User talk:EriPeople
October 2010
[edit]Hello, you added {{Split section}} to the top of the Tigray-Tigrinya people article, but you did not indicate which section needs to be split (or why). If you believe one of these sections should be split to a new article, please add {{Split section}} to the top of that section (as well as the name of the target article where you feel this material belongs). Be sure to check the template documentation, and consider adding a note to Talk:Tigray-Tigrinya people. Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gyrofrog. I apologize for any inconveniences my freshmen skills at editing in wiki may have caused you. I put the split section on the "Tigray-Tigrinya" page because this page is facilitating and giving a virtual platform to a non-existing ethnic identity. The name "Tigray-Tigrinya" is confirmation of unprecedented ignorance towards two separate ethnic identities being glued at the hip because they happen to speak two distinctive separate dialects of the same language. I have strong inklings that this article may have been concocted to appease a few editors jingoisms. Otherwise, There's no reason why a fictional name and identity such as "Tigray-Tigrinya" needs to be perpetuated. I would hope you can assist us in creating a "Biher-Tigrinya" page, and leaving the Tigray-Tigrinya page as simply Tigray. (EriPeople (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC))
- Thanks for the explanation. I would suggest reading Talk:Tigray-Tigrinya people#Name of the ethnicity to see how we arrived at the article name in the first place. If you think this should be re-visited, then describe your concerns in a new section on that page. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your effort in directing me to these links, I greatly appreciate it. I've actually read every comment on the talk page a few times before. Not to sound incandescent and condescending towards how you've reached your conclusion, I would only hope you can see the problematic issues that arise with such a system. From my humble observation, this system neglects any scholarly research and relies on a select few of individuals, who happened to be at the right place and the right time, to decide what the faith of ethnic names should be. In addition to what appears to be a first come, first serve system, it would be futile to repeat this process again, because it's inevitable that someone in the foreseeable future might want his or her voice heard in trying to re-name these ethnic groups. Not to sound like I'm belittling your process, but having individuals decide ethnic names, it tarnishes the egalitarian atmosphere of Wikipedia (as in, it assumes these ethnic identities are debatable and changeable, while others are not) and, quite-frankly, it comes off as degrading, insensitive, humiliating, and intellectually-unsatisfying to ethnic groups who are being denied of their true ethnic names. Thus, in order to give legitimacy, I propose we stick to scholarly research, where credible citations are presented. What's your thoughts? Thanks in advance and I hope I didn't come off as disrespecting or questioning your intelligence, because that's not my intentions. (EriPeople (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC))
- No problem with your comments, at all. However, I think it would be better to put them at Talk:Tigray-Tigrinya people where others can weigh in. I'm not familiar with the scholarly sources you've mentioned, so I can't really say I think any differently about this than I did a few years ago. Thanks again, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your effort in directing me to these links, I greatly appreciate it. I've actually read every comment on the talk page a few times before. Not to sound incandescent and condescending towards how you've reached your conclusion, I would only hope you can see the problematic issues that arise with such a system. From my humble observation, this system neglects any scholarly research and relies on a select few of individuals, who happened to be at the right place and the right time, to decide what the faith of ethnic names should be. In addition to what appears to be a first come, first serve system, it would be futile to repeat this process again, because it's inevitable that someone in the foreseeable future might want his or her voice heard in trying to re-name these ethnic groups. Not to sound like I'm belittling your process, but having individuals decide ethnic names, it tarnishes the egalitarian atmosphere of Wikipedia (as in, it assumes these ethnic identities are debatable and changeable, while others are not) and, quite-frankly, it comes off as degrading, insensitive, humiliating, and intellectually-unsatisfying to ethnic groups who are being denied of their true ethnic names. Thus, in order to give legitimacy, I propose we stick to scholarly research, where credible citations are presented. What's your thoughts? Thanks in advance and I hope I didn't come off as disrespecting or questioning your intelligence, because that's not my intentions. (EriPeople (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC))