Metapedia talk:Quality Assurance

General discussion about the QA project

Just as a heads-up for all administrators, these users are currently involved in this project besides myself: Dayman, DrParnassus, Soldyrkaren, Heliodorus, Rothundran, QuestionMark, Faustus and Windzeit. Some are from the international Metapedia Staff, others are administrators from Swedish and Norwegian Metapedia. --Aurvandil 20:37, 9 March 2011 (CET)

The QA is progressing, and it is becoming evident that there are currently multiple articles in violation of the Metapedia Style guide (primarily due to lack of a neutral tone). We will start improving these articles, one by one. Please don't revert or undo any changes made by our team (which members are mentioned above). If you have any concerns, voice them on this discussion page instead. I have also moved all QA-related article discussions to this page, to make it easier to keep track of these discussions. --Aurvandil 07:06, 10 March 2011 (CET)

Discussion on individual articles subject to QA

Anti-white movement

What? Who calls themselves the "Anti White movement," and where is it also known as the "Anti-European Movement"? Don't invent terms! This article should be called "anti racism", describe how anti racist organisations present themselves, and then present criticism of it. This type of entries read like ADL articles about "white supremacism" and have no place on an encyclopedia. User:Dayman

I agree with the above and suggest we move this article to Anti-Racism. --Aurvandil 11:34, 9 March 2011 (CET)

Because of anti-white activity has a very specific characteristic that has nothing in common with Anti-Racism, as outlined in this article, I do not think, to move it into a system-named place would be of any good. Hu1 11:43, 9 March 2011 (CET)

Once again: what is "the Anti White Movement"? How is it "also called the Anti European Movement"? By whom? This makes no sense. --Dayman 19:07, 9 March 2011 (CET)

There is nothing called "The anti white movement", there is nothing called the "anti european movement". Inventing own words and then make encyclopedia entries of them make little sense, unless you actually control the media and can establish such terms efficiently. If we want to alter the view people have of anti fascism/anti racism, it is much more efficient using terms they are already familiar with. We have to bear in mind that Metapedia also targets the general public, and not only nationalists. --Aurvandil 19:22, 9 March 2011 (CET)

You might not know, but it exists virulently. Read Calls for White Genocide and Noel Ignatiev, their read also, and also this article very carefully. It is a well-known jewish tactics to call things differently, than what they are really. It is our job to unleash this kind of fraud. They called for example bolshevism "people's democracy". And so on... Hu1 19:35, 9 March 2011 (CET)

I am fully aware of that. But we expose them much more effiently by not shutting out 99 % of the readership by using terms that clearly indicate a right-wing bias. This is an encyclopedia and not a blog - and one of the major strengths of an encyclopedia is credibility. We should be careful not too lose this credibility by writing texts that are too biased or agitating. The Swedish Metapedia has been used as a source several times by journalists (perhaps mistaking it for Wikipedia or thinking it is some sort of similar, mainstream project). This displays the advantages of being subtle and adhering to general encyclopedic principles of maintaining neutral tone. --Aurvandil 19:57, 9 March 2011 (CET)

It is probably unwise to use the oppositions politicised terms as primary, when discussing concepts in an arena where we have the platform, since it would only validate the idea that they are actually "anti-fascist" or "anti-racist", rather than the fact that they are simply "anti-European" (for instance, they support black-racist/fascist groups like the Black Panthers and sometimes even support Islamic-theocratic groups). In a metapolitical context, we shouldn't secede control of language and terminology to the communists IMO, especially with the advent of social-media terms are more easily picked up and can infiltrate the popular culture.

Its a good point that some people may be looking for the term "anti-racism" and "anti-fascism", but this can simply be sorted by a redirect to a main article documenting political agitation and discrimination against Europeans, mentioning the term therein. The title as it stands is messy, my personal preference would be "Europhobia" or "Anti-Europeanism", both of which have precident in useage and describe the actual disposition of these movements. - Basileus 19:33, 9 March 2011 (CET)

I would much rather prefer we name it "Anti-Racism" and then properly explain why this concept is misleading, as they are obviously not against racism but against whites, and so forth. We should maintain certain encyclopedic standards, which includes writing in a neutral, unbiased tone (which is clearly stated in the Metapedia:Style guide). By making it apparent even from the title of an article that it is biased, we destroy a large portion of metapedia's metapolitical potential since it will make many new readers who stumble upon the article through google stop reading before they even start. We have to be more subtle than this. --Aurvandil 19:47, 9 March 2011 (CET)

Shall we move this article to Anti-racist Movement? There are several organizations that consider themselves to be part of this movement. - NatAll75 11:21, 12 March 2011 (CET)

Yes, I think we should. --Aurvandil 15:01, 12 March 2011 (CET)

How about this: We move the current article to Anti-Racism and make it slightly more general. In addition we create a separate article called Anti-Europeanism (with a referral from Europhobia) to which we can move certain parts of the current article. I will go ahead with this if no other admin presents any objections within a day or two. --Aurvandil 11:00, 16 March 2011 (CET)

As far as I can see, the above is already done. Anti-white movement = Anti-Racism.

I added a template Europhobia. Hu1 13:00, 16 March 2011 (CET)

In response to the person asking not to use terms like "Anti-white" and "Anti-europe", I think this is a bit foolish as if you look to Wikipedia you will see the usage of left-wing names for right-wing attitudes.

Holocaustianity

Please begin by defining the word itself. Who started using it, what does it refer to. --Dayman 11:45, 9 March 2011 (CET)

It starts with a definition. Where is your problem?Hu1 11:47, 9 March 2011 (CET)

First of all the word is a pun rather than an actual term anywhere outside extremely narrow circles. An article such as this should first of all refer to the person who coined the term (Michèle Renouf?), and then describe the arguments of that person and others who use it. Not simply present it as a generally established fact. It's not like people will accept it just because it is written like it is self-evident. --Dayman 20:05, 9 March 2011 (CET)

Jews

This article needs to be revised in its entirety. It gives an extremely unprofessional, rambling impression and is not even close to meeting the demands of "Be sure to use a neutral and balanced language. Avoiding exaggerations and bias is important for our credibility. Take a look at other encyclopedias to get a feeling for what the texts should look like stylistically."

Judaism is not "generally associated with the ideology of Talmudism" - the very word talmudism is extremely uncommon, and usually refers to the study of the Talmud. It's also less than serious to present the Khazar theory, which is not only controversial on account of what it means for Israel, but also on scientific grounds, as the definite truth. The list goes on; this won't do.

The article author needs to keep his own opinions out of it and structure the article in a serious way. I.e: what the jews are without what you think about it, followed by (preferably sourced) criticism. My suggestion is c/p large parts of the basic wikipedia one, and then adding sections on various criticisms and controversies (such as Kevin MacDonald's, the Khazar theory and so on). User:Dayman

Copying wikipedia is not at all a good idea. Wikipedia is anything but neutral, see Wikipedia and Examples of propaganda in Wikipedia‎. It is full of subtle propaganda. You are welcome to write an article User:Dayman/Jews and then we could discuss, if your version is better or not than the existing one. Hu1 11:38, 9 March 2011 (CET)

I haven't said that Wikipedia is neutral, but the article on Judaism on Wikipedia isn't even close to being THIS biased. And introduction such as "Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people.[1] Originating in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Tanakh) and explored in later texts such as the Talmud, it is considered by Jews to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God developed with the Children of Israel. According to traditional Rabbinic Judaism, God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah.[2]" is far more serious than the present version. This can be amended by adding footnoted criticisms of aspects of judaism under a separate heading.

The fact that wikipedia articles on "right wing extrimism" can use pejorative, slanderous and morally loaded terms to describe right-wing phenomenon is a result of these terms being commongoods, often even used in academia. There is absolutely no sense in copying that attitude. Extreme bias is a tool which is very useful if you control discourse, whereas it is completely useless if you are maginalized. It can be nothing but off-putting to anyone and everyone who doesn't already agree with every single word. If we want to have a certain bias, it should never go further than, say, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism --Dayman 12:10, 9 March 2011 (CET)

Well, wikipedia is a good example, how not to write an encyclopedia. Therefore I repeat, you are welcome to write at least one article that you consider as well written, and then we can discuss. Of course, in the subjects, you are obviously interested in, Judeology, Bolshevism, etc... Hu1 12:22, 9 March 2011 (CET)

Generally, I think that is an overstatement. There are numerous articles which display little or no bias - first of all, all of those that concern topics without direct political significance. The one article I've seen lately which I think comes close to this one on Wikipedia is the one on Holocaust Revisionism, since it doesn't separate criticism from description of the phenomenon, doesn't present any actual arguments of the "Holocaust Deniers" and generally just piles on "criticism" (much of which is completely and obviously dishonest).

I have no specific interest in Judaism per se, but I do have an interest in metapedia being fairly objective, and presenting unknown information to go with that objectivity. Not inventing its own version of political correctness and alienating itself from anyone not alreay sharing all its views. Luckily, I don't have to write an article to show an example of a good article: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_marxism --> The only thing lacking here is the origin of the term, and if all, some or none of those described as Cultural Marxists use that term about themselves or not. One could also add a reference to, for instance, Kevin MacDonald and point out that a disproportionate amount of the proponents of the Frankfurt School were jewish. Without the hyperbole --Dayman 13:32, 9 March 2011 (CET)

I have now created a basic article on Judaism: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Judaism This is pretty much how I think it should look. Now one can add criticism (religious, political and so on) and generally go about the whole matter in a more or less academic fashion. I think we should MAINLY focus on the Jewish religion under "Judaism," and put most of the broad ethnic, racial and political issues under Jews or Jewry. Of course, they cannot be separated in their entirety (and many movements, such as Zionism, which I think we should define strictly and correctly, and not use as a sort of euphemism for Jews, must have their own entires).--Dayman 10:14, 10 March 2011 (CET)

Your way of working is not proper. I asked you to create an own article, independently of the existing, That we can compare with the existing one and discuss, and not to overwrite existing, good written articles according to your imaginations, which might or might not be correct. Please avoid this in the future, and try to be cooperative. Hu1 22:16, 10 March 2011 (CET)

The existing article was completely at odds with the style guide, so I created a basic one from which to work. The original article was not "a good one" by any stretch of the imagination. That being said, I don't mean that the new article is perfect, or even good. It needs much improvement; apart from the MacDonald section (which could be developed infinitely), one could add Duke, Christian criticism of Judaism and so on and so forth more or less forever. However, the whole mega-bias attitude, with random, aggressive statements about Judaism, of the original article simply won't cut it.--Dayman 22:00, 11 March 2011 (CET)

Community portal

The beta version of Community Portal is done - look here: Communityportal/beta. I sugests that we produce some videos aswell and put them on YouTube for easy learning how to edit Metapedia and what our mission is, and so on - more interactivity do we need on that page. Also, can someone translate the text that is in the window for Portals on the Community Page? --Soldyrkaren 14:39, 5 April 2011 (CEST)