Talk:Aliko Dangote/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Aliko Dangote. 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. |
Recent Edits (hah!)
One version only is factually true if you make certain unstated assumptions. That's not the right way to deal with an encyclopedia article. ---- 91.10.48.227 (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand what point you are trying to make, nor it's relationship to the edit you have made. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The sentence that you just added to the article (by reverting my change) is factually wrong. There is no debate. According to Forbes, he is the 67th richest person of African descent. That's because every human being is of African descent.
- If you disagree, then please explain why. If you want to make the unstated assumption that we are talking about certain years of African heritage, then please explain why this would be a good idea. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Does this change resolve the matter? --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I thought about that, but that is only accidentally right. Mark Shuttleworth is only one rich guy with recent African heritage that is not black. Any number of Mediterranean persons might have more money at some point in time. (Does Mohammed VI of Morocco "own" an entire country?) ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- BTW: I also don't think terms like "black" or "white" are very useful in matters like this, mostly because they support misleading essentialism. What if the person in question has only one black parent? Grandparent? Great-grandparent? ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's the wording used by the source, right? --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, I can't access Forbes.
- If the source talks about black persons, then by all means the article should reflect that. "Of African descent", with or without the addition of recent, would just be wrong (ie. only accidentally right) then. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's the wording used by the source, right? --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Does this change resolve the matter? --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you disagree, then please explain why. If you want to make the unstated assumption that we are talking about certain years of African heritage, then please explain why this would be a good idea. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)