Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European ancestry". What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other "white people" if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along". So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"? Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil .... Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, ... The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly Furtado. Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging' editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke! How about being constructive? If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected - ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do something constructive for a change. In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us]) would object to being featured in such a racist article. I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count. Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for themselves are not. Best regards, Rui -- Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.

Dear Colleagues at the Foundation I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European ancestry". What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other "white people" if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already says on the talk page that Arabs don't count. When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere - that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along". So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do. That is not an encyclopaedia. Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"? Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil .... Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, ... The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly Furtado. Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging' editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke! How about being constructive? If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected - ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do something constructive for a change. In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us]) would object to being featured in such a racist article. I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count. Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for themselves are not. Best regards, Rui -- Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant