This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Noel Ignatiev article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A minor note. I doubt very much that Dr. Ignatiev is "of Russian-Jewish descent". In particular, he has apparently stated that he is not of Jewish extraction: http://racetraitor.org/letters6.html. (Besides, not many Jewish parents name their son Noel, ie Christmas...) So I'm removing pending evidence to the contrary. AnotherBDA 07:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Noel Ignatiev has a long history as an SDS leader and later as leader of SDS offshoot Sojourner Truth Organization. The total lack of biographical material and corresponding lack of discussion of the ideological genesis of his theories about "whiteness" is a weak point of this article. Peter G Werner 10:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone please tell me why Vdare is quoted in the page as an authority?? I'm sure the learned users of wikipedia could come up with more respectable and widely accepted sources that critique Mr. Ignatiev's positions. - James
I have removed the references to the website vdare.com, as they neither accurately characterize Ignatiev's arguments nor do they represent the consensus of scholarly opinion of his work. Though future revisions may mention the criticisms found on vdare, it should alert readers that vdare.com represents a minority opinion which flirts with "white nationalist" extremism. I will soon add to this article by referencing criticisms of Ignatiev's work from such scholarly journals as the American Historical Review. Rational kernel ( talk) 08:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Flirts with "white nationalist" extremism"? Try refuting what they say instead of simply spewing ad hominem. And you wonder why wikipedia has a bad reputation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.239.233 ( talk) 10:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
And this is why Wikipedia is a hypocritical project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.235.144 ( talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Much of the wording in this article appears to have been directly cut and pasted from other articles. The editor should maybe either clean up the wording or delete it. Just saying... 206.211.166.17 ( talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The timeframe for this article is all over the place. It starts in the 1980s, vacillates between the 50s and 70s and picks up again in the 90's? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.133.86 ( talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This section is about a hoax. Its only sources are the original blog post and other primary sources. Was there any secondary coverage in reliable sources of the incident? If not, it should be removed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Right now, the first line reads "Noel Ignatiev (born 1940) is a radical academician." The use of "radical academician" seems quite inappropriate (and not neutral) to me. I understand that radical, in this context, has a specific political meaning (as opposed to reformist), but I can't help but feel its use here is slanderous. Many academics are political "radicals"; they don't have "radical" in the first line of their page, however. I am removing it to maintain a neutral POV. It talks about his involvement with Marxism below. It's not necessary to use "radical" in the first line. Starvinsky ( talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war. I've been trying to add informaion on the controversy around what Ignatiev wrote about 'abolishing the white race', which seems to me like the most obvious and significant controversy where his work is concerned, but this has been repeatedly reverted on me. I'm not trying to pus any POV, but this controversy the FIRST THING that comes up if you google Noel Ignatiev. We do not have a neutral article if this controversy is purposely left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.247.171 ( talk) 08:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all, even after I corrected for the copyright issue, you still reverted my editing (claimed there was still a copyright issue, even though I had rewritten the information in my own words).
Including the most significant and well-known of the Ignatiev controversies only in the 'Ideas' section, and not the 'Controversies' section, of our article on Ignatiev seems to me like a blatantly biased way for our article to be done. For instance, under 'Ideas' there is no mention of the accusations against him of advocating genocide. I'd say these accusations are hugely controversial and belong in the article, also in the appropriate section. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.197.106 ( talk) 19:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I simply thought my rewrite of the information was good enough. Since I'm new to this, can you give me any tips for the future on how to do complete rewrites that correct for copyright issues?
In the 'Ideas' section relating to this controversy there is significantly more about Ignatiev's RESPONSE to the accusations than there is about the accusations themselves. He has been accused of adovcating genocide yet there is no mention of that. I think we need to at least include those of his ideas which are most widely considered controversial. For example, he wrote that his editors 'meant it' when they told a reader: "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed." Obviously that is extremely controversial stuff. Leaving this kind of stuff out just doesn't present a complete picture of the controversy and the article focusing so much on Ignatiev's own response to the controversy around his ideas does not seem to offer a NPOV at all.
Maybe the Ideas and Controversies section should be merged? with an expansion of the part about 'abolishing the white race' so that it tells more about the accusations/criticism around these ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.197.106 ( talk) 22:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I gave the merger a shot with a new rewrite of the 2002 controversy, let me know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.197.106 ( talk) 17:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Same guy here (just made the account), thanks for saying so. Also your changes look great to me, except that I still think we ought to include that one Ignatiev quote from the Harvard Magazine article. It seems to be the most 'extreme' example of Ignatiev's ideas in the article and it certainly adds a lot of context to the criticism.
"The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, 'Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed.'"
Talataash ( talk) 14:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Added, and also unflagged for neutrality dispute. Thanks for discussing that with me (and thanks for the warm welcome!)
Talataash ( talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice! That looks much more tidy. forgot signature. Talataash ( talk) 18:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Apparently Noel Ignatiev has died (10th Nov 2019). Eulogies for this person are being tweeted by supporters. Can you verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.34.39 ( talk) 16:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Personal friends of Ignatiev are posting about it on Facebook, which would seem to verify it. [1] As of yet, no official obituary seems to be available online. wwklnd ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The link to www.RaceTraitor.org has been offline since Noel Ignatiev's passing away, in its stead I have added a link to the web archive of the website here https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/www.racetraitor.org where people can peruse the zine's updates over the last 20 years. ConnieBland ( talk) 01:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is
not a forum to share opinions
|
---|
This man was a disgusting racist. Calls for abolishing a complete race of people is the highest form of racism. Do not try to present him as a "race theorist". He was a disturbed racist. 109.78.140.170 ( talk) 06:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
|
He was best known for his theories on race and for his call to abolish "whiteness".
He has never used the term "whiteness" in any of his books I have read, he explicitly uses the term "white race". 2001:8003:2953:1900:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B ( talk) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Noel Ignatiev article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A minor note. I doubt very much that Dr. Ignatiev is "of Russian-Jewish descent". In particular, he has apparently stated that he is not of Jewish extraction: http://racetraitor.org/letters6.html. (Besides, not many Jewish parents name their son Noel, ie Christmas...) So I'm removing pending evidence to the contrary. AnotherBDA 07:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Noel Ignatiev has a long history as an SDS leader and later as leader of SDS offshoot Sojourner Truth Organization. The total lack of biographical material and corresponding lack of discussion of the ideological genesis of his theories about "whiteness" is a weak point of this article. Peter G Werner 10:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone please tell me why Vdare is quoted in the page as an authority?? I'm sure the learned users of wikipedia could come up with more respectable and widely accepted sources that critique Mr. Ignatiev's positions. - James
I have removed the references to the website vdare.com, as they neither accurately characterize Ignatiev's arguments nor do they represent the consensus of scholarly opinion of his work. Though future revisions may mention the criticisms found on vdare, it should alert readers that vdare.com represents a minority opinion which flirts with "white nationalist" extremism. I will soon add to this article by referencing criticisms of Ignatiev's work from such scholarly journals as the American Historical Review. Rational kernel ( talk) 08:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Flirts with "white nationalist" extremism"? Try refuting what they say instead of simply spewing ad hominem. And you wonder why wikipedia has a bad reputation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.239.233 ( talk) 10:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
And this is why Wikipedia is a hypocritical project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.235.144 ( talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Much of the wording in this article appears to have been directly cut and pasted from other articles. The editor should maybe either clean up the wording or delete it. Just saying... 206.211.166.17 ( talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The timeframe for this article is all over the place. It starts in the 1980s, vacillates between the 50s and 70s and picks up again in the 90's? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.133.86 ( talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This section is about a hoax. Its only sources are the original blog post and other primary sources. Was there any secondary coverage in reliable sources of the incident? If not, it should be removed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Right now, the first line reads "Noel Ignatiev (born 1940) is a radical academician." The use of "radical academician" seems quite inappropriate (and not neutral) to me. I understand that radical, in this context, has a specific political meaning (as opposed to reformist), but I can't help but feel its use here is slanderous. Many academics are political "radicals"; they don't have "radical" in the first line of their page, however. I am removing it to maintain a neutral POV. It talks about his involvement with Marxism below. It's not necessary to use "radical" in the first line. Starvinsky ( talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war. I've been trying to add informaion on the controversy around what Ignatiev wrote about 'abolishing the white race', which seems to me like the most obvious and significant controversy where his work is concerned, but this has been repeatedly reverted on me. I'm not trying to pus any POV, but this controversy the FIRST THING that comes up if you google Noel Ignatiev. We do not have a neutral article if this controversy is purposely left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.247.171 ( talk) 08:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all, even after I corrected for the copyright issue, you still reverted my editing (claimed there was still a copyright issue, even though I had rewritten the information in my own words).
Including the most significant and well-known of the Ignatiev controversies only in the 'Ideas' section, and not the 'Controversies' section, of our article on Ignatiev seems to me like a blatantly biased way for our article to be done. For instance, under 'Ideas' there is no mention of the accusations against him of advocating genocide. I'd say these accusations are hugely controversial and belong in the article, also in the appropriate section. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.197.106 ( talk) 19:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I simply thought my rewrite of the information was good enough. Since I'm new to this, can you give me any tips for the future on how to do complete rewrites that correct for copyright issues?
In the 'Ideas' section relating to this controversy there is significantly more about Ignatiev's RESPONSE to the accusations than there is about the accusations themselves. He has been accused of adovcating genocide yet there is no mention of that. I think we need to at least include those of his ideas which are most widely considered controversial. For example, he wrote that his editors 'meant it' when they told a reader: "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed." Obviously that is extremely controversial stuff. Leaving this kind of stuff out just doesn't present a complete picture of the controversy and the article focusing so much on Ignatiev's own response to the controversy around his ideas does not seem to offer a NPOV at all.
Maybe the Ideas and Controversies section should be merged? with an expansion of the part about 'abolishing the white race' so that it tells more about the accusations/criticism around these ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.197.106 ( talk) 22:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I gave the merger a shot with a new rewrite of the 2002 controversy, let me know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.197.106 ( talk) 17:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Same guy here (just made the account), thanks for saying so. Also your changes look great to me, except that I still think we ought to include that one Ignatiev quote from the Harvard Magazine article. It seems to be the most 'extreme' example of Ignatiev's ideas in the article and it certainly adds a lot of context to the criticism.
"The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, 'Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed.'"
Talataash ( talk) 14:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Added, and also unflagged for neutrality dispute. Thanks for discussing that with me (and thanks for the warm welcome!)
Talataash ( talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice! That looks much more tidy. forgot signature. Talataash ( talk) 18:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Apparently Noel Ignatiev has died (10th Nov 2019). Eulogies for this person are being tweeted by supporters. Can you verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.34.39 ( talk) 16:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Personal friends of Ignatiev are posting about it on Facebook, which would seem to verify it. [1] As of yet, no official obituary seems to be available online. wwklnd ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The link to www.RaceTraitor.org has been offline since Noel Ignatiev's passing away, in its stead I have added a link to the web archive of the website here https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/www.racetraitor.org where people can peruse the zine's updates over the last 20 years. ConnieBland ( talk) 01:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is
not a forum to share opinions
|
---|
This man was a disgusting racist. Calls for abolishing a complete race of people is the highest form of racism. Do not try to present him as a "race theorist". He was a disturbed racist. 109.78.140.170 ( talk) 06:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
|
He was best known for his theories on race and for his call to abolish "whiteness".
He has never used the term "whiteness" in any of his books I have read, he explicitly uses the term "white race". 2001:8003:2953:1900:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B ( talk) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)