Talk:White people/Medation/Archive4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This 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. |
Read WP:NPOV so mediation can begin.
- I think that this arguing is leading nowhere. Please read WP:NPOV, instead of wasting your time fighting and edit warring, so mediation can begin. After a few more people add their names to the above list, I shall give instructions as to how mediation will proceed. Thank you. | AndonicO Talk 15:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've re-read it carefully. I may point out what, in my opinion, Thulean (and Dark Tichondrias, who has a longer but less stressing pedigree in POV-ing such entries) are doing wrong:
- Bias: Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism.
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Anglo-American focus:
-
- Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
- Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective.
(In reality it may be more an Eurocentric focus). Ask Arabs if they think they are white. Ask Iranians, Moroccans, etc. Probably the concept of whiteness is not so much embedded in their cultures as in some European ones (and colonial cultures, like USA, specially) but they will have little doubt. And many others too.
-
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
- 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
So what did the core of editors that were watching behind that article before Thulean made his storming appearence? We consensuated the following: keep the article delimited (send White American issues to the White American entry, General discussion on races to the Race entry, etc. Keep the AAA statement on race as sort of disclaimer on top.
It was going well until Thulean appeared. Initially he was negotiating but then Dark T. started editing at will under the guise of "minor edit", "fixed link". I eventually mass-reverted her edits. Then I made a request for comment and listed the main WP pages relevant. Then Thulean intiated a PAIN against me, I got triple divergent resolutions: a warn, a support and a no-say. The RFIs have escalated since then, because Thulean was spamming user pages, like mine, harassing us with bogus warns of blocking and pushing on personal/ideological discussion, while at the same time mass-editing the article on his POV.
For me the key question is (from the NPOV-FAQ):
- Dealing with biased contributors
- I agree with the non-bias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?
- Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy.
So far the page has been fully protected. But this is only a temporary measure and does not prevent them from POV-ing other realted pages like Caucasoid race, etc. (See their contribs for more details). --Sugaar 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
