User talk:Ginadumas
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
liquidluck✽talk 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Try requesting the name change at Wikipedia:Requested moves, along with the reasoning you provided on my talk page. If anyone disagrees, they will speak up; if no one disagrees, the page will be moved. liquidluck✽talk 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
On Maulana Karenga
[edit]I noticed how you removed my addition to the Karenga article with no discussion whatsoever, and so I reverted your changes. If you take a look at the last section of the discussion page, you'll understand why I made the additions I did. As you can see, no one disputes the fact that he was convicted for torturing two women. Yes, this is very unflattering information, but I don't include it in the article in order to attack or smear the man. I added it because it was mysteriously missing from his article, and it is indeed very significant information that the founder of Kwanzaa was jailed for doing something in the very opposite spirit of the holiday he started.
As you'll see from the last discussion topic, editors essentially had an issue with how the user Republic of Texas included a little too much detail about his conviction. That's quite a debatable point, but I decided to indeed rewrite that information in a way more acceptable to the people who contributed to the conversation. If you have an issue with the sources I used, then you have to demonstrate why those sources are unreliable. The fact that the Darthmouth Review and Gazette articles are secondary sources is insufficient criteria for excluding them from a Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability of sources). I recently included one of the LA Times articles that the other articles refer to as a source as well. Sadly, you'll have to pay the site or visit a library that archives LA Times articles from 1971 to view them, but they exist and I urge you to read them. I will even send you PDF copies of some of these articles if you wish.
And so, in the future, please don't simply remove edits that are the result of a consensus from discussions. Take a look and see why I added it, and you'll realize I'm not attacking anyone. I thank you for your understanding. Enderandpeter (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. It only cost like a dollar or so to read the LA Times archives. Republic of Texas (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ginadumas, once again, if you believe there is a concrete reason not to trust those articles, you must demonstrate why this is so. Simply calling them "malicious" isn't good enough, as it's clear that by "malicious" you really mean "unflattering". If you feel this information is wrong, please please tell us specifically why you believe this to be so. As far as the secondary nature of these sources, this is not something frowned upon by Wikipedia. In fact, it's encouraged (Please actually read Wikipedia's guidelines on the verifiability of sources which I've linked to above.) Again, Karenga's prosecution and incarceration has been documented by many people. It has been fact checked God knows how many times. Do you seriously think that newspapers are part of some kind of conspiracy to smear Karenga? Invoke your scholarly spirit and specifically show us why this information is inaccurate. If you're unable to do so, then that means you have no good reason to refute the accuracy (and most importantly to Wikpedia, the verifiability) of this information. If you erase this information with no compelling arguments again, then I will not hesitate to refer this matter to the Mediation Cabal. Let's be civil about this, please. Enderandpeter (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)