A kindly Wikipedian restored the page -- but also deleted the love note. I prefer to keep these kinds of things. I find them instructive, emblematic, even. So, I've restored it. Presumably, people actually think this kind of thing intimidates, or insults, or somehow wounds. (Beats me.) But, hey, it makes me chuckle. I must be doin' somethin' right. Peace. :) deeceevoice20:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just returned to this after leaving a thank-you note for the Wikipedian who performed the revert. Hm-m-m. I was looking at this image in isolation and thinking about how some of my Native American cousins and others use the symbol. Among the more evolved of the human species, it's a beautiful, spiritual thing.[1] I accept this image in that empowering sense. (So, thank you to the half-wit a**hole who left it in hatred, intolerance and stupidity.) You kinda wonder why the swastika is BLACK -- not white -- doncha? Because BLACK IS STRONG AND BOLD AND BEAUTIFUL. That's why. (Yeah. Like dat. :D) Peace. deeceevoice21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disapprove of this as a response to the above agitation (as in feeding the trolls), but it's your talk page. Best, El_C21:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely appreciate your intent, but I disagree. The impulse to tidy up things like this and make them "nice" is precisely what gives creeps like this the notion that what they do has power, consequence. Hiding crap like this is Wikipedia's dirty, little secret -- when it's present, in and off the Internet. I acknowledge it and call it for what it is. And I leave it. So people can see the sickness and stupidity and cowardice. This symbol means about as much to me as a gnat in the wind. I really don't care whether you agree with it or not. After all, as you pointed out, it is my talk page -- isn't it? Please do not ever edit my comments again without first discussing it with me. Regards, my friend. deeceevoice21:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to vote "support" (and I'm guessing you don't) then all you have to do is vote. As for voting "oppose", the article and the people behind it (Rushton et al, not the editors) make me uncomfortable, but I also don't see myself having the time to weigh in on it. The article has been there a while, and there are several oppose votes - I would be surprised if it went through, but I would ask Raul, since he handles the promotions and removals. There has been a lot of controversy on the talk page too. Guettarda23:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having a load of work to do, I've managed to somehow spend most of my time today on Wikipedia. (I'mma be in trouble tomorrow! :p) I took some time to scan the article, and it has the usual problems. Any article on the subject should at least minimally address the following -- even though there may be articles on the site devoted to these issues: What is intelligence and how is it measured? Are the metrics and instruments used to determine numeric equivalents unbiased? How were the sample populations arrived at, and were there biases inherent in that process? The article mentions group disparities when factors like education (graduation from high school, I believe) are taken into consideration -- but anyone involved in education policy knows that's bogus, given the huge disparities in quality of education where the majority of blacks in this nation reside. Have there been any credible cross-ethnic studies of "intelligence" where socioeconomic status and family background/history have been equalized? (Clearly, disparities are the result of such environmental factors.) It's the same "arrogant/racist white-boy club" stuff -- just rehashed. It's all utterly meaningless drivel, because -- no -- such studies have not been done. And if they have been, they haven't been cited. SOS. I'm thinking I won't even bother to weigh in. Articles like this will exist likely here and in other venues, regardless. And those who consult them do so with already preconceived notions of black inferiority. (No one I know in their right mind even questions that "intelligence" -- whatever that means, and to whom -- is a combination of environmental and hereditary factors. They know it has nothing whatsoever to do with race/ethnicity, except insofar as overarching environmental factors are affected by race/ethnicity. Peace. deeceevoice23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful.
File:Lynching-1889.jpg (restored vandalism entered 20:35, 18 July 2005 with the edit note "beautiful," by some anonymous, inbred, mental cretin-coward at 129.2.18.173)
I came here to just quickly mention (since I blathered without end on the discussion page and it's hard to see now) that I eventually came to realize that the Southern "redneck games" and watermelon humor about Southerners is self-parody and doesn't rise to the level of hurtful humor like racist humor or some of the insults said about the Greens. It looks like the Southerners may have done most of the "redneck Southerner humor" about themselves that I currently find, so I decided to be less sensitive about it and move it out of the discussion on derogatory uses of the watermelon symbol. If the word "derogatory" weren't starting the paragraph, it would be different, but it was not right of me to originally equate the two types of humor. The racist humor is a different category of humor, nasty and mean-spirited. The stupid "redneck games" humor is nothing for me to regard as attacking Southerners (though sometimes Southerners are equated with rednecks in meanspirited ways in other situations, but that is a different thing than the watermelon humor about Southerners). Maybe there's some negative humor towards southern whites and melons but I haven't found it yet; I can't say I've done an extensive survey though.
I am horrified to find racial harassment being done to you on your discussion page. I keep forgetting that racism lives, including in some organized groups. :-( Awful. It makes me want to go find the cowards who did that. Bebop01:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just here again to explain what I wrote in an edit description just now. I said the watermelon racism wasn't specific to the South (didn't have room to say it better), but what I meant was that the Southern self-parody thing doesn't have to be jammed into the sentence on African American racism because it's not just African Americans from the South who were attacked with watermelon emblem racism but any African American in the U.S. The main reason I separated the sentences just now is that the "19th and 20th centuries" stuff was getting mixed up tense-wise with the second part of the sentence. It did not flow and you were trying to force the two things together in one sentence without regard to flow and tense. Plus, the humor I was talking about after I investigated it was about white rednecks eating watermelon (which is gentle self lampooning) and you are referring to hate stuff. I decided to put "of both races" in there because I started to see that you are referring to how some Southerners are lampooned in a nasty way, and Southerners are of many heritages. I hope I have altered it now in a way that suits what you have in mind. I get really ticky on grammar sometimes because of one of my particular past academic fields of study. Bebop02:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I only now realized that I had left that original U.S. history "cite our sources" discussion on the watermelon the talk page looking like you didn't have much reason to think slaves brought watermelons over when I later saw two good sources showing they clearly did participate, so I have updated my original article talk page comments with the new info I had previously found & added to the story a few days ago and which I should have indicated in the talk page at the time. Sorry about that; I should not have left the talk page reading that way but got distracted on another issue. Bebop06:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments, and I do intend to re-read the article, I just haven't had a chance to sit down and give it the thorough read that it deserves. I was hoping to get to it tonight after work. As a fan of jazz from the 1920s and 1930s, this is one subject that really does interest me and I'd like to see an intelligent treatment of the subject get promoted. slambo 19:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I see that this article is currently scheduled to appear on the front page next Tuesday. I enjoyed rereading it again this week and I'm glad to see it featured. I suspect that it will gather quite a few vandalism attempts then, as I saw when my own Pioneer Zephyr article was on the front page earlier this year. slambo 18:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hey deeceevoice. I wanted to let you know that there is currently a vote for deletion (instigated by me) on the article List of White supremacists Thought you might want to glance at the article and then vote on the Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists page. Be warned though; if you do vote, be prepared to have your blood pressure raised; the discussion is not especially edifying.
And congratulations on getting Blackface listed as a featured article. It's nice to see that all the work you and other editors have done has been rewarded. Take care.NoahB17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you overwikify blackface. Concepts related to the subjects or that are relatively unknown should be wikified once. It is overdoing it to wikify e.g. chocolate. I can't find the guidelines or policy so quickly but I believe that is how it should be. I do not doubt that you are doing your utmost to create a great article, but this is the wrong way, I believe. Thanks. Andries21:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it already is a quality article :p. But I don't think I'm "over wikifying" the piece. The example you give of "chocolate" is repeated in numerous articles on the site, where the word has been wikified in much the same context. I believe I have been selective in giving the piece a final once-over, removing duplicates and wikifying others. However, if you feel it is excessive -- as with all other kinds of edits -- then, of course, you are perfectly free to make changes. deeceevoice22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll completely understand if you don't want to get drawn into this one, but at African_American#Nomenclature there is an awfully strong assertion of this particular expression owing its wide usage to Jesse Jackson, and especially to his 1988 campaign. I don't remember the turn toward the use of this term being either sudden or particularly associated with that campaign. Do you? My own memory it that Negro as a predominant term gave way to Black and Afro-American roughly in 1964-1966, with Afro-American slowly giving way to African American from about the mid-1970s until circa 1990, and Black also continuing in very common usage. I can't say this has been a major conscious focus of mine though; I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you have some you are interested in sharing. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Please contact me, as I requested before you reverted my edits to Blackface. You seem to be living in the US. Therefore, you bluntly reverting (largely factual) changes about Dutch culture made by a Dutch person could be considered rather presumptuous. - ovvldc09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (just leave a message on my Talk page)[reply]
Never Mind, you reverted something else. I jumped the gun after looking at the history page. My apologies. - ovvldc09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your edit note and about my being "presumptuous": why would I accuse you of racism? Don't insult my intelligence. Further, regarding your change of "many" to "some": I wrote the passage as "some" but another contributor -- from the Netherlands -- changed that passage to read "many." Why don't you leave him a note instead? deeceevoice09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am always worried to tread on someone's toes here. I spent a year on Berkeley, CA and got on people's bad side there with no intention whatsoever. Cultural barriers and subtle inflections and so on... I was not trying to insult you, but I thought you edited something you had less experience with. Again, my apologies. As for the passage, I have no clue and I don't want to waste time to track down the author. I dropped it with you because you did a lot of edits in that article you had a hefty debate going on in the talk page. - ovvldc10:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deeceevoice, could you please look at the Zwarte Piet article as it is now? I'm not entirely sure what controversy you are talking about, well I have an idea, but I think you have to see the entire picture and you seem to focus on a little aspect of the topic. Leaving out for instance that WHITES played the character in Surinam in the colonial days.
I see you changed the Sinterklaas date back to 5 december. The wiki calendar coorectly states that Saint Nicolas has his "birthday" on 6 december. 5 december is Sint Nicolas Eve ("Sinterklaasavond"), increasingly popular as the celebration day in the Netherlands. It is all nicely written in the article about Saint Nicolas / Sinterklaas.
Isn't a front page article fun? :) You might consider putting your comment right in the article, use the comment tags <!-- The word is AFFECT, not EFFECT --> or something to that effect - people won't see it until the try to edit the text. Other than that, just habg in there - a front page article is as much punishment as it is reward. Guettarda14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip -- but don't you mean "or something to that Affect?" :p Yes, it's nice to see it on the front page. So far, there hasn't been nearly as much racist vandalism as I expected. The skinheads must be on holiday. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I should have added that Border Morris is also referred to as Blackface Morris, and it's possible that it was influenced by travelling blackface minstrel troupes in the early 20th century. Maybe it should just be a "See also" link. — PhilHibbs | talk17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Because there doesn't seem to be any allusion whatsoever to black culture in this instance -- just a blackening of the face -- I wouldn't consider it to be true blackface. Whether you choose to make it a "Related topics" link or not, I couldn't/wouldn't support any attempt to return the text I excised to the body of the article. Interesting phenomenon, though. :) Peace. deeceevoice18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good mornin'. :) Well, I'm thinking the article could use a bit of a punch -- besides, an interesting photo might inspire/intrigue someone and inspire a bit more research. They're certainly a curious-looking bunch. deeceevoice09:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update you - I asked about permission for that photo but didn't get a response. Border Morris has a decent picture now anyway, and the article has come a long way since the featuring of Blackface drew attention to the subject. — PhilHibbs | talk18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Phil (waving). Yes, I know. I revisited the article to read it in its entirety and noticed the changes, including the photo. "Gone niggering"? (shaking head) Good Lord! That's worse than the Auckland City Dukes. What a shame the webmaster no longer had the photo I saw online of the Dukes. It was quite something. Anyway, I'm glad for the recent improvements in Border Morris. Synergy. Sometimes I do love Wikipedia. Cheers. :D deeceevoice20:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, but note the phrase "early 20th century", that was like a hundred years ago, we don't say things like that now! (well, most of us don't, but my hundred-and-two-year-old great-aunt occasionally has her moments...) — PhilHibbs | talk14:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit war with 69.106.186.77 about "affect" versus "effect" in the wonderful Blackface article, the correct word in this case is absolutely, positively, definitely "effect". The sentence is:
Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup from the United States used to effect the countenance of an iconic, racist, American archetype...
In other words, "Blackface is used to create the picture of an archetype", more or less, which is a very reasonable thing to say. Here you must use the word "effect", as per this definition from Dictionary.com:
tr.v.effect: To bring into existence, produce as a result, bring about.
There's even a usage note there that will clarify it further; put simply, "affect" cannot convey that meaning. You presumably do not intend that sentence to mean, "Blackface is used to influence the picture of an archetype." This just doesn't really seem to make sense to me. If this is the sense you intend, you should probably consider rewriting the sentence, since it would be very confusing with "affect". —HorsePunchKid→龜00:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even read your note. The word is "affect." Period. Per Roget's Thesaurus, various appropriate synonyms are: "ASSUME 4, act, bluff, counterfeit, fake, feign, pretend, put on, sham, simulate." GOT THAT? deeceevoice 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not a good attitude to have, and you are simply wrong! Please, please read the dictionary entry! I don't have access to Roget's at the moment, but I can only assume you're misreading something in it. I have my own personal experience, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and the OED that I've looked it up in now. Also, please do not revert other changes I've made just to make your change to "effect". I'm going to reapply my changes to the references and "related articles" sections since you made no comment on why you reverted them. If you would prefer to talk about these changes on the Blackface talk page, please let me know (here or on the talk page itself). Thanks for listening... —HorsePunchKid→龜01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume to lecture me about my attitude. I've quoted Roget's Thesaurus, and you assume I've somehow "misread" it? Please. Don't insult my intelligence. I could say the same thing with regard to your reading of the online dictionary. Presumably, if you can access an online dictionary, then you can also access Roget's online. Why not take a moment and do so -- before you ASS-ume I'm too simple-minded to read it correctly? When I need an English lesson from you, I'll let you know. deeceevoice01:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Calm down there, deeceevoice. You can have it your way, though if you'd read my notes instead of intentionally ignoring them, you'd see I've got a pile of references, too, so that tack will get you nowhere. :( Fortunately, I've got better things to do than quibble semantics with people who don't know how to have a polite conversation. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I hope the rest of my edits to the Blackface article were not amiss. —HorsePunchKid→龜01:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a war of wills, nor is it a pissing match; this is not about 'having it my way.' This is about what is appropriate syntax and what is not. "Effect" is clearly incorrect. Now, if I had written, "White blackface performers in the past used burnt cork and, later, greasepaint to affect jet-black skin and exaggerated lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tails, or ragged clothes to effect (rather than "complete") the transformation," that would have been correct. "Affect" would have been incorrect in the second instance (not to mention redundant). If you fail to understand the difference, there is little I can say to educate you. Next time, I suggest you do your homework a little more thoroughly before assuming someone incapable of understanding a simple list of synonyms and then writing them a lengthy, didactic and incorrect missive about what you incorrectly understand to be proper syntax. You will note that the other wholly unnecessary, niggling -- and in one case, obviously inappropriate -- changes you made in the body of the article also have been reverted. If it's not an improvement to a piece, then just leave it be. Changing something simply because it gives you something to do is just plain silly -- not to mention annoying. Next time, you might consider sticking to cleaning up the references, which, presumably, you've done adequately. I haven't checked them because, frankly, that sort of thing doesn't interest me in the least. But it's a necessary contribution, and I thank you for that. deeceevoice07:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey (waving) :). Thanks for your very kind offer, but I'm not really interested in becoming an administrator. Over the last few months, you're the third person who's approached me about it -- and I, frankly, don't see the benefit. I sometimes lose my patience and get nasty with people, and I freely speak my mind. Since administrators, I believe, should endeavor to be tolerant and patient, I think I'd be a poor candidate for the position. I have no patience for a lot of the nonsense on this website -- and I don't think I should! And I'm not terribly crazy about cops, so being a Wikicop doesn't particularly appeal to me, either. Whacking someone across the knuckles for this or that infraction just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather remain a lowly, relatively anonymous editor -- one of the great unwashed. :p But, again, thanks, anyway. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice21:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While your habit of speaking your mind might cause your nom to go down in flames, I don't think it should, and I don't really agree with your picture of an admin. While an admin can be "a cop", fundamentally an admin is just someone whom the community trusts to not abuse the extra powers - and the only ones that cannot be undone by other admins are image deletion and page history merging. That said, I suspect you would face a tough fight in an adminship vote - but that really only goes to show how badly the RFA system is broken. (This is just my way of saying I would have no problem voting for you). Guettarda00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote for you in a minute -- but I'd also try to talk you out of doing it. I think you're right about speaking your mind; your sometimes sharp tongue would cause more hassle than it could possibly be worth to you, were you to put on an admin hat. I don't think you'd abuse your powers -- but you'd get accused of it anyway, and, well, you don't have much patience with idiots. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆00:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
I am here and I saw your page. I hope you can contribute more to the Blacks article, I kind of took it over. We should tell them who we are. But you have a reputation that preceeds you and I consider you a leader in the moral stand for true freedom and justice. If you were a social leader, I would follow you, if you were a writer, I would read your books. As corny as it sounds, I believe that Wikipedia has the potential to make some changes in the minds of our youth, so we should make sure that the questions that childresn and teenagers ask, (esp. those that are never answered) are clearly articulated and answered here as best as we can. Lead, because that's what you were sent to do. - User:Zaphnathpaaneah August 9th, 2005
Eureka! On finding one another :)
Hey, blood! :D I appreciate the fact that you took the time to hunt me up, read my page and leave such kind remarks on my talk page. I'm humbled. I've been thinking black contributors to Wikipedia should start an informal group to alert one another to racism and anti-black bias on the site, and to articles and issues of general mutual interest. I've been planning to return to Black people for some time now, but right now I'm in the middle of one hellified busy period. Will drop by, though, probably sometime after the middle of the month, after things slow down a bit and see what's what. In the meantime, you might want to drop by cultural appropriation if/when you have a moment -- if you're so inclined. It's been listed on the articles for improvement list or some such thing, and I have a feeling the knee-jerk defensiveness of certain white folks (which has already emerged) will try to turn the piece into a criticism of the term, rather than an explication of it. It's a stupid, exceedingly tiresome aspect of far too many whites when it comes to subject matter related to black folks. They feel they must comment on/criticize everything -- as if their opinion on what we choose to call ourselves, on how we speak, etc., etc., has any merit/weight whatsoever in the broad scheme of things. I guess that's one more thing to chalk up under the seemingly endless category of "white arrogance/sense of entitlement," 'eh? :p See you around the site -- and please keep in touch. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice21:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, I read your comments, and you believe that wikipedia is a racist site? I suppose I would have to agree (grudgingly) to a point, because I see the Eurocentricity in it but well, I think that just comes down to who is participating. BY the way, with this new Wikipedia policy on locking down articles... if a Black person wants to edit, and there are no black admins, was he really there? (unsigned post)
You caught us. The only reason Jimbo was misquoted about the locking down articles is because Reuters knows we secretly want the black voice banned from Wikipedia. That's the only reason. --Golbez 18:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
What's this about locking down articles? My only (remembered) experience with this was when User:Quadell locked me out of blackface while he monkeyed with it while it was up for featured article status. It pissed me off. What's the deal? deeceevoice20:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quadell couldn't lock you out. He could lock everyone out (well, every non-admin), or no one. There are two stories the anon could be speaking of; one, the proposal to add the ability to lock an article so that only users (i.e. not anon IPs) can edit it; this is currently being discussed by the developers. Then there was Reuters and other news sources quoting Jimbo, claiming he said that Wikipedia would work towards locking "completed" articles. He said they misrepresented him. But ya know, I think the IP might be on to something... after all, Jimbo's white! :O And he said these words... IN GERMANY! --Golbez 21:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
All I know is when blackface was up for featured article status, Quadell blocked an IP address (which wasn't even mine) because of an "imposter," who apparently had assumed a user name similar to his. As a result, I was also blocked (collateral damage, which occurs fairly frequently in my case, with different IP addresses) from editing -- but only that particular article. Now, tell me, Golbez, is it true there are no black administrators? deeceevoice21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No clue, race is advertised even less than gender here. There's probably some. --Golbez 21:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
As for the first half of your para (I type way too quickly :D), that sucks. You once emailed me about that; I've still no clue how that happened. So far as I know, blocking an IP address isn't supposed to impact logged-in users, but I could be wrong. As for blocking you from editing that particular article, that's not [yet] possible. It may have appeared that way, but honestly, there's no way (at present) to ban someone from a specific article. --Golbez 21:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
All I know is that I tried to edit blackface and repeatedly got the message "User is blocked." But I also was able to successfully edit something else at the same time -- so, what does that tell you? deeceevoice21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It tells me that something was screwy with Wikipedia. That's all. Caching issues maybe. I hope you're not thinking of some conspiracy theory. --Golbez 21:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not one inclined to believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe I'm being targeted, if that's what you mean. But it's certainly annoying as hell, and whatever the problem is, it needs to be fixed. deeceevoice21:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't socialized much with African-Americans, but as far as I know, uncouth, pseudo-degrading jargon is something that is heavily over-represented among males, and even especially so among youth and the working class. My experience of hearing "nigger" used is limited to popular culture, and the impression I've gotten that if not exlusively male, then it is at least quite over-represented in this group.
Are you sure that you're not exaggerating the meaning of my addition to the article? The key word here is "mostly", rather than "only". Are you saying that the usage is more or less equally distributed among both sexes and that there is no prevelance of young people who use this term?
You make and addition to an article with an edit comment in the form of a question, clearly indicating you're uncertain of the factuality of your addition. I revert it as being inaccurate. You then revert it -- again, when you clearly don't know what you're writing about. Why on earth would you deliberately include a passage of which you are admittedly unsure in any article, and dealing with a culture about which you admittedly know very little? What the hell kind of arrogance is that? And now here you come to my space and ask me -- like I'm some dim wit -- if I'm certain I'm not exaggerating the meaning your words, while at the same time telling me you pretty much don't know any black folks (and likely don't know jack) and then proceed to denigrate/criticize a traditional/historical appropriation (reread the passage) and equate it with something that is a phenomenon roughly two decades old. You'd do well to follow your own advice: "don't mess with what you don't know well." Get a clue.deeceevoice21:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let's try to keep the discussion to one place. I'd prefer replying here than splitting the discussion up. Also, I think I've kept the discussion at a very civil level, so I would appreciate if you returned the favor.
As for the matter at hand, the point I was trying to make is that the usage of otherwise derogatory language in an endearing fashion is not exclusive to black culture as far as I know. I suspect that using pseudo-insults among friends might be near-universal to human culture, but that's just speculation. Furthermore, this is as far as I know often a quite specific male tendency (macho bonding and all that), even if not exclusive to this group. Would you care to comment this in a more enlightening fashion? Has the usage of "nigger" indeed been just as prevalent among females as with males, and without any overrepresentation among youth even historically? Is there really reason to believe that only modern usage is fairly male-specific? Since you are yourself saying that this is a matter of historical usage, it would also be helpful if you used other types of argumentation than simply insisting that you are black and I am not. Is there anything about this in Kennedy's book? Are there perhaps other sources worth referencing? PeterIsotalo22:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this exchange on point. Again, the sentence in which you inserted your erroneous information -- which you, yourself, questioned -- is in a historical context. You are incorrect. Furthermore I'm not "saying that this is a matter of historical usage." The sentence you altered clearly begins: "Historically...." Whatever your present-day anecdotal observations may be, they have nothing to do with this sentence. Neither does your "speculation" about what others may or may not do in other cultures have anything to do with the article, as the piece treats a term used by (primarily) a specific ethnic group.
Again, why on earth would you not only insert erroneous information of which you are admittedly uncertain in an article -- instead of asking your questions on the talk page -- but then twice revert a correction, requesting proof? You're kidding -- right? That's not how it works. You are the one who inserted the erroneous information; it's your responsibility to find the corroborating evidence.
And you're gonna cite Wiki etiquette about "civility"? ROTFLMBAO. How about the particular brand of Wiki "incivility" of ignorant and often arrogant white people presuming and assuming things about African American culture and inserting erroneous, ridiculous, even slanderous and outrageous things in articles as fact when they haven't a clue? I would not presume to write an article on astrophysics; yet every other freakin' Bob, Dick and whitebread Harry on this website fancies himself an expert on African American culture and has no compunction about writing all kinds of often opinionated and thoroughly misguided drivel about my culture, my people and my people's history, presenting it as fact. It's been my experience that on Wikipedia, "civility" is the last refuge of clueless hacks. Again, you would do well to heed your own advice: "Don't mess with what you don't know well." *x*deeceevoice04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making double posts at my talkpage or I'll keep removing them. I really dislike split discussions and your posts so far have been far from worth keeping.
I did however not revert twice. I made one edit and one revert with two polite edit summaries and you reverted me twice with two equally subjective and tart motivations and an instant assumption that you have the right to be belligerent because I try to bring up the discussion at your talkpage (you have no disclaimers against it of any kind). And, yes, I understand what you mean by "historically", but you're not showing any sign of understanding that I'm questioning whether this really changes anything and that what I'm claiming would still be relevant whether you like it or not. I find it hard to believe that a) male bonding was so radically different 50, 100 or even 150 years ago and b) that it would be radically different among black males. At the absolute worst a completely non-inflammatory false assumption and at best a different perspective on the article. (You'd have to really want it to be insulting if you interpret it as a provocation.) Neither would give you any justification to address me though I was just another one of those genuinly racist or uncouth users you successfully combat from time to time and it doesn't improve your reputation of being a convincing or constructive participant.
Now, I don't mind a trip to the library and I don't mind learning more about something I don't know that much about (nor have I come even close to claiming in word or action to be an expert). However, I don't care to hear any of it if you're just going to claim that I'm wrong, not make any attempt to explain why you're right and at the same time mocking and lambasting me for asking you to stay on topic and not associate me with every genuine asshole of the same skin color as myself you've ever had wikiproblems with. (Assume good faith, damnit.) I've asked direct questions about sources once already. Just confirm that you have more than very strong opinions with which to back your claims up and I will do my best to check it up. Deal?
On a less serious side note, the allegdly Chinese proverb on your user page is most likely not Chinese. Proverbs in Chinese always have a "if A then B"-like structure and don't really make more than one statement. And I found the quote attributed to someone by the name of Bill Purkey (whoever that is) on two separate webpages after some light googling. PeterIsotalo08:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No deal. It doesn't work that way. FYI, I have a tendency not to read about certain subject matter. I wouldn't spend 40 cents on a book devoted to the use of "nigger" and likely wouldn't read it if it were given to me. If you're asking for scholarly proof, you won't get it here. I can write intelligently and authoritatively on subjects like motherfucker and nigger, but I'll be damned if I'll spend time researching either. As I said, you made the assertion. You do the search. Much of what I've written on this website has been a compilation of knowledge/information I've somehow managed to accumulate over time -- like blackface. I know of the connection between blackface minstrelsy and darky iconography because I am a student of African American history, and I actively used to collect the stuff; I didn't read up for the piece. The same can be said as far as my contributions to nigger.
I will say this much: historical appropriation of the term had nothing to do with "male bonding"; it was about psychic survival -- a felt need in hostile territory and perilous times which crossed gender lines. I don't need to back up my "claims," because I haven't made any in this piece that aren't pretty much common knowledge. You, on the other hand, have made an erroneous assertion -- twice. I'm not going to spend time trying to disprove something you shouldn't have included in the article in the first place.
You still haven't addressed the problem of you, an uninformed party, stubbornly and arrogantly inserting and then reinserting something which you simply assume to factual, but really don't -- by your own admission -- know anything about. (What's that about, anyway? From my perspective, it looks like typical white arrogance/ignorance. When it comes to white folks and the things African-Americans do, say, think and how and why we do it, say it and think it, opinions are like a**holes; everybody has one.) If that's how you approach your contributions to articles on this website, then I suggest you take a visit to wherever it is good Wikipedians go to learn proper Wiki comportment -- and I'm not talking about civility; I'm talking about fundamental accuracy. And you'd better do it fast. The fact that you're still demanding that I produce "proof" to refute your inaccurate addition is a sure sign that, in this instance, African-American culture isn't the only thing you're clueless about. "Don't mess with what you don't know well."
Was I "mocking" you? Nope. If you find my plain-speak mocking, perhaps the situation being discussed reflects more on your hardheadedness than my "incivility." Did I say your obvious ignorance and apparent arrogance (or stubborness) make you a racist? Nope. But does the latter make you an "asshole"? Hey, if the shoe fits.... :p
Finally, with regard to the "Chinese" proverb on my page, you will note also the presence of "putative." Precisely because of its syntax -- and also, perhaps more importantly, its sentiment -- I was immediately skeptical of the accuracy of its alleged origin and added the qualifier. It neither reads like, nor has the resonance of, something with Chinese cultural origins. But I like it. deeceevoice12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not understood the point of my edit. This is not a matter of race, but of gender roles, which whether you like it or not, is quite applicapable even to an article which mainly concerning African-Americans. While you might personally dislike having this perspective on an article, it is completely contrary to the very core policy of Wikipdia, namely NPOV. It is also wholly undemocratic and very undynamic. While I tried to ignore your quite irrelevant quoting of my own "don't mess with what you don't know well", I'll just point out that I am neither messing nor lacking in knowledge of what I was trying to add; namely the issue of gender roles.
As for your claim of my incivility, it is downright surreal to read. Again, making one edit and one revert with friendly, non-aggressive edit summaries is about as far from incivility as one can get (unless you're trying to pick a fight). Verbally thrashing me for trying to discuss the matter in a civilized fashion at your talkpage is just ridiculous and certainly reflects a lot worse on you than it does on me. If you have problems with this, you should suggest we change our policies concerning user conduct or, frankly, give it a rest. It's pretty ironic that you write long-winded rants about the ignorance and prejudices of white people when responding to me rather than making any kind of honest attempt to grasp my additions to the article or my motivations for them, all the while clearly stating that "Wikipedia is not a venue for mindless rants".
While you might find it challanging and perhaps even amusing to hand out verbal abuse, I don't find it constructive or enlightening. Personally, I don't think even vandals or clearly unconstructive users should suffer abuse since it lowers the discussion standard of the community as a whole. The first people to leave at the sight of mindless abuse contests and prestige fights are not the people you hate the most, but usually unrelated editors who stumble upon a collection of assorted insults and are simply frightened away by a seemingly harsh and unfriendly discussion environment. The ignorant or racist usually just get terribly excited and amused at receiving attention, no matter in what form and you're doing them quite a favor by not ignoring them. Those who merely make well-meaning minor mistakes or whom you simply misunderstand, you mock and/or insult for no good reason. This damages the credibility of the community as a whole and frightens the newbies. PeterIsotalo16:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should tell you I really don't have a lot of patience -- and that's why I haven't bothered to read much of the above. I skimmed it, though. And it changes nothing. Your edit was incorrect and -- you've already admitted -- ill-informed. And that's the point. Wikipedia is not a site for the inclusion of speculative "information" (mis)information.
If you don't bother to read what other people are saying, you're hardly a useful contributor in the long run. Your impatience is your problem to deal with, not an excuse to lash out whenever you think you feel insulted. It might might as well be considered trolling.
Gawd. What a monumental waste of time and space. Again, what this all boils down to is you were in error. You violated Wiki policy and included erroneous information in an article because you thought it might be correct -- when you, by your own admission, don't know jack about the subject matter. No matter how many times you post here, trying to deflect attention from that central point, or try mistakenly to make the responsibility of debunking your misinformation mine, that fact remains clear. When all is said and done, it matters little who likes whom, who's made whom feel all warm and fuzzy. The important point here is the accuracy of information provided to readers. I grew tired of your whining, pedantic drivel long ago. Please don't bother to post here again. Any subsequent posts to this page you may leave simply will be deleted without being read. The door is now closed. *SLAM!* deeceevoice18:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to stay on this, I thank you for all of your guidance in support, but this dude has called me "nigger," my work goes unappreciated, and frankly, I take more crap of people here than I would on a paying job. I am Dbraceyrules, but can't sign on (or just won't sign on). I know that you'll say I am getting upset to easily, but my line has been crossed now. Dbraceyrules23:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On being called "nigger"
Sh*t. Take a number and get in line. You wanna see some examples of blatant racism on this website? Check my dispute with User:Wareware -- or the images on my talk page.
So, some racist asswipe called you the n-word. Boo-hoo. Well, if that's all it takes for you to give up and take your marbles and go home, get ready for a lifetime of quitting.
If you're on Wikipedia to be recognized, flattered, liked, rewarded you should ask yourself why it's so important to you. What does it really matter? Isn't imparting information enough? Why are you so eager/hungry for the approval of others?
Some advice: Don't ever, ever, EVER look for validation in the eyes of the enemy. Don't ever let someone else's problem become your own. "Allow no evil to pass through you."
Self-love is all that matters. It's how we got ovuh. It's called "mental toughness," youngblood.
No, that is not the only reason I have stopped editing here. First of all, its a waste of time. I have definitely wasted too much time on this site to receive such little recognition. Secondly, that wasn't the first time that some one called me some sh*t like that, but I refuse to be called something like that, and take crap from some craptastic encyclopedia I edit for free. Third, I need to use this extra time for college, and now, I have books, classes, registration etc. to worry about. I am not asking for anyone's sympathy...I just feel it is a lost cause here. There are plenty of other reasons why I left, mostly because it took much way more time than I thought it would, and it has lead to disaster. I happily cussed that asshole out. Wikipedia hasn't been all that important to me, hopefully it'll fill out a slot on my resume Thanks, deeceevoice, D. J. Bracey23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(chuckling) Well, youngblood, I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I don't "take" anything. If some inbred, half-wit, racist mental cretin wants to sling insults, I have no control over that. Besides, it does nothing but reflect on him (or her). I am not harmed by it. Hell, I'm not even personally fazed by it. I'm old-school, and I've seen all kinds of sh*t in my life, heard it, been exposed to it. I don't "take"/accept it; it's not about me. A "nigger" ain't nothin' but a figment of some soul-sick being's imagination, a projection, a phantasm. It's got nothin' to do with me or my people; I know who I am and where I come from. I've been black all my life, and I've never met a nigger yet.
I protest such usage because I regard it as an affront to my people, my noble ancestors. But do I accept it as a personal insult? Do I let it wound me? Affect my equilibrium? Do I internalize it? Do I even respond, as you have, stooping to their level and return it with a racial slur? Hell, naw!
That is weakness -- and stooping to their level betrays the legacy of humanity, spirituality, struggle and overcoming bequeathed to us by our Ancestors.
I'm here, as my user page says, to do what I do. And no one and no thing is gonna change that. I'm here until EYE decide to leave; no one's gonna run me off or piss me off to the point that I lose my focus.
Our people got through slavery, for God's sake. They were whipped 'til the flesh fell from their bodies; had their families sold away from them; survived the cruelest and most barbaric treatment imaginable; lived wretched, dehumanizing existences. And what? So, you let some sh*t like the n-word take you over the edge? Nigguh, pleeze! (No, I don't use that word usually -- but it's entirely appropriate here. You know how I mean it. Ironic -- isn't it? :p)
Thanks again, I had decided to leave before this anyway. It has been taking up some time, and no, I didn't let that one idiot get me off the site, its been plenty of crap since, well, I've been here. And still, its mostly becuase it took up too much time.D. J. Bracey23:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you feel moved to do. But if you ever decide to leave, know that a few people will miss you -- for about that long. And then they'll forget you. Stick around, and your contributions and your influence may outlast your years on this plane. That's the power of words, my friend.
Take a breather. Tend to your studies; they're important. (You gotta handle ya bizness.) Do whatever internal work you need to do to find your Center (SPIRIT is one bad-ass muthafucka. :p). When you're ready, whenever you have time, come back, roll up your sleeves and begin again. 'S what we do. We keep on keepin' on. Bruh, let's do this thang! :D Peace 2 u. deeceevoice00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We don't know each other, as far as I can recall (I was gone for a while and I've just come back to editing), but I saw your comments above and on Dbraceyrules's Talk page, and I'm shocked at the things that were said to him by that idiot Xizer. I am, however, curious about your comment -- Don't ever, ever, EVER look for validation in the eyes of the enemy. I hope you don't feel like all of us are your enemy. Zoe 23:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
What? U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? What the hell kinda comment is that? Don't insult my intelligence. I sincerely appreciate your support of my brother D.J. -- but day-um. deeceevoice08:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I would have appreciated civility, but as that seems to be beyond you, I won't pollute your Talk page any more with attempts at civil discussion. Zoe 19:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
No rational person would conclude from my statements that I feel "all of (you -- meaning white folks) are (my) enemy." Assuming that you are a rational individual, I can only conclude you wanted to read some reassuring warm-and-fuzzy expression of brotherhood/sisterhood. No offense intended, but I got no time, no patience to stroke your psyche. Get a teddy bear. deeceevoice21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A rational person might also conclude that you're needlessly rude and combatative. You might feel that Wikipedia is a hostile place for you, but it's clear from the above random antagonism that you don't go out of your way to get along with others. You might have felt Zoe's comments were patronising, but you could have least ignored them, rather than flaming. Crikey. — Matt Crypto22:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lookahere. When you've been subjected to half the shyt (check my page; the vandalism you see here is just a taste) that I have on this website, when you've walked in my shoes, then and only then should you ever dare to presume to come to my place and school me on comportment. When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. *x* deeceevoice05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, whatever. Your argument about what you have to put up with might hold water, apart from the fact when someone comes and is actually nice to you, you go and bite their head off. You don't do nice? Fine, but be aware that Wikipedia has policies on No personal attacks and Civility. I have every right to "dare to presume" to tell you about those. — Matt Crypto10:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Waste your time if that's what does it fuyyah. Do you really think some little twit instructing me in "civility" is going to change me? I find that mildly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief. Okay, I'm done w/you. Now go home. (yawn) *x* deeceevoice10:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, don't make personal attacks. Secondly, it's not just some "little twit" instructing you, those links are to Wikipedia policies and guidelines accepted by the community. You seem to be here to do battle; just make sure it's with actual enemies, rather than people you antagonise for no actual reason, OK? — Matt Crypto10:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, yassuh! Ah'll be sho' in duh future tuh be jinyoouwinely t'ankful fo' any spreshun o' symp'fy an' common cause whutsumevvuh f'om de waht mens (o' dey wimminses) -- ne'er mahn hah simppuhmahnid it iyyuh -- an' behave mahse'f lack a real good knee-grow f'om nah own. ... Whut? You say 'Mancipayshun Day dun come? You sh*ttin' me, aincha, bwoi? ... Well, peel me a grape, shine my shoes and crown me Queen of Illbgottdamned! LMBAO. :p deeceevoice17:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER...(etc. -just several lines of more of the same -- limited intellect, limited vocabulary, presumably. Just a waste of space by some anonymous fool deeceevoice02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC))....[reply]
Oh, but not nearly half as much as your daddy loves your teeny, weenie weenie ( =D ) (No-ball, gutless coward :p ) On summer nights, the slugs come out.... *x* Just ... boring. (yawn) deeceevoice02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And the same goes for (now reverted by thoughtful Wikipedians) the repeat images of the skewered weenie[2],[3] on my user page. Boring. And really, really -- erlch -- pink. (Crakkkah, puh-leeze!) Just 'cuz yo' daddy loves yo' lil' pierced pink pr*ck don't mean you gotta show it to evvuhbody. Cover up, bwoi -- an' show sum pride. Yo' slow-witted momma been tellin' all two uh her friends she duh only one been gittin' it, an' she gonna beat yo' flat a** good wit' a 'lectric cord when u git home. Oh. I fuhgot. You likes dat, doncha? 'Specially when she make u go git it yuhse'f. Dang, bwoi. Mah bad! :p).*x*
I grew up with this shit in Alabama, then moved up north and found out its everywhere. Even been overseas and found it (the first time I was in Japan and saw Sambo cartoons everywhere I was floored). This may sound weird, but I'm glad you're keeping the vandalism. I keep encountering people on Wiki who act like this stuff never happens here. Next time they say this, I'm going to point them to exhibit A.--Alabamaboy00:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We think alike. People need to see this shyt -- instead of sweeping it under the rug. And despite clear instructions on my user page, they still keep removing it. The latest: [5]. Same photo, same "fucking nigger" edit note. Not very creative, are they? Sleazoid morons. deeceevoice10:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, saw your comment while browsing through "my contributions". When admins pick up on any vandalism to a user space it is normal to revert on sight: we don't stop to check the user page first. After that it is your choice whether you restore the comment or not: I normally do (see this revert, you will find that comment restored on my talk page). Hope this helps. -- Francs2000 | TalkFile:Uk flag large.png13:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, Lenny Bruce, way ahead of his time as an observational humorist and philosopher, once said that there is way too much power in words, and that President John F. Kennedy (that should date it for you) should go on TV and just say the "N-word" over and over again until it becomes too silly to have any power. It might have worked, but neither of them lived long enough to try it and find out. Wahkeenah02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lenny Bruce was a Jew who talked about "nigger-lipping" cigarettes. (IMO, somebody shoulda busted his azz, beat the crap out of him for it.) What the hell did he know about being black? And no. No amount of overuse will ever change the fundamental offensiveness of the term. And "might have worked"? The overuse of the term today hasn't changed a thing. See Nigger, the section on the new revisionism. (I pretty much wrote that section -- and a good deal of the article itself.) deeceevoice02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't know much about being black, true. He knew something about being a non-Christian in a "Christian" country (i.e. a country that thinks it is). He was also a politically incorrect satirist, who did get metaphorically "busted" many times for "obscenity", and got permanently (i.e. fatally) "busted" due to his weakness for dangerous drugs, so obviously he didn't have a total corner on good sense. I think the point he was after is that making a word forbidden endows it with even more power. However, it would appear that his idea was naive at the very least. Wahkeenah03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No I can assure you it is a genuine picture of a genuine place. The whole town doesn't look like that, just a small part of it, but it is a very beautiful, peaceful part of town that is a joy to visit. I wholly recommend it. -- Francs2000 | TalkFile:Uk flag large.png13:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would have thanked you earlier if I hadn't been working as a substitute teacher in the Oakland Public Schools, which made me just a little bit grumpy about the decision to merge Ebonics into African American Vernacular English. While the history of the well-intended fiasco remains dear to my heart, I usually try to pronounce "African American Vernacular English" in ordinary conversation when referring to this controversial subject, now. This is something that white folks need to, and ought to, talk about more often with one another, and Ebonics is a lot easier to say (although I agree that it more readily draws ridicule from people who are not prepared to take part in such conversations). But this is Wikipedia, and I know coming correct at a cocktail party is not the same thing as coming correct on Wikipedia. --arkuat(talk)05:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, I wasn't just thanking you for your work on the AAVE article.
I've also particularly enjoyed cultural appropriation, and I think it was blackface that drew my attention to Spike's film Bamboozled on the subject (which is now a must-see on my never-been-seen-yet movie list).
Most recently, I've been enjoying reading your user page, which rocks (and you and I know who invented rock-and-roll, don't we?). --arkuat(talk)04:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things I've been trying to do lately is to lay down some background of real African American performance in the U.S. in the years before the rage for blackface. I found out about the African Grove Theater Eric Lott's Love and Theft; found more in a few places on the web. Given your interests you may know something about it that I didn't find, so I thought I'd ping you on this. Oh, and thank you very much for sticking around here despite having apparently become the favorite target of the Hitler Youth verbal (and visual) drive-by squad. The shit they are doing to you is a good reminder to me that I get off relatively easy on that count. Let me know if there is anything I can do on your behalf with respect to these gutter-rats besides wish you well and them ill. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've known of the African Grove theater company since, I suppose, the early '70s (I attended Howard University, and there's a theater there named after Ira Aldridge), but that's about it. I seem to also recall a play by, perhaps, August Wilson that dealt with the company and its trevails and its eventual destruction by a rival white theater owner. I'm pretty sure it was an August Wilson play, because he later -- or about the same time -- founded an institute or foundation named after the Grove in New York, or Philly, or Newark (somewhere). I don't know what happened to it, though. I haven't read the article yet -- I'm really pressed for time this week -- but I'll get to it. I'm glad you're on it.
And, no. There's really nothing that can be done about the intermittent vandalism. It's annoying, sometimes lewd and disgusting, but I'm not going to waste my time with it. (I thought I was done with the dumb white-boy gross-out pranks when I left high school, but, alas, "contributors" like Scatboy and the pink pr*ck exhibitionist have proven me wrong.) Wikipedia has proven itself utterly useless in such matters, even when the users are registered. (These vandals are just morons with too much time on their hands and precious few active brain cells.) But thanks for asking. Peace. :) deeceevoice11:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely thank you for all of your support since I have been here on Wikipedia, I hereby give you a Working (Wo)man's Barnstar as you surely desere this.
i just read your comments on the article of Memin and was puzzled by your reference of black people called "monos". in my 50 years of life i have never heard that, in fact the word Mono , in Mexico is ussualy used as "cute", when someone tell me: "Tus hijas son muy monas" (your daugthers are very monkey), I feel like a proud father. The other use of the word, is to refere to anyone that looks out of place, for example, if a rich looking guy goes to a poor place, every body would ask ¿quien es ese mono?. (who is that monkey?). The word "mono", has not a derogatory sense, nor is used to refer to black people, a least on central, and south parts of Mexico, where i live..
Anyway, your opinions would be apreciated, currently i am working on the afro mexican article. But it will take time and it would require that native english speakers correct my english. (see [aztecs]) :) Nanahuatzin08:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've worked so hard on blackface and related articles, I thought you might be interested in this: in 1939, RCA put out a children's record called "Little Black Sambo's Jungle Band". Oddly enough, "Little Black Sambo" is described as being from India. I hadn't known the terms "Sambo" and "Black" were used to describe Indians back then - or perhaps they assumed their audience was not knowledgeable enough to know the difference between Africans and Indians - I don't know. Anyway, it was re-released in 1950 with a different album cover.
The 1939 version depicts Sambo as a Golliwogg-style black stereotype. The 1950 version shows him more like a stereotypical Chinaman. The 1939 version is here. The 1950 version is here.
Just thought you'd be interested. – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 20:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I guess and hope that you will be satisfied to hear that blackface is in the top 100 (nr.96) of most visited articles of the English Wikipedia. [6]Andries19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude19:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Wikipedia blocks are certainly a pain sometimes. Anyway, I've unblocked 2 IP addresses associated with that user, so you should be OK now. One thing:
And virtually ALWAYS, the I.P. address cited isn't even CLOSE to my own.
I don't understand this comment. It shouldn't be possible for you to be affected unless you're coming in from the banned IP address... Evercat17:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a second, could you check out a discussion I'm involved in at Talk:African American literature. This German guy has an issue with how African American literature is structured b/c the article describes Black literature while following the history and politics of African Americans. To him, bringing history and politics into a literature article is wrong b/c the article should totally focus on art, form, aesthetics. I've already pointed out that Black lit is tied in with the history and experiences of Black people in this country. I also showed that Literature of the United States, English literature, Tamil literature and so on follows the basic sociological and historical framework that this article uses. However, I don't think any of this is going to convince him. I get the feeling that he would rather discuss Black literature without actually having to mention Black people at all. Any support or comments you can give on this would be appreciated.--Alabamaboy13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I need your advice about the article Al Sharpton. Are the allegations in the article (in the "bigotry" section) true? The sources listed are mainly right-wing opinion sites, so I think it's very likely the allegations are false. --Revolución(talk)21:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They're over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality trying to convince each other that we "shouldn't categorize people by race." One of them wants qualifiers for each person inluded in an African-American category for why and how they are important to the culture. I don't know what to do anymore; I'm ready to up and leave right about now.
I saw what happened to your "cool (aesthetic)" article; I really didn't have anything helpful to suggest or add (and still really don't), but it looks like you don't really need me anyway :). It's a great job. Between this, and white kids spamming all of the R&B related articles with Mariah Carey fancruft, I've just about had it. The Jackson 5 is the last featured article I'm gonna push (I felt it was a good choice, especially since many people don't realize Michael's roots and origins.
Until I came here, I never realized just how badly some people want ot just whitewash everthing and smother it with a blanket of sameness. Now I know, and it's highly upsetting.
PS. Hurricane Katrina - one of the worst things I've seen people in this country have to go through. But..why are they depicting people like they're from another country ("that part of the world", "refugees", etc.)? And then there's Kanye West--what did you think of his comments? --FuriousFreddy15:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya, Freddy. Wikipedia is an ignorant/arrogant-white-male-dominated microcosm. They know what they think they know, and we, of course, couldn't possibly know jack -- not even about our own culture/history. I had some 20-something-year-old white boy put a "disputed" tag on the fact that black folks commonly substituted "(jive) Maryland farmer" for "muthafucka" back in the day. And he (or someone else) removed an account of an incident that actually happened. Says I need to provide "documentation." Like I'm gonna collar Julian Bond the next time I run into him and ask him to publish something on some stupid misunderstanding he had with some clueless group of Maryland hayseeds.
Uh-huh. I'm sure gonna waste my time researchin' that. Schoolin' ignunt wyffolks on what we do and how we do it is my raison d'etre.
And my stuff in Afrocentrism -- cain't nobody touch it 'cuz that shyt is tight. :p Yet, they continue to bytch and label me a "rabid afrocentrist extremist" and such because the information I present -- long known by black folks and old, long-dead, white scholars (whom they curiously discount) -- doesn't jive with the lies they've been taught and their presumptions about their own history and heritage and/or their deep-seated antipathy toward/hatred of/contempt for black people. (They so confused.) :p Like they think a label is gonna make the truth disappear. Sum funny shyt.
But, unlike you seem to be, I'm not surprised. I'm a lo-oong-time activist and student of history, and I don't know about you, but I went to school with these people. I know/understand the mentality/pathology all too well; that a lot of them don't know jack. And when we, as black people, don't conform to their preconceived notions about what -- not who -- we are (dirty, smelly, stupid, ignorant, depraved, less than), many react with venom and viciousness. How dare we challenge their comfy, little notions of white privilege, power and intelligence and black inferiority? How dare we know something they don't. Their reactions run the gamut from bein' b*tchy/peevish to bein' positively beside themselves.
It ain't a pretty sight. But, hey, I expect that kinda ugly from them. It's all too many of them know.
I've been writing strictly in terms of white folks, but that goes for Asians, too. :p
The trick (for me, anyway) is not to give a shyt. And I don't. Even many of the ones who seem all right are sick. They can't help themselves. Mother's milk.
I've scaled wa-aaay down when it comes to this place -- for the same reason I limit my contact with the everyday, garden variety white assholes in the real word. It ain't healthy for the spirit, and they're simply freakin' annoying -- a complete waste of time.
Need a break? Take one. Runagate. Escape from enemy territory and feed your soul/spirit. Go hear some phat, chocolate-brown sistah with wide, baby-holding hips sang her heart out. Listen from a corner table as some bruthaman in a blue mood blows his truths into the sweat and smoky haze of a quiet club off the tourist track. Spend some time with our people and listen to the deep resonance of our voices, our laughter, our stories, our music; feel that wisdom and heart and heat and vibrancy and well-of-Spirit that has sustained us and drink it all in. Breathe. :D Shoot. Life is good. (Works fuh me. :p)
You do great work, Freddy. Mad love and respect. :D
Kanye West got it right. Go, Kanye! Go, Kanye! Go, Kanye! (You da man.)Kanye West? Got respect for him, too. He was uneasy and nervous and not exactly eloquent, but he said what was heavy on his heart. He was humble and even admitted his own failure to donate in a timely fashion. He spoke his truth, even though he knew he'd catch some heat for it. You gotta love dat. He made me a fan that night. Bush is an ignorant, incompetent f***, and the people he's appointed (Brown of FEMA and Chertoff of Homeland Security among them) are duplicitous/lying, incompetent f***s.[7] I'm from Louisiana, and a lot of my people are still there (not in New Orleans, thank God). Those people look like my people; they coulda been blood. But they really ARE my people, and I am disgusted, hurt, outraged, enraged. Seething. If I had been stuck in that city in some hell hole and I had a rifle, I think you'd be hearing about me on the evening news. No empty bravado there. I'm serious. Bush's people were right in not sending his flat, pasty ass anywhere near the dome or the convention center. He'd probably have been one dead, dumb Texas sumbytch. People were at their breaking point.
And the tragedy is there are still hundreds of people needing rescue. And how many bodies? The latest guess is 10,000 gone.
One thing I gotta say, though: I became a Harry Connick, Jr., fan, too. That white bwoi's blacker than a lotta black folks I know. He's got a beautiful spirit and great heart -- and he does a fair job of, yes, copying Satchmo's phrasing; but he makes it his own. He really doesn't (like most wyffolks) see black folks as the "other." Whatever his parents did with him, they should adopt as many white folks as they can and raise 'em up right.
Foreign nations are getting a real good look at how race and class play out in this nation -- how the poor and black get left behind. And clueless (or deliberately obtuse/disingenuous) white folks here are still yammering inanely about how race doesn't matter, about some mythological "level playing field." I'm pissed at the mayor, pissed at the governor, pissed at FEMA, pissed at the president all of them. They failed. And innocent men, women, children, elderly, infants and the unborn -- even people's household pets -- have died, and continue to die, when they could still be alive -- laughing, loving, living and moving among us. We will never know what gifts the incompetence, indifference, classism and racism of the people and institutions which were supposed to protect the good, decent, hardworking people of New Orleans squandered in the despair, squalor, filth and carnage of that city.
I'm rambling, and I've got work to do. I've spent way to much time glued to CNN and such. And I need to go feed my spirit as well. I'm weary of the stink of death.
Keep on keepin' on, Freddy. "Your heart is a muscle the size of your fist. Keep loving! Keep fighting!" Stay centered; stay furious. The rage inside us means we ain't crazy yet.
"If I had been stuck in that city in some hell hole and I had a rifle, I think you'd be hearing about me on the evening news." Who in particular would you have shot? Bush? National guardsmen? Jim Apple03:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I'm stoopid enuf to answer that in this forum, then you really don't think black people have any sense. And one more thing. Stay the f*ck off my talk page. U ain't welcome here.deeceevoice08:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno...I think this place is really getting to me. I've been seriously depressed for the last couple of months or so. I probably do need ot get out of here. And my only non-supportive thought about Kanye West is that I'd bet Aaron McGruder is somewhere pissed, and wished that West had waited one more month so he coulda said it instead. But I don't know....somewhere between my home life, the disappointments of all of my friends, my job, and this place....everything is really getting to me and I'm sort of becoming unwound. I might just need to get out of here all together. --FuriousFreddy17:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, darlin', I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you've got a lot on your plate. It might be time to consider what's most important to you and do triage -- like cleaning a cluttered room. Take it one corner at a time and get your house in order. Just doing something to change your circumstances for the better -- even if you don't see the benefit right away --can be enough to improve your mood. Tend to yourself, Freddy, and what's important to you. If you need to/can, take a few days off, hit the road and hole up in an out-of-the-way hotel or inn in the country somewhere and do only what you want to do, eat what you want to eat, listen to the music you love most. And if it's a relationship that needs attention, consider taking your significant other with you -- if that works. Do something, go somewhere you don't ordinarily go. Sounds like you're in a funk/rut. So, change it. After all, it couldn't hurt. :p And if Wikipedia is adding to your foul mood, then kick it to the curb. It's a hostile website. If you're simply sick of the crap, you know what to do: flush and wash your hands of it. Peace 2 u, ((((Freddy)))) (that's a strong, black hug :D) deeceevoice17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sista. I'm gonna take some of that advice and run with it...see what happens. And, yeah, I'm out out, for serious. I do need my life back...or rather, a new one. Peace and blessings. --FuriousFreddy04:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the page and will remain, as required by policy, a neutral observer. Please remember that while frankness is a treasured value it can needlessly isolate potential friends who misinterpret it and worse yet be easily twisted and used against you by your enemenies. :) Peace. -JCarriker 20:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
So, what are they gonna do? Shoot me? LOL I appreciate the spirit in which your advice is offered, but you don't really expect me to change. Do you? Love ya, darlin'. :D deeceevoice21:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit the article for the moment as it's heated enough, but I note (a) your version again includes the disputed see also, and again it's a broken link. (b) you broke the WP:3RR rule today. Please be more careful about your edits, and let's have more discussion and less edit-warring. Rd23219:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What's a "broken link"? Further, I find it curious that you've warned me about an edit war, but there's no record of you leaving anything on the talk page of User:Petrograd, who has been extremely antagonistic, intemperate and utterly irrational in his/her reverts of my perfectly reasonable edits. Further, I have provided substantial justification for my edits on the talk page -- which cannot be said for Petrograd, who has done nothing but complain about "Afrocentrism." (See the talk page "Grow up.") deeceevoice19:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I object to your implicit characterization of my behaviour and views on User talk:JCarriker. User:Petrograd may have got shrill and upset, but I'm quite calm and just don't want excessive detail on a topic covered appropriately elsewhere. See also my comment on Talk:Tutankhamun. For the record, I don't care whether Tutankhamun was black, white, or blue with yellow polka dots. I just want the article limited to facts, not speculation and political activism. The position of African-Americans in modern America (sad reminder in Hurrican Katrina about the real situation there), needs to be addressed there, not by projecting back onto Ancient Egypt. Rd23220:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm really confused. What "implicit characterization of [your] behaviour and views"? I was writing about User:Petrograd. Have you been involved in the article? Further, I actually deleted that information, if you'll check the edit history. Someone got ahold of material from an earlier permutation of Afrocentrism and kept inserting the stuff into Tutankhamun -- some whom User:Petrograd has -- characteristically -- rashly and shrilly accused me of using as a "sockpuppet." Furthermore, my "political activism" hasn't got one gottdamned thing to do with the article under discussion. deeceevoice20:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You said "They obviously object..." etc. I left a comment on your page first because you'd broken 3RR, not Petrograd. The more general points applied largely to the anon contributions - which you however several times partially accepted (by not deleting when you made other edits). Never mind - bygones. Rd23220:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Bygones"? You're totally off-base. And, yes, I deleted the additions wholesale. Take another look. And, hell, I'll break the three-revert rule again if faced with that kind of vandalism by an asshole like Petrograd. There's no call for it. Okay. Bygones. deeceevoice20:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've about reached my quota on this dispute; I'm unwatching the article. Sort it out one way or another (you seem fairly sorted, though understandably narked by Petrograd) - I hope the RFC call helps. See you around. Rd23220:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising. I'd bet money User:Petrograd is User:Pharlap. 'S got the same kinda bytchy attitude, engages in the same insanely shrill, ad hominem attacks. When it comes to me, he's totally unbalanced, utterly irrational. Watch that one. He's hilarious. Makes a fool of himself every time. If I gave a damn, I'd say he was a pretty sad case, actually. Tsk, tsk. But I don't. :p deeceevoice21:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He deleted my comments also -- and never once challenged my assertion that he was Pharlap -- because he is. He totally embarrassed himself in a VfD for an article I was working on and hasn't posted under "Pharlap" since. Guess he thought he'd try stalking/attacking me again under a different user name. Must be terribly unhappy in his personal life. A pathetic case. (And, no. I still don't give a damn. LOL) deeceevoice07:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:King_Tut_Death_Mask.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.
Have you seen the craziness in the Black People and White People pages? I have been editing the black article, and have gotten the complaints that were inevitable.
Egyptians are not Black
Don't steal our history (Egyptian complaint)
do not capitalize B in Black because that's racist (you should see how I cross posted that in the white article)
The article is POV bordering on prejudice (they don't like the accusations of white supremacy impacting the identity of black people over the past few centuries)
No references (book based)
They are threatening to ban me to some degree because my points are nonsense and vandalism. Especially the one where I point out that the appearance of the Egyptians is more like mixed (black/white) people than Caucasians. Basically they are tripping because I am including various people besides the "West African derived negro" as Black. All in all, the hypocricy was revealed because the white people article had only one link, no references, and of course "white" had a capital "W" all over it. The talk page is much more interesting than the article. --Zaphnathpaaneah20:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be more or less lurking around periodically, to reverse vandalism, poor edits, etc. But I feel a lot better lately--got a new job and a new plan for life. --FuriousFreddy16:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, darlin'! :DDDD Glad you're back -- even if periodically. Missed u. I'm glad you've made some changes to your liking. Life's too short not 2 love it. Hope you don't mind me "vandalizing" your page in your absence. See ya 'round the site. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice19:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid I've just blocked you for a three-revert-rule violation on Afrocentrism. I know you were simply restoring a tag, but it is wrong to revert, no matter who is right. I've also blocked User:DreamGuy for 24 hours, so you can both chill for a while. -Splashtalk22:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No point in trying to write half-way decent articles on music when children will come in and write acres of text on Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, etc.; making seperate articles for covers of the same song, and generally getting away with spreading fancruft everywhere because htey run in packs. I'm going to email you so we can keep in touch. --FuriousFreddy05:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[8]: are you objecting to my noting that this is the only edit by the user? I intended to make it clear that this named account was created specifically for the purpose of leaving this load of crap. Do you think I shouldn't have done that? Or what? -- Jmabel | Talk07:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Blackpower is a sockpuppet for User:G.C.RTW. I am going to revert the more POV, unsourced, or racist edits, but I'm sure I may not be able to catch up. Since you have specific knowledge of some of the areas these users are editing, I hope you'll lend me a hand. Jim Apple15:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this user is a troll; I don't think he's a Wikipedia vandal though, even if he's a vandal by most other definitions. (At least, some of his stuff isn't, like completely unsourced articles.) If it keeps up, maybe we can lock some pages until he gets tired and leaves. Jim Apple02:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you that gcrtw is my roomate (to jim apple) and asked you how to change the password. And why on earth would you call me a racist troll? I make edits relating to the african and african american experience. They may not fall in with your line, but there's nothing racist about this crap. This is getting really weird. Blackpower18:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not a troll, you're an ignorant s.o.b. "Race traitor"? You: "When I see that all the inventions, technology, philosophies, or accomplishments are made by whites, I feel powerless." Either way, coming from the likes of you "race traitor" is a compliment. My money is on troll. KMBA, fool. *x* deeceevoice02:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Im new to "Tha Wik", and I have been using it to look up different types of information, mostly while I've been bored at work. Anyway I was reading the latest issue of National Geographic and wanted to look up something about Subsahara Africa and came across your submission. Not knowing fully how to navigate "Tha Wik" I basically read most of your talk page. I just wanted to say, youre thorough Ms. DeeCee, keep doing what choo do. Your brother in the struggle. Kingofdagodz.
Slight backpedal - I noticed you got a 3RR block a few weeks ago. I think you were in the right, but there are a lot of regular RfA voters for whom such a thing is basically an automatic "oppose". I'd still be glad to nominate you now, but I doubt it would go well. You'll have an excellent chance if you can go a month or so without running afoul of the 3RR again - if you run into a situation where an article needs repeated reverting, drop me a line and I'll check out the situation . And remember, no one ever died from leaving BS on wikipedia for 24 hours. Cheers! BD2412talk04:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just glanced at some previous entries up the list and saw that you've already declined adminship noms. For what it's worth, I think you'd make a good one. Cheers! BD2412talk19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye out for the program tomorrow after I get home from work.
Don't know how much Wikipedia editing I'm going to be doing anymore. The stress level hasn't subsided in relation to this place, and it doesn't appear to be getting any better. --FuriousFreddy02:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is well known and generally known information. If I don't get around to it soon enough, I'm sure someone else can easily find some. It's certainly not something to be contested! It's what gave rise to the debate in the first place. deeceevoice19:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can see this article to understand better the fork of the Spanish Wikipedia & Enciclopedia Libre wikibooks:Wikimania05/Paper-AS1 , I give you this link, because I don't know if you know it, but you ask Why the fork...? in the talk of Enciclopedia Libre and can be useful for you Regards AlexanMy talk page 21:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded, image:Sphinx at Giza.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information. Thank you.
An image that you uploaded, Image:Punt Royalty Aty and Parakhu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information. Thank you.
Hey Deecee, always good to bump into your edits. In working with those 1st paras in Sub-Saharan Africa, I clicked on that link to Dark Africa, and noticed that the "Darkness" article gives a rundown of standard Western dark=evil/ignorant schema; while accurate, it's still missing is a good note on the implied racism of that approach. I thought about adding this note myself but don't have any good sources for it. You got any? --Dvyost06:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little embarrassed because I only quickly read over the talk page and didn't completely read your comments which were quite similar to mine. Anyways, I appreciate your point about not wanting to track down a picture of a man in a similar position: but someone should if there are to be pictures at all, in my opinion. I think that pictures are a powerful part of the overall tone of an article and I often find that the pictures included say a lot about the unconscious POV of the writers involves. Like the pictures on Infant, which are only of white children. Anyways, I think it would be interesting to have a broader look at what kind of pictures are included in articles, some kind of wikiproject, do you know of any? (Maybe more specific than Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias).
I am sorry you were accidentally blocked as result of the block on User:64.12.116.136. Once in a while your randomly chosen IP would land on a blocked one; a few minutes later it may pick a different one, which is why you were suddenly able to edit again 4 hours ago. You seem to be OK now, so I'll leave things as they are for the time being. Let me know if this happens again, or just log out of AOL and back in—that often does the trick. My apologies for the inconvenience. Owen×☎13:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know. I appreciated your edit summaries in Kumbaya today. Although technically as an admin I shouldn't encourage such exclamations and WRITING IN CAPITALS in edit summaries, they did make me laugh... -- Francs200014:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...stayed for the nice tribute to Parks. Then I remembered your policies on vandalism anyway. Well, it's another one for the gallery. =) Have a fine Wednesday, --Dvyost20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very interested in hearing from you at [9]. I'm really inclined to delete these "online communities" from the article, but it worries me that it's entirely a bunch of white people (myself included) trying to decide whether to remove a chunk of borderline but imaginably useful material from the article African American. If you agree that this material doesn't belong, I'd be a lot more comfortable removing it than I am right now. On the other hand, if you think not, I will certainly respect that. -- Jmabel | Talk06:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[copied to maintain continuity]
Hey, I don't know. You've been here longer than I. I guess it depends. I did a quick search of other articles devoted to various ethnic groups, and I don't see similar links included. But, then again, for Dreadlocks, there are all sorts of links included there that, IMO, are questionable/superfluous/redundant. In checking out the links in "AA," I ended up deleting one, because it directs to a page that will grant access only if one is a member. But one of the links -- the poetry one -- I included in the article on African American literature (I can't believe that made featured article; it has some huge holes!), because I thought it useful. deeceevoice18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with it at African American literature, just at African American. Very few ethnic group pages have links like this, a few do, but usually they are relatively small and dispersed ethnicities where there really is an issue of people ever finding each other, and where the Internet looms large in keeping them connected. I think I'm going to get rid of some of these from that article. -- Jmabel | Talk20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DeeCee! Can you take a look at Victims of Nat Turner's Rebellion? I think it is racist and one-sided. Details of deaths of all white women and children, but there are not any single word about hundreds of killed African American slaves, who were killed after Nat Turner's capture. Whaddaya think? Peace man! - Darwinek09:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deeceevoice, you've had your hands in some of the Israel/Palestine articles before and know how contentious they can be. I invite you to check out this RFA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite and offer your input. Ramallite is an editor who has broad support from across the spectrum of POVs on these topics, though the RFA has encountered some opposition. I'm hoping you might take a look, judge for yourself his merits and consider voting. Thanks, --MPerel ( talk | contrib)08:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
03:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
14:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)