to be accepted into the EU, even if it meets all the human rights standards,” said Chomsky in Today's Zaman.

The newspaper reported that Turkey tried to join the EU in 2005, but the process has been slow amid arguments in Europe that Turkey cannot join the EU because of "cultural differences."

Chomsky added that there are worse human rights violators among European countries and pointed to Britain which participated in the war in Iraq.

"Has Turkey done anything like that? On the contrary, it refused to participate in the invasion. That’s a much higher level of observance of human rights and even international law...I always felt Europe was more racist,

The MIT professor visited Ä°stanbul on Friday to participate in an international conference on the freedom of expression, and said he had seen great improvements in Turkey's approach to human rights, especially in its treatment toward the Kurds.

On Brazil and Turkey:

very repressive society has its own barriers to freedom and justice. But what has been achieved in Brazil is impressive, just as the struggle for human and civil rights in Turkey is truly inspiring. In many respects I know of nothing like it elsewhere. Every place on earth can be truly exceptional in its own ways.

source 1

source 2



This post has been edited by Wikifan:

[Emperor]

Modern usage often equates “racism” and “racial discrimination” and defines the latter term only as applying to pernicious practices. Differential treatment of racial groups that is intended to ameliorate past discrimination, rather than to harm, goes by other names (e.g., affirmative action); the characterization of this practice as "racism", "racial discrimination" or "reverse discrimination" is normally only done by its opponents, and typically implies a belief in the harmful nature of the practice with respect to the groups not receiving assistance.

Opponents of affirmative action assert that it is harmful to all people. Individuals should be judged not by the color of their skin, etc.

Where is this point of view represented?

[jsalsman]

A possible explanation for how racism is documented and manifested on Wikipedia lies here. That's Wikimania 2006. How many non-white, non-Asian attendees do you spot? I see two in a room of about 106 race-identifiable people. That's 1.89%.

African American wikipedians seem to stay around longer than most editors, at least those who self-identify by userbox (which include some likely GNAA, by the way.)

(IMG:http://i44.tinypic.com/24zhxrc.png)