User talk:PersonablePerson

Welcome!

Hello, PersonablePerson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Your recent editing history at Kerma Culture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This includes your edit as an IP Doug Weller talk 05:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the Kerma pages are totally in the right. Don't get discouraged.MusselParty (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Kerma Culture. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being right or wrong doesn't matter insofar as WP:3RR is concerned, we rarely are concerned about the actual content dispute when we decide what to do about edit warring (vandalism and BLP violations are exceptions). Nor do I care who is right or wrong if someone is making personal attacks. They should be unacceptable no matter what. See WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Lumumba

Once again I've reverted most of your edits, though I've reworded the text so it doesn't sound like Sartre is an Africanist historian. It's admittedly disappointing that few authors have taken up the task of analyzing Lumumba's place in historiography and his tangible legacy, and ironically Ludo de Witte, the man who did the most to change views on Lumumba's death, is also probably the person who has evaluated the historiography the most. I wouldn't be surprised if historians' perceptions on Lumumba changed after his book was released, but we have no reliable sources that state so, and you have provided none to back up your arguments. You wrote, "Ludo de Witte's claim that "most Africanist historians" hold that view is utter nonsense and is totally unproven". Do you have a source for that? Considering all that he could've read from the 1960s-1990s, a period when Lumumba was only quietly discussed in academic literature (by people such as Willame), it may very well be a solid claim. I've read much of Emmanuel Gerard's and Bruce Kuclick's Death in the Congo: Murdering Patrice Lumumba, and they make no direct comments on Lumumba in historiography. You also said "Willame "writing an entire book" on Lumumba and the Congo Crisis, proves nothing. Being "well-read" on the matter does not mean one is unbiased or objective." I did not at all suggest that Willame was unbiased or objective, and neither does de Witte (evaluating different perspectives and interpretations is what a discussion of historiography is all about). And the only reason I said that is because you claimed Willame was not well-read on Lumumba and the Congo Crisis—an unfounded claim which is sorely lacking in evidence. Large portions of his book actively discuss foreign attempts to undermine Lumumba's government. As for not mentioning Belgian nationality, I have two reasons for that. Firstly, de Witte doesn't mention Willame's nationality. Secondly, appending nationality to a historian is a contentious matter on Wikipedia, as can be seen at Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State/Archive 1#about the history of the historians. And be mindful that if nationality were to inherently determine bias, then it would follow that Sartre, a Frenchman, would be unsympathetic towards Lumumba, which is not true. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I've just added some info from a 2011 PhD thesis that discusses the impact of De Witt'es book on the historiographic narrative surrounding Lumumba. It offers a more up to date perspective and I think it addresses your concerns. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]