Talk:Africa
|
|
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Africa]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Africa&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Africa/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Africa/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Africa&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
Racists spinning this entry
It looks for the moment that the racists are determined to keep in the vile 'Race and physical appearance' (now named renamed 'Demographics') section with its racist terminology intact.
The Europe page will not have anything to do with this racist nonsense, instead, pointing all this discussion to other articles. See the discussion page there.
Distinguishing between people based on what they look like makes you a racist. Anyone that puts that 'Demographics' section back intact is just that. You cannot treat the discussion of Europe differently to the discussion of Africa just because the people in each region happen to look different to each other.
Either both the Europe article and the Africa article have 'race' sections in them or they both should not. What is most absurd and offensice is the current situation where one article is treated differently to the other; this is more wrong than if both articles had an erroneous/racist/fallacious section on 'race'.
- Yawn. I live in a country on this continent where any mention of anything related to race or skin colour or any somesuch immediately gets you branded a racist. Playing the racism card is getting quite worn out by now. People are different, and not everyone around the world realises the extent of differences between people. If that section can shed some light on what the make-up of Africa is to someone living in China having no feeling for the rest of the world, it should be there — that's the point of an encyclopedia. Deal with the fact that we live in a rainbow world, and calling "orange" by any other name doesn't make it less orange.
- Furthermore, I don't give a rat's ass what they do on the Europe page. We aren't in any way bound by what they decide there, and this page will grow through consensus from the editors here. That is the wiki way; take it in that spirit, or find another project to invest your time in. Dewet 21:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You might not give a 'rats ass', but everyone in the world gave much more than a 'rats ass' about your country when it was being run by racists. It is very important that the two articles are consistent. There is no reason why both articles should not have a 'race' section, or both of them not. What is intolerable is one does and one does not, only (its seems) because Africans are 'brown' in the majority.
- This is the issue here; if people are all the same then treat them the same. If the are different, then treat them as such, but be consistent about it, and certainly not flippant.
- Actually, it is not at all important for the two articles to be consistent. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. siafu 22:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How many countries?
Why does this page indicate that there are 54 countries in Africa instead of 55? http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Home_Page/Country.html lists 55.
- I haven't done a side-by-side comparison, but my first guess is that U Penn is counting Western Sahara as an independent country, and we're not because of the dispute. - BanyanTree 14:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)