This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Andy. I'm Pablo Zeta the one (but not the only one) from White Argentine.
I've already written this several times, but since you are new in the discussion, I'll explain it once again.
1) First of all, I wonder: this article had been in Wikipedia for almost three years before I found it. I subscribe to the use of the term, so I began to expand it, but it was in no way my original research. And now that I had done so much work in it, just now someone noticed that "it might contain original research". WP does not check all the articles in it? How come that an article based on (alleged) original research took three years to be discovered? In the alleged case this article was original research, this would prove an absolute lack of control of Wikipedia on the articles it contains.
2) In no part of the article reads: the White Argentines are a unique ethnic group. The introduction of the article reads clearly: White Argentines are the Argentine descendants of immigrants from Europe and the Middle East. It is a cluster of ethnic groups who have in common their European/Caucasus/Middle Eastern origin. This same criteria of grouping these ethnic groups all together is used in the articles about the White communities scattered outside Europe: White American, White Canadian, White Brazilian, European Australian, White Mexican, White Latin American, White Africans of European ancestry, etc. If this article is going to be questioned for this grouping, then go the other articles' talk pages and begin there this same discussion, but not take it up on this article only.
3) The Usage of the term section clearly explains that White Argentine appears mainly in English language sources, and few Spanish language sources use its equivalent argentino blanco. In Spanish the most common term is Argentine of European descent/ancestry. But since this article is in English, I use the most common term used in it.
4) About BLP, and since this term is not common in Spanish language sources, it is probable that all the living people I mention in the article -if asked about their ethnicity- will not answer "White Argentine", but "Argentine of European/Spanish/Italian/German/Arab/Armenian descent", because the exact term argentino blanco is not commonly used in Argentina. But this is also explained in the section Usage of the term, so we are going round in circles over and over again.
5) I just ask, if this article was renamed "Argentines of European/Middle Eastern descent" or some equivalent title, this whole discussion would end? Because this is a snowball that seems to be growin bigger and bigger out of control.--Pablozeta (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pablo Zeta, thanks for your comments. I'll try to answer them in turn:
With regard to (1), Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and as such will always contain flaws. I've not gone through all the past history of the article to determine when 'original research' was added - that isn't necessary. My comments are solely about the article as it is now. And by the way 'WP' does not check articles, WP editors like you and me do.
(2) I think you misunderstand me. My arguments have nothing to do with the origins of 'White Argentinians'. What I'm questioning is whether you can provide a reliable source that says a significant part of the Argentinian population consider themselves to be ethnically 'White Argentinian'. Ethnicity is not something that can be determined by a theoretical analysis of descent, it is a sociocultural construct. As for other articles referring to 'White' ethnicities, the same arguments must apply. Without looking at these articles, I've no idea whether they do. In any case, the fact that a WP standard has been improperly applied elsewhere is no reason to apply it here.
(3) I think my response to (2) applies here too. 'Descent' and 'ethnicity' aren't the necessarily the same thing.
With regard to (4), I think you've proved the point, that the 'ethnicity' you are applying is the article's category, not theirs. This is almost certainly a breach of WP:BLP policy. It also very much relates to the more general question as to whether there actually is a real 'White Argentinian' ethnicity, or whether it is a theoretical construct, used to justify the article.
(5) raises an important question. How should ethnicity in Argentina be discussed? Given the diverse ancestry of the present population, it is clearly an interesting case. I'll see if I can find any WP:RS that covers this, though I'd think that my poor language skills may cause difficulties. I'd certainly suggest that renaming the article "Argentines of European/Middle Eastern descent" would still be problematic, unless it could provide WP:RS to justify this categorisation by descent. In any case, doesn't the article demonstrate via DNA evidence that many (possibly most) 'Argentines of European/Middle Eastern descent' also have some non European/Middle Eastern ancestry? You would also have to show why grouping 'European and Middle Eastern descent' together was valid (via WP:RS), and yet 'European, Middle Eastern and African' for example wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, about your request of talking to you here, I'm ok wiht it, but I'll also post my requests in the Village Pump, so it will be possible to get help from much more people.
I've already got a request I'd like you to consider: I've prepared this new redaction for the section we were talking about, and I'd like to know if it's well written:
"The poem has a list of the peoples that went to Qadesh as allies of the Hitites. Between them appear some of the sea peoples who are spoken of in the egyptian inscriptions previously mentioned, and many of the peoples who would later took part in the great inmigrations of the 12th century".
It's a translation of the redaction in spanish language that I've made in the spanish site for this part of the article.
Hi Nolemaikos. I'll try to get back to this article soon, but real life, and other Wikipedia articles, have rather got in the way for the moment.
From a quick look at what you've written above, I'd say this was better English:
"The poem lists the peoples which went to Kadesh as allies of the Hittites. Amongst them are some of the sea peoples spoken of in the egyptian inscriptions previously mentioned, and many of the peoples who would later take part in the great migrations* of the 12th century BC".
note* I'm not clear here where the peoples were migrating from or too: immigration is 'coming in', emigration 'is going out', and migration can mean either - I'd need to see the context to be sure, but I think 'migrations' is probably best here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your corrections. But I've decided to post a new version of this paragraph, and, if you're so kind, I'd like you to look at this one too. I'll put it here corrected according to the modifications you've made in the first one (because some parts of that appear again in this other one):
"The poem says that in the Kadesh battle the Hitites appeared with a force like “grashoppers”. This was conformed by the union of the vasalls peoples of the Hitite Empire, and amongst them were some of the sea peoples spoken of in the egyptian inscriptions previously mentioned, and many of the peoples who would later take part in the great migrations of the 12th century BC".
About the migrations stuff, you are absolutley right, and it was not my intention to put it another way. I wanted to write "migrations", but it seems that unconsciously I confused the concept.
It's better in this matter to say "migrations", and also would be kind of apropiate to say "emigrations", but I consider to be inapropiate to say "inmigrations", because the Sea Peoples were emigrating but not properly inmigrating: altought they penetrated and settled into other lands, they did it at random, not in an organized way; they were running away from their own lands and ocupated whichever territory they could or found convenient, and usually they abandoned it after a short time, passing to a new territory taken by their pressing necesities and their extreme conditions. And also it's better to say "migration" than "emigration", because the group of special situations that present in their case, like the one I've just exposed you, and the variability of their movements'nature, make more apropiate and general the concept of "migration".--Nolemaikos (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
"Stormed" is not a weasel word; it is not vague or ambiguous, nor is it some extravagant peacock word, it is the most accurate word to describe the occasion. One cannot break into an office building when it's open, and besides 'break into' creates a semantic field of issues such as burgalry, which, obviously, completely strays from the point. Hey, why don't we go the whole way and change the Storming of the Bastille to the 'Breaking In of the Bastille'? 86.144.36.194 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I can only find the word 'stormed' twice in the sources cited for that section: from here 'Chants of "Greece, France, now here too!" echoed through the HQ as people stormed up the stairs.' and from here 'Police have just stormed the building with batons in what looks like an attempt to clear the area...'.
If the source doesn't say the building was stormed by the demonstrators, but says they broke in, that is what we should say too. 'Storming a building' to me implies a preplanned coordinated action, which isn't supported by the evidence (except for the Police of course, but they were doing their job). There may very well have been acts of 'breaking and entering' committed (not burglary see the definition), though our article isn't that specific. Given given that The Guardian says they broke in, and videos and broadcast television have shown somebody smashing a window in I can't imagine we'll risk a visit from the demonstrators solicitor's. If you wish to suggest the demonstrators didn't break in, would you prefer it to read 'entered' instead? A strict interpretation of the evidence might suggest that this is all we can conclusively say.
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously something went wrong and it displayed exactly like a talk page message. It may not have been your fault. Try using Twinkle for placing templates. See an exact copy below of what you posted. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
== Copyright problem removed ==
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_09_10.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you did now. When you copy and paste a template, you must also include the opening and closing curly brackets. Run some tests with various templates in your sandbox. However. However, I'm sure you would prefer to use Twinkle if you are going to place maintenance tags on pages a lot :) --Kudpung (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Possibly I've misinterpreted the instructions, but they seemed to me to suggest the template should be placed in the article itself, rather than on the talk page. I don't see how I could have omitted the curly brackets, and still have had the template expand to the text shown: I'll look into this, however. In any case, the template had done its job, and brought the issue to the attention of those editing the article.
I'd like to make it clear that my intent in placing the template was not to disrupt the article, but to correct a problem early on in its history. The issue came to light as I was checking a reference, and noticed the textual similarity. With regard to the subject itself, I think any further understanding of the causes of the Great Famine can only be for the good, though I'd caution that editors on this emotive issue ensure that NPOV is maintained, and that statements made actually reflect the sources given. Since the Article is clearly a work in progress, I'll leave further remarks for later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite so, those templates indeed belong on the top of the article pages. If you're not sure how to use them or how to install Twinkle, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page - it took me ages to learn how to use them too ;) Kudpung (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between a user talk page and an article talk page or other pages for talking. Talking between many users should be kept at the later places, the talk page of a user should be used solely for talking with that specific user. If you have something to say about something a third user said to him, such as what Pablozeta said to IANVS, you should say so at Pablozeta's talk page, not IANVS'. Feel free to link or make mention of which thing are you replying to, so he can easily understand, but doing this as you did triggers the "you have new messages" warning for a user you were not talking to, and Pablozeta may not even notice your message (he may saw your edit at his watchlist, and think you said something to IANVS). MBelgrano (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, where do you consider the appropriate place to be to comment on a Wikipedia editor stating that he has copied an article to a neo-Nazi website? I can think of lots of places where this might gain more attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
At Pablozeta's talk page, of course. After all, he's the one who made such copy, not IANVS. By the way, there's no copyright problem, regardless of their point of view Metapedia is released under the GFDL. And the way I understand Pablozeta's action, he's not endorsing the ideology of the site, just taking advantage of their own wiki. This isn't what I would have done in his place (I would have chosen some abandoned wiki, or even save it at my own computer), but it isn't either something to really be concerned about. MBelgrano (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Andrew. As MBelgrano said, I don't endorse the ideology of Metapedia at all. When I entered the community, I asked several administrators if it was alright to publish there articles on the White communities of the world -clarifying that I was not racist in any way, and that I applied the US Census Bureau criteria to define White people, and that included Ashkenazi Jews and Syrian-Lebanese Arabs- and my proposal was not only accepted but welcomed. So far, no one in that community has made any objection to all the articles I added. They also have an article with a list of notable Jews, and no pejorative comments on them are made in it. All I want to tell you is that so far Metapedia have shown more tolerance and open mind than you and many others in this WP.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you find more "tolerance and open mind" on a neo-Nazi website than on Wikipedia, I suggest you publish your articles there instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
So far, I have found more tolerance in Metapedia than here, believe me. BTW, where are those "lots of places where this might gain more attention"? If you know some, please tell me.--Pablozeta (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've no real interest in discussing this issue with you further, Pablozeta. If you wish to publish the article on Metapedia, and aren't breaching Wikipedia's copyright by doing so, I've got no particular wish to stop you. You will note that I chose to discuss the issue on talk pages, where it can easily be deleted. Given my concern about possible copyright issues, I could have raised it elsewhere on Wikipedia, but chose not to since this could reflect negatively on you, and might be seen as an attempt to sway debate about the 'White Argentine' article itself. If you are concerned that you are a victim of 'intolerance' or any other breach of Wikipedia standards, you are of course free to raise this at the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
North Korea
If the material there is unsourced the proper response is to fix it, not necessarily to remove the material, unless you have reason to believe the material is wrong. I acknowledge that wikipedia is not a news source, but still it does often and should contain information about recent and ongoing events, after digestion from the news sources. That North Korea has shelled a South Korean island is a very important topic that should be in the article. Sterrettc (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article Shelling of Yeonpyeong is a better place for the material. However, it is important that the material not just be present but also that users be able to find it. I did not know that there was such an article, and if I had to guess the name of such an article, I don't know that that is what I would have guessed. I still insist that there should be some mention of the incident on the North Korea article. Sterrettc (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning White Argentine, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Do what you feel it's correct, but I strongly oppose to the idea of deletion.
As I said before in the talk page, if you're going to ask for deletion, then ask for all the other articles on "White people" around the world to be deleted, for it's the same exact case. But, of course, you won't be brave enough to do this in the White American, European Australian, of White Brazilian articles, because they will kick you off and tell you: "go make trouble somewhere else". And I reverted the article to the last version I had saved, for the Italian (now he decided to give himself a name, Giov-sthg) had made so many vandalic changes, that I saw no better thing to do than to revert all changes at once. Note that I left the templates. Ah, BTW, in 40 days' time I will have in my hands the book that will allow me to referenciate most of the names included in the article.--Pablozeta (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Access Denied, but I'm not exactly concerned about our anonymous IP's comments, given the context.
I assume you lurk here for the laughs. Or perhaps you are stalking anon IP? Either way, I doubt you'll discover anything of any consequence beyond the futility of trying to understand what makes Homo sapiens tick. Time for bed... AndyTheGrump (talk)
Judaism maintains that Judaism is an obligatory attribute bestowed on all whose mother is Jewish since the Torah was received on Sinai. Prior to this, Judaism was by intention -- so Abraham was a member of the religion, while his son Ishmael was not. Isaac was, but his son Esau was not. Jacob was, and from then on, the majority of the family staid the course. There were many in Egypt who went off the derech and were lost to the nation, but since the Torah was not yet given, Judaism was not binding. If you have any further questions, you can ask. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)04:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
