Talk:Masindi District
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda. See also the Uganda WikiPortal. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] new addition
I have just removed the following contribution:
- The District is very dry, but fertile. Nonetheless, it is one of the poorest (and most rural) of Uganda's Districts.
- International Care & Relief has a regional base in Masindi, working on a variety of proects with local children and young people.
I have substantial concerns about the accuracy of the first sentence. I remember it being dry, but not particularly so for northeastern and northern Uganda, and feel uncomfortable with a nonquantitative statement like that. "one of the poorest" needs to be qualified - as the entirety of the central north simply has to have a lower per capital GDP since most people don't have incomes. Similarly for "most rural". Given how many seperate questions I had for the first sentence, I may have been overzealous in removing the second. Do people think the NGO sentence is relevant? Cheers, BanyanTree 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Given that the two issues in sentence two is what drove ICR to work there, I guess they're accurate. I no longer have access to the data, as the days when I was an ICR employee are long gone, but if you're determined, I'll get em.
Meantime, sentence 1 is a matter of perspective. For an equatorial country, Masindi is dry. For Uganda, Masindi is dry. For bordering Disricts, it isn't particularly.
Masindi's poverty is a function of the (even by Ugandan standards) high proprtion of agricultural workers.
How relevant ICR's work is, is to be judged by the impact it's having on communities in the District. I agree in a tiny article my words about the charity have a high prominence. But the article's never going to grow if you keep wiping out anything that is added.
I think it was rather arrogant and heavyhanded to simply revert the article, rather than question me in my talk, or on this page.
Just the kind of action that irritates and intimidates newbies like me.
Dweller 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since the comparative content appears to be the sticking point, why don't we just say "poor and rural", which I certainly don't disagree with. The comparative proportions of agricultural workers across districts is something different. The most recent study I've seen of the conflict-affected central north shows that most people are not working at all and have zero income outside of food aid, so maybe they aren't counted , but they are certainly poorer and would rather wait until numbers appear than have a challenged statement. I simply do not understand what the "poorest" refers to - the bottom 10%, 30%, 60%? Sorry about the second sentence, on reflection is was an overreaction on my part and should go back in to form a basis as the stub grows.
- As for the process part of your post, I did bring it to the talk, as I indicated in my edit summary on the article. If I thought on balance that the first sentence was merely questionable, then I would have left it and started a discussion. I believe it to be incorrect or flawed and removed it, which I frankly encourage in editors. You are welcome, indeed encouraged, to prove me wrong. I've had all of the Ugandan districts pages on my watchlist since they were created, and I'm pretty sure that this is the first disagreement over content ever. It's very exciting. :)
- In any case, let me try for a compromise wording and you can tell me what you think. - BanyanTree 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
