User talk:31.161.142.58

Zwarte Piet

 * I can't really help you as this was a WP:CONSENSUS discussion. Adding a citation needed template is not really appropriate. You can read the discussion at Talk:Zwarte_Piet/Archive 2. You may open a new discussion to create a new consensus on the article's talk page, but the issue is not really one of providing a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If you keep calling me a Dutch racist like you did here I will request a moderator to block your account. You have removed the warning from your own talkpage but this does not mean you have not been given one. As for the archives I will check them tomorrow to see if there is any American bias. This is unrelated to the request for a reliable source however. Reliable sources are mandatory, you can't just remove them to push a point of view. 31.161.142.58 (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm sorry for calling you a Dutch racist. You are clearly Dutch, so that is not the issue.
 * The majority of the planet sees Zwarte Piet as a racist symbol, but many Dutch still see it as historically relevant. The evidence is in a Google search: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Zwarte+Piet%22+blackface or https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Zwarte+Piet%22+racist but I digress. I equated this misunderstanding on the subject as a claim on your person, and I should not have done so.
 * Now, I did so one time so to claim that I keep calling you something, after you "warned" me (asked me?) not to was not lost on me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for WP:DFTT, that is an essay to explain that unconstructve editors should not be engaged with. You clearly fit that bill which is why I linked to it. It appears, to me at least, as though you are "seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community". If that's not the case, disengage now. Again, I meant no offence to your person. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An overwhelming majority of the Netherlands does not see Zwarte Piet as a racist symbol so there is no need to provide me YOUR search results. When I use a google search I get results that are relevant to my geographical location, not yours. Your opinion about Dutch culture is biased by your own culture. This is why we need reliable sources. How can you not see this?
 * After calling me a racist you simply put a link to Deny_recognition in the edit summary, where you reverted my request to stop your personal attacks. That constitutes a second personal attack. You can do with your own talkpage whatever you want. But reverting me does not mean that I did not bring both violations to your attention. 31.161.142.58 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Throwing that essay in someone's face after calling someone a racist is not a personal attack? You are clearly here to push your point of view about the traditions of a culture that isn't even yours. How is what you are doing to my edits not interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project? 31.161.142.58 (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm not here to push a point of view. I am here to tell you that there is a consensus. I supplied the sources you requested. I can do nothing to change the tradition or your attitudes or opions about it. I can only tell you what reliable sources have said about it and about the consensus decision for the would that should be used to describe it. Beyond that, our actions speak for themselves and we each have to live with our own actions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said I will read the archives tomorrow and if you look at my actions you will see that I am not doing the edit until I have read all the archives. However, Newspapers aren't reliable when they are judging someone else's culture. Especially when they claim to be 'exposing Dutch racism'. Please conform to WP:RS. 31.161.142.58 (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RS is not about being bias or not, but about providing sources that have a history of reliability to support a claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspected that you would judge the sources as being too American, which is why there's one from Aljazeera, Deutsche Welle and The Guardian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

All three are written from an American perspective for an American audience. Your Santa Claus is based on our Sinterklaas. Our Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet however are not based on any American tradition. The Guardian says it got its information from the NTR and links to a left-wing Dutch newspaper, but even that newspaper does not use the term blackface. Neither does it use an equivalent that could be translated as such. There are some obvious errors in these news articles and most don't cite where they get all their information from. They are using the same arguments as the protestors do. None of these newspapers discuss the history of blackface minstrel shows in Europe. Some acts have been performed in the UK, yes. But I have not seen any historical evidence that these minstrels ever took place in the Netherlands. If these events actually took place in mainland Europe than it would not be difficult to provide real sources instead of newspapers. These news articles are basically essays if not propaganda. They express the personal opinion of the writer about a foreign culture. Wikipedia should not be like that. One of the titles is literally: "Dutch racism in full display". 31.161.142.58 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As Walter noted above, you should familiarize yourself with the prior discussions about many aspects of the English Zwarte Piet Wikipedia page. The current version of the page was created over a period of many years and various consensuses were reached about topics including the definition of blackface. Not only are you undoing the hard work of all of these other editors, you're covering old ground. If you wish to proceed, please discuss your concerns in the talk page. Constablequackers (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the RFC was closed without reaching consent on 31 January 2018. There has been a lot of activism and people have conceded because of this. It looks like the media in the US is abusing the term blackface to apply it to foreign cultures as well. That's fine but this is not the American Wikipedia. I have not seen any historical evidence for blackface minstrels having taken place in the Netherlands, ever. 31.161.142.58 (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be concerned primarily with the inclusion of the word "blackface" in the article. Please understand that it is *not* a term that is specific to America or only refers to the practice in American culture. Other cultures also use blackface and, as many individuals have concluded, the traditional depiction of Zwarte Piet does qualify as such. For the record, here is the dictionary definition of "blackface" from the Cambridge Dictionary, which focuses on British English: "dark make-up worn by a white person in order to look like a black person, or the practice of doing this." Constablequackers (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for doing a better job of explaining this. I clearly did not do so clearly enough earlier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I really want to make it very clear to anyone who may be involved in this debate that blackface is *not* an exclusively American custom. Constablequackers (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Zwarte Piet. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Favonian (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

(edit conflict) One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Regardless of the specifics, you were very clearly engaging in edit warring. --Yamla (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussing Zwarte Piet
If you want to change the consensus that the activity of non-whites applying black face paint is called blackface, even when that happens in the Lowlands in celebrating Sinterklaas' arrival and dressed as Zwarte Piet, you'll have to do so by creating a new consensus on the article's talk page. You have been hesitant to do so. I see that you to comment just before you were blocked. This is very close to canvassing. To avoid further problems, I have opened a discussion on your behalf: Talk:Zwarte Piet.Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)