Arcticocean (talk | contribs) →Blocked, for 3 hours: new section |
Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) →Template:Racism topics: new section |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
''Kind regards'',<br><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:9pt;">[[User:AGK|<font color="green">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] [[User:AGK/Contact|<font color="green">'''ん'''</font>]]</span> 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
''Kind regards'',<br><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:9pt;">[[User:AGK|<font color="green">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] [[User:AGK/Contact|<font color="green">'''ん'''</font>]]</span> 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== [[Template:Racism topics]] == |
|||
Hello. Please see my response to your comments at [[Template talk:Racism topics]]. |
|||
I'm sorry if it seems like a group of editors has ganged up against you. It may be difficult, but please try to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Also, please note that some of us haven't expressed an opinion about your view that Chicano nationalism and the Mexica Movement are racist — we've tried to explain Wikipedia ''process'' to you. |
|||
I tried to explain yesterday that we can't add articles to the template because one editor — or a group of editors — feel that a group or ideology is "obviously", "clearly", or "blatantly" racist. By the same token, articles shouldn't be removed because one editor (or a group of editors) don't want them in the template. |
|||
The information in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on [[WP:V|verifiable]] [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], not what seems "obvious" or "clear" to one editor or a group of editors. As I wrote, the articles about [[La Raza]] (which isn't an ideology), [[Chicano nationalism]], and the [[Mexica Movement]] don't say that they are racist. They don't say that they have been described as racist, or criticized for being racist, or anything of that nature. |
|||
Compare that with the [[Nation of Islam]]. There is a section of the article about the group's [[Nation of Islam#Antisemitism|antisemitism]] and a whole article about it: [[Nation of Islam and antisemitism]]. Including the NoI in the template isn't based on my opinion that the group is "obviously" racist and antisemitic, it's based on a well-documented Wikipedia article that cites sources that say the NoI is racist and antisemitic. |
|||
Making decisions based on what seems "obvious" or "clear" to one editor or a group of editors, in the absence of reliable sources, is considered [[WP:OR|original research]], and Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it. That doesn't mean that you're right or you're wrong, or that I'm right or I'm wrong, it just means that it isn't supported by reliable sources. |
|||
So please don't edit-war over adding articles to the template. Read some of the relevant Wikipedia policies, find reliable sources (if there are any) to support your assertions, and edit the articles appropriately. When an article supports an editor's suggestion that it belongs in the template, there shouldn't be an argument about including it. |
|||
I'm sorry that this message is so long, but I hope I can help you understand that this isn't a political battle. If you have any questions, please leave a message at [[Template talk:Racism topics]] or on [[User talk:Malik Shabazz|my Talk page]]. Thank you. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:42, 24 October 2007
Honour of Richmond
Rather than slap pointless template all over Honour of Richmond, let me tell you what leaps out at me:
“ | The capital district was originally based in Catraeth, Rheged as the home of King Urien of Gore. British history describes Peter Thompson, who supposedly discovered the tomb of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table under Richmond Castle's crypt. He is said to have found a horn and a poltergeist resulted when lifting Excalibur.[1] When Richmondshire was founded, it revived the ancient British presence of Cumbria. The importance of Brittany, Wales and their colonial connections with the Honour of Richmond in English history is most often not taught in public education. Although territorially English, Richmond is wholly of the Cambro-Breton, rather than Anglo-Norman experience. | ” |
Where to start? Is there any evidence that Rheged was based around Catterick? Is Richmondshire in Cumbria? Is there a reason why all this is not taught in public education? And "wholly...Cambro-Breton", really? The further you get into the article, the more reasonable it becomes, but the early stuff is really not up to snuff. Last I heard, Catterick was definitely a Northumbrian royal vill/urbs regis. Strange that isn't mentioned in the crusade for Cambro-Breton identity. Given the connection between royal vills and small-shires, that would be worth a mention. Merging this into Richmondshire might not be a bad idea. The single reference seems to deal with post-1066 Richmondshire. Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth. You're free to take it or leave it as you will. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked, for 3 hours
This is as a result of this discussion; please see that link for further explanation, and a comment directed at you regarding your editing.
Kind regards,
Anthøny ん 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please see my response to your comments at Template talk:Racism topics.
I'm sorry if it seems like a group of editors has ganged up against you. It may be difficult, but please try to assume good faith. Also, please note that some of us haven't expressed an opinion about your view that Chicano nationalism and the Mexica Movement are racist — we've tried to explain Wikipedia process to you.
I tried to explain yesterday that we can't add articles to the template because one editor — or a group of editors — feel that a group or ideology is "obviously", "clearly", or "blatantly" racist. By the same token, articles shouldn't be removed because one editor (or a group of editors) don't want them in the template.
The information in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on verifiable reliable sources, not what seems "obvious" or "clear" to one editor or a group of editors. As I wrote, the articles about La Raza (which isn't an ideology), Chicano nationalism, and the Mexica Movement don't say that they are racist. They don't say that they have been described as racist, or criticized for being racist, or anything of that nature.
Compare that with the Nation of Islam. There is a section of the article about the group's antisemitism and a whole article about it: Nation of Islam and antisemitism. Including the NoI in the template isn't based on my opinion that the group is "obviously" racist and antisemitic, it's based on a well-documented Wikipedia article that cites sources that say the NoI is racist and antisemitic.
Making decisions based on what seems "obvious" or "clear" to one editor or a group of editors, in the absence of reliable sources, is considered original research, and Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it. That doesn't mean that you're right or you're wrong, or that I'm right or I'm wrong, it just means that it isn't supported by reliable sources.
So please don't edit-war over adding articles to the template. Read some of the relevant Wikipedia policies, find reliable sources (if there are any) to support your assertions, and edit the articles appropriately. When an article supports an editor's suggestion that it belongs in the template, there shouldn't be an argument about including it.
I'm sorry that this message is so long, but I hope I can help you understand that this isn't a political battle. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Template talk:Racism topics or on my Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)