Hey, what about writing the "White people self-centered writings"
article? ;P
Le 2013-08-01 22:22, Rui Correia a écrit :
Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
ancestry".
What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other "white
people"
if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
says
on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
'white
people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people,
then we
can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
somewhere -
that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over
the
place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
similar
case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you.
But
the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks
than
you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even
if I
have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen
descent
livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
digital
divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans
do.
That is not an encyclopaedia.
Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type
"Black
African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
actually
takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black
people
does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil
....
Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
article
about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about
'Khoi
people, ...
The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had
my
first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
Furtado.
Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
editors
disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as
can
be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as
'challenging'
editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is
PORTUGESE
was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
How about being constructive?
If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would
appear
on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
protected -
ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
cotroversial
for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do
falls
under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct
link
ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/
present
nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the
three
editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might
actually do
something constructive for a change.
In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I
know
(have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
them
(and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with
us])
would object to being featured in such a racist article.
I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
source
about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not
count.
Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is
done on
the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink -
and
then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures
are
credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking
for
themselves are not.
Best regards,
Rui
--
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
