User talk:Marchije/Archive 2013

Afro

Hello Latin Wolf,

I have noticed you have made several changes to the Afro article without providing clear rationale for the changes; most of your edit summaries simply state "rewording" and yet in some of those edits you have removed information for which supporting references were already provided and changed sentences so that the information they contain is no longer reflected the existing reference following the sentence; at other times you have removed references all together so that the new sentence is completely unreferenced — one example being the opening sentence.

While I understand some of the edits (for example, adding the "black" qualifier to "African-American" makes sense since not all Africans are black) others seem contradictory (for example, at times you have replaced the term "Caucasian" with "White" and yet in at least one instance you actually added the word "Caucasian" to a sentence that simply referred to the subject as "white".) I also don't understand why you have removed all references "tight curls" — since not all black African Americans have "kinky" hair — nor why you removed references to cornrows. And why would you pipe the term "Caucasian race" to the article Mediterranean race, when there is an article titled Caucasian race?

I would like to propose that we continue this discussion on the article's talk page so that you, I and other editors can reach some kind of consensus about these changes. I will be forthcoming in saying that I do intend on reverting any edits you made for which you have not provided supporting references, but as a token of good faith I would like to give you a chance to find supporting references first. We don't want to risk contravening the NPOV policy.

Cheers! Marchije•^speak/_peek 01:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

*PLEASE NOTE: The preceding text was originally posted by me to User talk:Latin Wolf on 01:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC) (please see the original version here.) Since that editor has subsequently deleted this text from their own talk page I have decided to move it here as a record of our discussion. --Marchije•^speak/_peek 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for contacting me before reverting my edits. I will address the issues by fixing my previous edits. Feel free to contact me when I finish and tell me if there is anything else I have missed. Latin Wolf (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I assume that you are now done your edits? You have not cited any references for the changes you made that were not simple "rewording" of existing sentences, but actual changes to or deletion of the content of those sentences. Truly the onus is on you to provide supporting references for your changes, since the sentences you changed already had references to support them (with the exception of the opening sentence, but I will be rectifying that since existing references in that article already support the version of the opening sentence prior to your edits.) --Marchije•^speak/_peek 22:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me exactly which parts you think should be added back / need a citation? I'm trying to improve the article, not destroy it. I appreciate your cooperation. Latin Wolf (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly! For example, you changed the opening sentence to: "Afro...is a traditional African hairstyle notably worn by Hamitic people native to East Africa" yet you provided no references to support this alleged notability — in fact in visiting the article on the Hamatic people I noted that not one of the photos shows a person with a spherical hair style indicative of the afro. In addition — as some of the existing references in the Afro article state — the term "afro", as it pertains to the hairstyle, dates back to the 1960s when this hairstyle was adopted by black African-Americans. While there were certainly black peoples of Africa who had been wearing their hair in this style long before its popularity amongst black African Americans in the 1960s, it was the black African Americans of that era who adopted the word "Afro" to describe the style. Truly the afro is not so much a hairstyle as it is kinky hair that is allowed to take on its natural shape, but due to the fact that most black African Americans prior to the 1960s had hairstyles that were either straightened, braided, or hidden under handkerchiefs, etc.,(sometimes in an attempt to mimic white hair/hide the "blackness" of their own hair,) the decision to go back to a natural hairstyle became a symbol and was therefore given a name. The Afro was not considered a hairstyle, per se, in Africa since it was simply untreated hair (much like how white westerners don't have a word to describe untreated white hairstyles, conversely the black community sometimes refer to white hairstyles, particularly straight hair, as "good hair".) In changing the original sentence you also removed the fact that this hairstyle is also referred to as a "natural", which was supported by existing references in this article.

You also changed the opening sentence of the Etymology section even though it was originally followed by a reference to support it. To further bolster the original version (which stated that it is derived from "Afro-American" and not simply "African") might I direct you to the definition of the word afro, on dictionary.com — you will note that while the combining form of the word (i.e. "Afro-" as in the terms "Afro-American" or "Afro-Asiatic") is used to denote "Africa", the noun "Afro" in reference specifically to the hairstyle, has its origins in the 1960s and 70s, which happens to be when the hairstyle gained prominence in America.

You also added the text "... until the early nineteenth century in Ethiopia where warriors and kings such as Tewodros II and Yohannes IV were depicted wearing cornrows..." to a sentence already referenced by articles from Ebony and Time magazines that make no mention of Ethiopia, Tewodros II or Yohannes IV.

With regards to the sentence pertaining to the Circassian beauties (which originally read "These women were claimed to be from the Circassian people in the Northern Caucasus region,") while I do not have the ability to verify the first reference cited after that sentence, the second reference does state that one example of these said "Circassian beauties" "was said to be the daughter of a prince from the mountainous region of the Black Sea". Given you have not provided a reference to prove that this was not simply a "claim" we should assume good faith on behalf of the editor who originally added this information to this article with those 2 references and reword the sentence as it was.

While it is often tempting to add information to articles that we feel we know to be true, Wikipedia does have policies regarding notability and verifiability which help to ensure that the information being added to its articles is not simply a point of view or original research. Unfortunately information that gets added to Wikipedia is often assumed to automatically verified to be true by the public at large, even though anyone off the street can edit its pages. These Wikipedia policies help to ensure that the information that it contains can both be as accurate as possible and allow the user to verify the references to decide for themselves if the information stated in the Wiki article is, A) coming from a reliable source and B) that it actually reflects the information in the referenced source. While unfortunately many people never bother to check the references, the fact is they should be able to do so if they wish to.

Having said all of this, I truly appreciate your attempts to improve the article and I do agree with the "black" and "white" clarifications that you have added. I also would like to thank you for teaching me something, in that "kinky" actually refers to tightly curled hair. I found this out when looking up the word in the dictionary. I always assumed it simply meant hair that had "kinks" in it, not curls necessarily (i.e. more irregularly, zig-zaggy hair, as opposed to round curls) but apparently I was wrong and so I do not intend on re-adding the incidences of "tightly curled" that you had removed. Conversely, I do feel that references to "cornrows" that you removed should be re-added: Although cornrows are a type of braid, there is a difference between cornrows and simple braids. Some of the existing references also refer to the two as separate things and cornrows even have a separate article on Wikipedia from braids.

If you have any other questions or concerns let me know. I am more than happy to change these sentences back to the way they were. --Marchije•^speak/_peek 00:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

My apologies. I did not read the requirements for notability. I have removed that sentence. The reason I added that is because Horn Africans (Djiboutians, Eritreans, Ethiopians, and Somalis) can naturally grow short Afros.

I have re-added the etymology of Afro.

It might not be in those specific references provided, but those Emperors did in fact wear cornrows and are amongst the earliest depictions of men wearing rows, at least in Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yohannes.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T%C3%A9wodros_II_-_2.jpg

Woah, I didn't even realize that cornrows were removed. I have re-added them.

You're welcome. No worries, I assumed that as well prior to researching hair types while I was studying anthropology. Sometimes I do not add proper summaries for my edits, which have caused issues before as well. I'm still learning guidelines / policies. Please let me know if there is anything else. I'm happy to help. Latin Wolf (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC

No problem! There's certainly a lot to learn when it comes to editing on Wikipedia and I'm still learning myself, over 5 years later. It's impossible to read-up on all of the policies and procedures, let alone remember them all. And just like its articles, Wikipedia's policies and procedures are changed and updated over time as new issues arise and (sometimes heated) discussions between editors arise. That's part of what I think makes Wikipedia so great — it isn't "stuck in its ways", as it were and is ever mutable (unlike stodgy old printed encyclopedias that just told you "this is the way things are" and there was no way to correct incorrect or misrepresented info in real time.) It doesn't hurt to make changes that you see fit, and if another editor disagrees the good news is that Wikipedia provides a way to to discuss it. We editors have the benefit of being able to help each other and no doubt one day you will be able to help a new editor yourself. 8-)

Cheers! --Marchije•^speak/_peek 02:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Here's a barnstar for all your hard work, specifically on the Afro article! Latin Wolf (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hooray, my very first barnstar! Thanks Latin Wolf! --Marchije•^speak/_peek 02:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI

While editing Tygodnik Angora you created I've recognize that you put the sentence from w3newspapers website without giving reference. It is a clear violation of WP rules. I hope you will avoid such edits in your future articles.Egeymi (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi. Thanks for advising me of my error. I created this stub article during my early days as an editor, over 5 years ago. I used to clean-up disambiguation pages and would sometimes create stubs for some of the red-linked or un-linked entries listed on them. I was cleaning-up Angora when I created the stub article for Tygodnik Angora with what little I could find in English on the web. Admittedly that reference is not exactly a reliable source as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Feel free to nominate that article's deletion or to find more suitable references for that article. I'm afraid that I'm not personally invested enough in its subject to spend any time on it. Cheers! --Marchije•^speak/_peek 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marchije, thanks for taking time to write the message above. I think the magazine is notable and as you suggested I will find more reliable refs for it. Thanks again, best. --Egeymi (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/June Newton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)