Talk:African Renaissance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note Item number 13 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states: "Mere collections of public domain or other source material; such as entire books, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. (But of course, there's nothing wrong with using public domain resources in order to add factual content and wording to an article -- such as the use of the 1911 encyclopedia)"
Note: Please discuss this Wikipedia entry before randomly deleting and/or hack editing it.
Thank you --mudthang 1100 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
The above plus what I provided on the village pump is more than enough justification to remove the speech again. How is the article improved by having the exact same text here vs on an external website? There are also still unanswered concerns that I expressed on the pump:
- It is well-established around here that we are an encyclopedia and not a repository of source texts. Now if you had taken notable passages from the the speech and went on to add encyclopedic content such as background information or explanations of political nuisances, then the quoted passages would be most definitely acceptable. There is also the fact that we are a wiki, and as such we edit text to improve it. A long quoted speech is not editable since this would be changing what the person actually said. There is also our NPOV policy. A speech is inherently POV and therefore can't be the only real content in an article. There is also a copyright problem. As soon as the speech was written down it automatically gets protection under international copyright law. Fair use lets us take passages from it but taking the whole thing without permission is a possible violation of copyright. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not number 13 --mav
There are also two other options:
- upload the speech as a file and link to it (requires permission)
- participate in the Project Sourceberg debate on Meta-Wikipedia to help build an archive of source documents.
- What about Wikisource? --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Grammar Nazism again
While its not exactly an "authoritative" source, see the following for the usage of "do" and "does" (even first language English speakers get caught on this one - the construction of nouns in English tends to obfuscate plurality): http://www.stufun.com/verbs/doesdo.php3
[edit] Strange article
I think this article needs a re-write. Will attempt re-write.
[edit] Fixed
Done- it looks a little better, but it still needs work.
[edit] criticism
The paragraph from the article (below) is fragmented, and does not do any justice to the argument. What exactly is being said? Could someone rewrite it? I'll try also.
-
- Others argue that the analogy between the Renaissance and the "African Renaissance" is tenous for a number of reasons, among them that the Renaissance existed in the context of the fall of a great empire, and the subsequent descent into the Dark Ages. They substantiate claims that the term is anachronistic and misconceived [1]. The historical misconceptions, in turn, undermine the intellectual connotations. They further state that "African Renaissance" is a misnomer and should be seen as no more than rhetoric, and that the continued upheaval and disunity in Africa do not bode well for the aspirations of the "African Renaissance".
--Ezeu 09:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
