User talk:Jjj1238/Archive 2

Eurovision 60th Show
Jjj, not sure if you have the project talk page on your watchlist or not, but there is a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision with details about the anniversary show. As we don't know what the show's official title will be, there is a draft article which you may also want to put on your watchlist at User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/60 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest of which project members are permitted to contribute towards. It is there merely as a place for us to build an article for an event that is in the public domain, but has yet to be given an event title in order for us to create such an article for that event title. Once details are known, then the draft can be moved into mainspace.  Wes Mouse &#124;  chat  01:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Bettinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolling Papers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kira Kazantsev
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015
Hey there! I created an article for Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and I was wondering if you could help me out by verifying the translations of the rules I made from a document posted on LTV's website. I noticed on your user page that you have written that you are fluent in Latvian so if you have the time I would appreciate your help! My main concern is that I believe they wrote that they will select ten artists and songs to compete in this national final, but during their description of the shows, I'm not sure I understood how they will select only four entries for the final during the preceding shows. Pickette (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't spoken/read/written Latvian (I mostly spoke Czech at home even when I lived in Latvia) in a pretty long time so I'm a bit rusty, so don't hold it against me if I misinterpreted, but here's what I got out of the rules. The first semi-final is non-elimination and just supposed to introduce the songs to the audience. In the second and third semi-finals, two songs are eliminated in each show, leaving four remaining participants for the final. In the final, there is a superfinal consisting of the top two participants and a winner is chosen out of those two. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  00:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort! I guess their own rules don't make sense then because if there are 10 songs to begin with and 2 songs are being eliminated during each of the two shows, then they would be left with 6 finalists rather than 4. Pickette (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * there would be 4 in the final. 2 get eliminated from the first show, 2 from the second, and 2 from the third (3 x 2 = 6), leaving 4 remaining in the final.  It's a bit X-factor-esque, though.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  02:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bear with me, I'm re-reading it again, and it says something about 16 participants, as well as a "super final".  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  02:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are going to pick 10 songs first and then hold auditions for artists that applied in order to match the best artist to each of the 10 songs. They are also setting aside 6 reserve songs (which is where 16 is probably coming from). The calculation you did above would make sense, however, the first semi-final is just a showcase show without an elimination. So I think maybe whoever wrote their rules made a mistake. Pickette (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They probably had one too many vodka's when writing out the rules. Anyhow, I've had to change the ESC Bubble source that was used on the Latvian page, due to a previously discovered WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE issue, which has been noted at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and there is also a notice at the top of that talk page informing of the issue.  That has been done after a discussion between myself and CT Cooper, who thought it was wise to air caution.  Thankfully I've been able to replace it with a new source, which is safe.  Wikipedia (well not Wiki as a whole, but WP:ESC) has become under a lot of scrutiny from the EBU at the moment, with 2 of their editor's regularly contacting me via my talk page, which is raising some concern.  Both of those editor's have created Wiki accounts and attempted to edit articles, which is prohibited by conflict of interest.  One also self-cited their own website publication, which violated WP:SELFCITE (I swiftly removed the content).  They have both been advised that if they've published reports via Eurovision.tv (for whom they work for), that they are post sources via the article talk pages, so that we handle them and update articles accordingly - thus avoiding COI blocking sanctions.  Cooper and myself are somewhat bemused as to why both these EBU employees have decided to contact me rather than other project members - but as long as I keep myself professional, and not accept any forms of monetary payment for editing then I am within the rules.  Help from the EBU like this, is good, as it means we are getting 100% accurate sources, without them or us wandering into trouble.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  03:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace
Please look here : Template:Infobox_person

On almost all other articles about all persons preferred to use the birthplace at the time of birth. --Aca Srbin (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UCT)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 43
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 13:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Moscow in the Türkvizyon Song Contest
That was a nice find, but I think Eurovoix may be getting confused. I somehow doubt it would be Moscow City, but more like Moscow Oblast. Considering other Russian Oblasts are taking part, then it makes more sense that this would be Moscow Oblast, rather than a city taking part in a "country" contest.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  09:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just looked deeper into this, and yes it is the Oblast Region. Somehow Eurovoix have used the flag of Moscow City, rather than the flag of Moscow Oblast.  At least we know our Cities from our Oblasts when it comes to flags lol.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Jjj, we have a reliability issue in terms of Eurovoix. They have been good up until now.  Today they published the "running order" draw and cited Turkvizyon.tv.  I've checked that website and no running order has been published by them.  Also Eurovoix said in that report that Northern Cyprus and Tuva had withdrawn.  Both countries are still on the official Turkvizyon website as participating.  And they've recently published the artist and song for Tuva too.  In their report about Russia becoming Moscow (and they used the Moscow City flag), they cited a Russian website.  I looked into that cite and found it stated Moscow Oblast, not Moscow City.  Yet Turkvizyon website are now using the Russian flag again and have changed their data to show Russia, not Moscow.  What do we do?  Eurovoix have been good so far, this puts them into unreliability territory.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd never question Eurovoix's reliability as they're probably my most trusted ESC website, but I don't think I'm the right person to ask. I don't follow Turkvizyon at all and just decide to help out with the article occasionally when I spot sources online and notice the article is very out-of-date. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  21:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Turkvizyon.tv is the official website for Turkvizyon - just like Eurovision.tv is official to Eurovision. I cannot see an official website not publish accurate information!? But I cannot get round my head how Eurovoix have published news citing Turkvizyon website, when the official website doesn't even hold such news.  Really got me questioning their reliability status now.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  21:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

79.165.225.180 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC) on the official public VK page of the band "Kazan World" you can find pages of the members that are everyone from Moscow, not Moscow Oblast, and in Russia Moscow, St Petersburg and Sevastopol are separate Federal subjects called Federal cities, Moscow Oblast and Leningrad Oblast are only subjects that do not contain their capital cities. Maybe we should use the flag and name of Moscow?

Dear 79.165.225.180; a page from Vk cannot be used as a source due to it being a type of social media. Wikipedia builds on consensus which was reached.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So what about this? there is no word about replacer being Oblast, and Moscow is not part of Moscow Oblast. Moscow is independent region, you can find it anywhere, e. g. on Wikipedia, or the text of the Constitution of Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.165.225.180 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Argue until you're blue in the face, nothing is going to change the fact that a consensus was reached. And I do find it somewhat rude that you have barged into this conversation that is clearly between myself and Jjj.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  01:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Wes, I've been meaning to tell you this but if I'm not mistaken I believe the flag of Moscow City was used during the broadcast of Türkvizyon. So even though this IP user's sources are completely invalid I don't believe his point is. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  02:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We're going to need a more explicit and air-tight source then to verify a different flag; as the turkvizyon website used the one that we are currently using. Bit odd that they would use 2 different flags, one on their official website and a different on upon broadcasting - unless that was the Tatarstan broadcasters error? I'm just in the middle of assessing 180 unassessed articles that I found listed at Category:Unassessed Eurovision articles, so not having much chance to go through anything else in more depth at the minute. But if you could be so kind as to add it to my "to do list" on my user page, then I have a reminder once I get a spare minute or three.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  02:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Zhanar Dugalova
I've removed the citation you used to verify the singers date of birth. It has been previously established that last.fm should not be used to verify information, purely as the content is not professional added, but user-submitted - thus verifiability cannot be determined. Also the article may fail notability guidelines which we need to be careful of. Not everything requires an article immediately, and this has been a long-term problem for Project Eurovision over the years. Members get a bit overzealous and feel everything needs an article, spend so much time working on it, only for it to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMG and it gets "mass support" at an articles for deletion debate. Might be worthwhile in future to add potential new articles to WikiProject Eurovision/Article requests and then consideration can be taken into whether or not one should be made, or use your sandbox, and then ask someone at WP:AFC to look into it. Saves having an article get deleted, as it would be only a draft within userspace.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I created the article was because Farid Hasanov had an article created after he won last year. Also, I added the last.fm source just because that was what was used on the Norwegian wikipedia to verify her birthdate. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  20:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Last.fm is a strange website. Both you and I could easily create a user account on there, like we have done here - and then start editing the bio profiles.  That would be why last.fm is avoided as a source, especially for citing living people.  Yes, Farid Hasanov has an article too, and I tagged that for notability, as I think that too could end up getting nominated for deletion.  I'm checking all the policies first, because if I cannot find anything that would save it, then I'll be nominating the article for notability review.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision - Urgent Message
Dear Project Eurovision Member,

There is a serious discussion been created at the WikiProject Eurovision talk page that requires utmost attention from all, or as many members as possible, as this could bear a huge impact on the project as a whole. Please click here to read the discussion, and participate peacefully. Thank you. This message was delivered at 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Project Eurovision Newsdesk

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Traffic (Estonian band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluegrass. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolene at ITN
Hi, I have nominated Rolenes Miss World win for a mention at ITN. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX
Please do not add infoboxes to articles unless the box adds value to the article. Most articles do not need infoboxes. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Rolene Strauss page
I defend my revisions based on the following points:

I. The clarification that Rolene Strauss is a citizen of an African country is not for purpose of distinguishing whether she is African or not, but rather to not preclude people of African descent. I have made the same revision to page Agbani Darego, a black African, as I feel that saying that she is the first black African to win Miss World is misleading when other black people of the African Diaspora, who self-identify as African, have previously won. In other words, the distinction of "citizen of an African country" is not to exclude non-black people but rather to include black people taken by slavery to other countries, who are not citizens of an African country, but who who self-identify as African.Tennessee7 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

II. The term "African" used alone does imply a member of the black race.

This is not changed by highly intellectualized and localized desires among elites for it to imply otherwise, as this implication is rested not in politics, but demographic facts.

While I understand that race, and who is "African" is a sensitive topic among some people, particular those resident in southern African countries, the commonly associated perceptions of the term "African" does imply membership into the black race. Africa always has been and is currently recognized as the land from which people of the African Diaspora originate, much as Asia is the historical place of origin for Asian people, and Europe is the historical place of origin for white people. This is particularly true, as:

1) those from Northern Africa are commonly identified and self-identify as Arab, North African, & country specific identities. 2) the population of Sub-Saharan Africa is over 99% black. 3) South Africa itself is 80% black with 90% of the population having at least half black ancestry.

As such, to simply refer to Rolene Strauss as African, and to laud her as "the first African since..." is genuinely misleading. This is also as disingenuous as description saying a sprinter from Jamaican who emigrants to China is the first person of Asian origin to win the Olympic 100 meter gold-medal.

III. The historical context of racial discrimination in European dominated beauty pageants sets the context.

The issue in identifying Rolene Strauss solely as "African," and particularly in lauding the accomplishment as "the first African since...," is that it misleads the reader into believing that her achievement signifies an act of progression towards acceptance and opportunity for the black people of Africa, and of overcoming racial discrimination. That not to demean Rolene Strauss or what she signifies to South Africans, but winning the Miss World title as a white woman does not signify the accomplishments implied by the previous wording.

The historical context is undeniable. Indigenous African people were colonized and subjugated at the hands of European colonizers. Some places, such as South Africa, continued to experience racial discrimination into the 1990s. Just because many black elites and whites living in Africa have easily moved past that history, it does not mean that non-elite blacks have escaped the legacy discrimination that flows from this history. Consider this:

European or American controlled beauty pageants have historically ascribed a standard of beauty that is white or very white-like in appearance. Even the black women that have won such pageants often lack negroid features. They tend to have thin lips, thin noses, and other features commonly associated with white women. Therefore, for a black woman to win one of these beauty pageants has deep significance to blacks across the African Diaspora. Such a victory establishes acceptance by the people with power of black features which have historically been ridiculed and demeaned as ugly. Those victories tell small black girls struggling with issues of self-worth that they too are beautiful.

Again, not to demean Rolene Strauss, but her victory does nothing to move African people forward in the European/American controlled universal standards of beauty. She simply fits the historical standard.

IV. It is actually counterproductive

To classify Rolene Strauss simply as "African" is to say that this is the beauty standard to which all people of African descent should strive. To laud her as the "first African to win since..." is to say: "This is the standard we expect people historically classified as African to meet to be considered beautiful." The truth is that Rolene Strauss' victory has no significance in a racial context. Geographically, she's the third white woman from South Africa to win. Racially, she's perhaps the 70th or 80th white woman to win. The rush to identify her as "African" is not to bring about acceptance of a different standard of beauty or move into a post-racial society. It is simply to sensationalize the story.

In trying to conflate her geographical status with one commonly recognized as being indicative of black people, it actually marginalizes the achievements of people of such as Jennifer Hosten and Agbani Darego who victories helped to widen the European/American standard of beauty, increasing opportunities for black models, actors, and entertainers in mainstream media.

While I understand the desire among intellectual elites to live in a post-racial society, I generally see the problem with such visions being that the elites are very distant from the realities of the non-elite minorities. The realities of those attending elite international boarding schools and Ivy League universities where the black children of high level government officials interact with the children of privileged whites is not the reality of the poor black farmer in Malawi or the inner-city African-American men in the U.S.

V. Simply writing facts out of existence violates Wikipedia's policy of being neutral

You cannot change the facts of who someone is, or what other people have done simply to push an agenda. Wikipedia is a place for facts. It is inappropriate change undisputed facts, or to claim that undisputed facts are unsupported. Simply because one feels that race should not be an issue does not negate the fact that a person is a member of a racial group. This is particularly important when an attribution has the potential to be misleading, as is the case here.

I welcome your comments in response, but please allow the revisions that I have made to stand or add a banner identifying that the accuracy of this article is in dispute, and the neutrality is questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennessee7 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I get to your other points I'd first like you to see how other pages of white South Africans are organized. For example, Charlize Theron. It doesn't say anywhere that she's a "white African". Instead, it simply states the nationalities that she is. If you happened to find reliable sources for Strauss's ancestry and add it to the article, that'd be a different story. And honestly, although it seems obvious that she's white, there's no sources anywhere that confirm this. Sure, this sounds dumb but some people don't display obvious characteristics of their race which is why sources are absolutely needed while adding information on race and ethnicity. Now on to your points.

Also, just one final statement. If the roles were switched, and the winner happened to be from the Netherlands but was of Ethiopian descent (despite her family likely living in Europe for generations), you'd want to change the introduction to "an Ethiopian beauty pageant titleholder who's a citizen of the Netherlands"? In my mind that is offensive to the person, but this is just my opinion. Thank you and I hope we can have a civil discussion about this. { [ ( jjj  1238 ) ] }  20:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Calling her a "citizen of an African country" rather than "an African" is unnecessary and could be considered borderline offensive. For example, Loreen (singer) is an article about a singer from Sweden. She was born in Sweden and raised in Sweden, however she isn't of Swedish ethnicity, she's Moroccan. Her article states that she's "a Swedish singer" because she is. Not "a Moroccan singer who's a citizen of Sweden" because that can come off to some people as racist, although the intentions most likely were harmless. It's just that it seems to enforce that only people of a certain ethnic group can consider themselves a certain nationality. I don't really know how to explain it but I hope you understand my point. The fact is that Strauss IS an African. She was born in an African country, was raised in an African country, and is a citizen of African country. Africans can come in all sorts of races, just like Europeans and Asians. Although Africans are typically thought to be black, Europeans white, and Asians Asian, due to immigration and imperialism this isn't always the case.
 * 2) Sure typically most people would consider an "African" to be black, that isn't always true. It doesn't really matter what most people would "consider to be true" rather than what is true. Strauss is an African no matter what race she is. People born and raised in America are American, even though the majority of Americans don't even have Native American blood in them. Your comparison to a Jamaican immigrant to China also does not imply. Strauss is not an immigrant to South Africa, and it's actually very likely her family has lived in South Africa for generations. If someone from China was of Jamaican ancestry but has lived in China their whole life and is a citizen of China, then they'd be Chinese. Just of Jamaican origin.
 * 3) Your next point is completely unnecessary. Stating that she is one of the few African winners doesn't display anything, it's a fact. She is one of the few African winners. If there were only three European winners in a European-based pageant the winner's page still would probably read "She is the third European winner" or something like that. This has nothing do to with progressiveness, just facts that she is one of the few winners from Africa.
 * 4) Once again another unnecessary point. I don't know if this is how you just happened to interpret it but it is not how it should be at all. Just because she is a winner of Miss World that happens to be from Africa does not mean this is how all African women should look. Honestly, that is quite absurd and I don't know what made you think that.
 * 5) I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here? English is not my first language so this might be because of a language barrier.

As a preliminary matter, it seems that you have missed the reversion I made prior to posting to your page. I accepted your argument in part and removed "white South African" leaving it to stand as simply "South African."

"South African" is a term of nationality. Moreover, due to the globally known history of South African, the term "South African" does not automatically imply black.

I placed the "white" before South African in specific reference to later use of the term "African" in the article, but I agreed with your thoughts that this created an unnecessary race reference at that point, and I therefore agreed to remove it, and made that correction prior to writing you.

I think your lack of awareness of this change may moot some of your points, particularly regarding nationality.

However, I'll go through them nonetheless specifically in regards to my stance that referring to Strauss as solely as "African" is misleading.

I. Other White South Africans

I think your argument about other white South Africans is a false comparison. Let's take your examples of Charlize Theron for example:

1) There is a photo of Charlize Theron on the page. As anyone can see that she is white, there is no need to state the obvious. This moots the need to specifically identify her by race.

2) Likewise, the addition of a photo of Rolene Strauss would eliminate the need to make much of the racial distinction. It gives the reader a proper context in which to understand any significance that her victory may have.

However, as much Wikipedia material is open sourced without accompanying photos, the text itself must be accurate.

Moreover, the accomplishments of Charlize Theron are not lauded in a manner that implies that she is black. While her South African nationality is recognized, she is never referred to as "the first African woman to win an Oscar." Nor is she referred to as being either "African" or "African-American," although she holds US citizenship (I will discuss this in further detail later).

II. What is your motivation?

I worry that we come to this with very different motivations. My concern is the accuracy of information on Wikipedia, and clarifying statements that can be misleading. This is ensure that Wikipedia is a resource that delivers the best information that it can.

I hope this is also your primary concern. You make points about racism, being offended, and take normative positions (how you think things ought to be), but I hope you agree with my contention that we cannot sacrifice clarity, which is critical to build a good reference source, in order to push a social agenda, as this is always inappropriate for a reference source.

I respond to your social concerns to try to be sensitive to your perspective, and share my own, but such an agendas and opinions cannot supersede the ultimate goal of an encyclopedia: to deliver accurate facts.

III. Confirming Strauss is white

Really friend? Are we going to claim that undisputed facts are truly in controversy based on far reaching philosophical speculation? Perhaps Jacob Zuma is just a very well tanned white man.

Nonetheless, my concern is not what race she wants to be or what race others want her to be. My only concern is that the article neither falsely implies that she is black nor misleads the reader into believing that her victory at Miss World carries the significance of racial progress.

Her physical look is that of a person of European origin, and as such she shares the racial traits of the vast majority of Miss World winners. These traits are generally not reflective of someone who is genetically African, and her victory does not signify a de-emphasis of whiteness as the Western standard of beauty. This are simply facts.

IV. "Citizen of an African country" rather than "an African"

There are plenty of precedents regarding how a term referring to a regional identity, such as "African," should be used. I will reference plenty. However, none of this precedence indicates that Strauss should be referred to as solely as "African."

"Citizen of an African country" is appropriate as it is clear and unambiguously accurate while solely identifying her as "African" can be misleading, as it implies that she meets the universally accepted anthropological definition of the term "African."

I understand that you do not like this definition and wish it to be more expansive. However, for purposes of editing Wikipedia, our role is limited to accurately conveying facts using the commonly accepted and recognized definitions of the key words. This is not the place to redefine the meaning of those words.

Under the universally accepted scientific and anthropological definition of the term "African," an African is a person of African ethnicity or origin, and it generally refers to a sub-Saharan black person.

To this extent, maintaining accurate definitions is of such importance to scientist and anthropologist that they even go as far to group North Africans as a separate genetic group from other Sub-Saharan groups, although there is sufficient overlap to lead both anthropologist and geneticists to classify North Africans both as “Middle Eastern” and “African.”

I am not wholly insensitive to the personal desires of some to claim a sense of ownership of a region associated with a particular ethnicity, the fact remains that the commonly recognized definition of "African" contains a genetic qualifier.

Strauss is not ethnically African and she has no genetic link to Africa (her secret black genes withstanding). Neither one of us truly disputes that. As such, Strauss simply does not meet the commonly understood definition of "African."

I return to my overriding point that the purpose of Wikipedia is to convey accurate factual information in a manner that is really accessible to the reader. Of course, inoffensive language should be used when inappropriate (to further the goal of making the information accessible), but never to the extent that this effort to not offend interferes with the accuracy or completeness of the article.

To this extent, and especially when talking about something as a beauty pageant, which turns on appearance and a standard of beauty that has historically excluded the indigenous population, Strauss must be identified as being of a different race from the indigenous population.

Strauss did not contend with the barriers faced by African women in such contests of beauty, so it would be misleading to imply that she did. In this context, her race is important to accurately convey what her victory represents and does not represent. It would be simply inexcusable to say that her race does not matter in this context.

As "African woman" universally implies "black woman" to the vast majority of the world's population, Wikipedia fails in its goal to avoid unnecessary ambiguity and misdirection if it refers to Strauss simply as an "African woman." Hence, the description of Strauss as a citizen of an African country helps to avoid the patently false implication that she is black, although in truth, even this description does not go far enough to eliminate all ambiguity.

V. Loreen as Swedish

I have never heard of this person previously. I take you at your word that she is Moroccan. Please add that information and the source to the article if you have it.

A) To me, this is a actually a good example of an article not providing the type of factual information that many readers would seek. Is her ethnicity important to the article? Not particularly. Is her ethnicity a discernible fact? Yes. Is this discernible fact something that a reader MIGHT want to know? Yes!

By leaving out that information, the reader is deprived of a fact, and Wikipedia is left not being as comprehensive as it could be. Our concern is not why the reader wants to know a particular fact, only that all known facts are made available to the reader.

B) To get into the minutia of why you use this example, let's ask a question. Why is this person worthy of an article? She's a Eurovision winner and a popular singer. She was born and raised in Sweden, and her music is presumably of a particular style that originates in Sweden. Presumably, her sound is not significantly different from those of other Swedish artists in the same music genre.

So, in this case, her notoriety is based on performing music associated with a particular political entity and winning a contest that is about sound, not the appearance of the person competing.

Thus, in this case, her race genuinely has no relevance to the accomplishment, unless of course she is first person of a particular ethnicity to have won the contest. Nonetheless, it would still add further context, and improve the article to describe her as a “Swedish citizen of Moroccan origin.”

C) But let’s not stop here. Let's actually make the situations parallel so that a wholly accurate comparison is being made.

What if there had been a long history of Scandinavian women fairing poorly in beauty pageants because the people who had dominated ownership and control of such competition, historically found the Scandinavian look to be grotesque and unattractive?

And let us also say that the standard of beauty accepted by the those in control of these pageants specifically favored those with North African features, such that the vast majority of the previous winners had either been North African or looked visually very similar to North African women.

In fact, what if it had been so hard for Scandinavian women to break through in such contests that only two genetically Scandinavian women had ever achieved the accolade? And what more if the only two Miss Swedens to ever win the crown had actually been genetic North Africans in truth?

If Loreen then wins Miss World as Miss Sweden, should she be lauded as the first Scandinavian woman to win or the first Scandinavian woman to win since the last actual genetic Scandinavian won?

The answer is no. Although Loreen is Swedish by nationality, her win does not signify a breakthrough monent for women who are genetically Scandinavian. In truth, the look of a genetically Scandinavian woman is still reviled by the judges, even though the winner of Miss World is a citizen of a Scandinavian country.

To laud Loreen as the first Scandinavian woman to win in those circumstances would actually undermine any progress being made towards widening the standards of beauty that being pushed on the rest of the world by the powers that control the contest.

To day that a Scandinavian woman has emerged victorious is to empower and validate those who have historically discriminated against Scandinavian women. It gives them a free pass to sit back on the haunches and rest on their laurels, proclaiming that they have proven that they do discriminate against Scandinavian women, because they have elevated yet another “Scandinavian” to Miss World.

D) As I recognize that racial realities cloud the issue for you, let’s extend the comparison to music.

Imagine that there had never been a Eurovision winner from a Swedish country because Swedish music was loathed and detested by those who selected the winner each year, as were all other forms of music from Scandinavian countries.

What if Loreen was born and raised in Sweden, but performed Moroccan pop music instead of Swedish music? And let’s say that Loreen’s Moroccan music was consumed exclusively by Moroccans and had not come to be embraced as Swedish music itself. It's distinctly different from Swedish music.

Let's add in one last caveat and day that Loreen’s style of Moroccan music nearly always wins Eurovision. Now, let’s say Loreen wins Eurovision as Sweden’s entry performing nothing but Moroccan pop. Has a Swedish citizen won? Yes. Has Swedish music won? No.

E) Lastly, on the point of Loreen, you draw a false moral equivalency. This is not wholly relevant to my rebuttal, but I will point it out nonetheless as there is a danger in using false moral equivalencies to justify particular stances.

Someone being excluded from a definition because they are a historically oppressed minority is not morally equivalent to someone being excluded because they are not part of a historically oppressed group. Oppressed groups come together to generate the volume and resources needed to make progress. The oppresor groups fall in line with each other in order to continue oppression.

And certainly, being excluded for reasons of racial oppression is not morally equivalent to excluding a member of the very group that historically oppressed the group in which they now seek to include themselves.

There’s no need to delve into the history of imperialism and apartheid, but this is the same reasoning that prevents white Americans from claiming to be “Native American” or white Australians from claiming to be “aboriginal,” even though many white Americans and Australians were born and raised in those continents, and have been there for many generations. And moreover, white Americans and white Australians do not claim these identities, even when they form the overwhelming majority of the population of those continents.

VI. Jamaican Chinese & Ethiopan Dutch

Let’s examine the Jamaican Chinese example. Jamaicans, and other West Indians, have a history of disproportionately high achievement in Olympic sprinting events, historically representing Jamaica or Canada.

Likewise, black Americans, also have disproportionately high achievement in Olympic sprinting events. Asians on the other hand, have historically faired extremely poor in such events. Please note that I’m not singling out any racial or ethnic group. I’m just picking some to use as an example.

First to correct one statement of yours: a person is not automatically “Chinese” because they are born and raised there. Chinese law requires that a person born in China have at least one parent who is a Chinese citizen, or two parents that are stateless, in order for that person to be a Chinese citizen.

However, even if a person of Jamaican origin is born and raised in China, and granted Chinese citizenship, prevailing at the Olympics in the sprints does not signify that those of Asian descent have made a breakthrough in the area of Olympic sprinting.

As such, it would be wrong to hold a China born and raised Usain Bolt, Jr. out as the “first Asian to win an Olympic gold in the 100 meters.”

However, none of this is to negate any national pride felt by the Chinese people that someone born and raised in their country has won. He is of Chinese nationality if that has been granted to him.

Likewise, a Miss World from the Netherlands who is of Ethiopian origin, should be identified as "Meron Zenawei, a Dutch citizen of Ethiopan origin who won the 2016 Miss World title." I would also add, in her case, that she is just the third person of African origin to win the title after.... Such an identification is not racist. It's factual and complies with all the universally accepted definitions of the words used.

Again, I would not refer to Meron Zinawei as being Germanic, or say that she is the 5th Germanic woman to win. "Germanic" refers to an ethnicity, and it is misleading to refer to Zinawei as being Germanic simply because she is a citizen of a Germanic country.

Thus, it is appropriate for the people of Sweden and South Africa to take pride in the achievements of Loreen and Strauss, and laud them as high achieving Swedes and South Africans. Those are nationalities after all.

VII. Barack Obama as "Polynesian"

Holding citizenship of a country in a particular region does not entitle the holder to be referred to as belonging to the ethnicity associated with that region, nor does it infer an ownership of the culture and heritage of that region.

Consider the case of American president Barack Obama. He was born and raised in Hawaii, which is clearly a part of the Polynesian region of the world. The indigenous people of Hawaiian are the Hawaiian people, and they are indisputably Polynesian people.

Barack Obama is sometimes referred to as being from or raised in Hawaii. On the rare occasion, he is referred to as being "Hawaiian" although this is always in reference to his former legal status as a resident of the State of Hawaii, not to note that he is actually a genetic Hawaiian.

Although native Hawaiians and other residents of Hawaii are generally happy to claim him and laud him as the "first Hawaiian born" president, no one goes so far as to laud him as being the first Polynesian president.

In truth, Barack Obama likely had the same level of exposure to Polynesian culture as Strauss has had to African culture. They were both born and raised in political entities within a larger region associated with a particular ethnicity that has a term referring to that regional ethnicity. Yet, there is no push by Obama or other non-indigenous Hawaii residents to co-opt a term that explicitly refers to the socio-ethnic identify of the indigenous people of the larger region.

VIII. You cannot stop being “African”

In the U.S., people are often identified ethnically and by nationality. Thus a person is Jamaican-American or Asian-American. This is done to make critical distinctions necessary to promote social progress.

If a person is truly of African-origin, they cannot stop being "African" by simply leaving the continent. Their African character is engrained in their history, their social position, their culture, and upon their skin. Being black or African is an immutable characteristic and a condition that warrants special protections in most countries throughout the world, due to the history of discrimination against African people.

Thus, U.S. citizens of African origin are legally classified as African-American, although many have not lived in Africa for hundreds of years.

Likewise, there are Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Cubans, Afro-British, Afro-French, and many other people with identities rooted in being African. What makes them African is rooted in their genetic makeup and the shared historical legacies that come with that, one of the most prominent being the need to overcome the oppression and discrimination that is based on being of African origin.

For someone like Strauss, any identity as “African” will eventually be lost simply by relocation to another continent, as there is no actual genetic tie to the continent.

A prime example of this is one that you raise: Charlize Theron. She is not an "African-American." She is never referred to in the media as being "African," or "African-American" although she retains her South African passport (technically, becoming a US citizen entails official renunciation of previous nationalities).

Theron enjoys a life of white privilege in the U.S., Abbs enjoyed it previously. This included the socioeconomic discrimination, which to this day makes it easier for a white South African to enter the U.S. than a black one. She was able to immigrate to the U.S. as a single woman without a job. This would never happen for a black person from any country.

This also includes greater access to roles in Hollywood, the ability to live free of fear of the police, being treated with respect and dignity everywhere she goes, and a myriad of other privileges that had given her a comfortable life in America. Such privileges are rarely afforded to a person of African descent living in America, who cannot simply cast off their African identity when inconvenient.

If Theron had any notable ties to "African" identify based on being born and raised there, this certainly would have carried over in how she related to her fellow Africans. In theory, she should relate to other Africans, particularly South Africans (regardless of color), better than she relates to White Americans.

However, Theron has dated exclusively white American men in a city with millions of people of African descent, including thousands who recently immigrated from Africa, and hundreds that immigrated from South Africa in specific. And, all of her close friendships that have made it to public light have been with white Americans, not other Africans. She did adopt a black child, but not one from Africa, and there is no evidence that she is raising him to have an affinity to African culture or identity.

In sum, even among those non-black people who seek to claim an African identify, they can readily abandon it when it no longer suits their purpose. That in of itself distinguishes them from the people who wear their African identity as an immutable trait that follows them wherever they go, and who must live with the consequences of bearing the identify that they were born into.

Ironically, in America, one can legally self identify as black. It's foolish for a black person to lie about this, but the option does exist. The black American community would have welcomed Charlize Theron to stood identify as a proud African-American woman, but she chose to toss aside her African identity to benefit her career.

Charlize Theron is not African. She is simply a white American woman who was born and raised in the privileged class of apartheid South Africa. She is a living demonstration that any tie that a white person has to African identity is one that exists only so long as the person remains physically on the continent, and even then, only as long as the African identity is convient.

Any connection as untenable as that, is simply too weak to be considered a connection at all.

Charleze Theron is no more African than Barack Obama is Polynesian.

IX. You question how I come to the conclusion that lauding Strauss as "the first African to win since..." reinforces the stigmatizion of African features. I have already explained this point, but in sum, it says "this is the representation of ultimate beauty among African women: long flowing hair of a texture associated with Europeans, low cheekbones, thin nose, thin lips, gray green eyes, and white skin."

My qualifications to speak to impact of referring to Strauss as merely an African woman upon black people not only in Africa, but throughout the world is rooted in years of multidisciplinary study of African people and African culture, which has included perspectives (and extensive coursework) in the fields of psychology, sociology, economics, law, genetics, and anthropology.

In fact, I hold a degree from one of the world's leading universities in African and African-American studies. I hold a second advanced degree from yet another top University focused on legal systems, customary law, citizenship, and legal classification and identifies within the African Diaspora.

I do not say this to belittle your perspective, but simply to explain my base of knowledge about the psychological impacts of presenting a white beauty queen as simply being an “African” beauty queen. If the idea that this causes a detrimental impact to Africans (and members of the African Diaspora) sounds absurd to you, I think this speaks to being somehow removed from the black experience, and the constant battle to overcome the Western dominated media portrayals of white as beautiful, and black as ugly or dirty.

Nonetheless, I say again that this is irrelevant, as the overriding concern is to include all relevant facts and ensure that the content of the article is not misleading.

A personal opinion:

This is my personal opinion on the issue. The last time I was in South Africa, I stayed in Rondebosch in Cape Town. The owners of the home where I stayed, dear friends of mine (and white), doggedly trumpeted themselves as being African. They were fiercely liberal and boasted nonstop of how they had always been against apartheid in principal. Yet they lived in a mansion while all of their black servants lived in shanties in the Langa Township.

Worse yet, they insisted that their staff enjoyed living in the townships for the sense of community. To this day, I cannot determine how they came to that conclusion, as the maids and cook were all unabashed about explaining that they were forced to live in horrid conditions because they were paid so little, and needed to send as much as possible to their parents who were taking care of their children so that they could work.

Essentially, my well-intentioned friends had no idea what it meant to be African. There is a deep divide between them and African people. The history of poverty arising out of colonial oppression never touched their lives. They have never lacked the ability to obtain basic healthcare. They’ve never had to watch hundreds of thousands of people who look like them be left to die, because they are not a priority to a white dominated world. They have never had to grow up in a township, or in a housing project. The reality that someone as young as 25 may have had their educations compromised by apartheid, does not register with them.

They have never been denied visas to leave while the other races are freely given them. And when it is convenient, especially overseas, they readily switch off their “Africanness,” something that a person with African blood cannot do. While people with African blood are harassed and discriminated against in nearly all parts of the world, white residents of Africans are simply recognized as being white, and are given every benefit that comes with that.

My friends continue to live elite lives built on the backs of the African people, inheriting generational wealth derived from exploitation of black people, and continuing such oppression to this day by paying their own staff as little as they can, not as much as they could. African art fills every room of their house, and they are knowledgeable about African music and culture, but they are not African.

Non-black people in Africa have not departed with the massive wealth built on the backs of African people. They are not sacrificing comforts and luxury to assist the indigenous people at having even a basic quality of life. They will never give up gated communities to live in Townships, and walk the actual experience of African people. They will never be in danger of being gun downed by police for protesting against their working conditions and wages imposed on them by a company their stole their land in the first place of the auspices of a colonial apartheid acquisition of rights to indigenous lands.

Moreover, whites do not share the genetic and cultural history that existed for millenniums prior to the first colonial invaders arriving. In fact, the footprint of large populations of whites in Africa has been largely negative up until recent history. There was slavery and colonialism, and even after the world had largely moved off of this type of severe racial castigation, apartheid continued in South Africa until the 90s. Today, DeBeers and other white-owned mining companies still rob the richness of the land, while exploiting black mine workers.

None of this is to say that every non-black person is engaged in such behavior, or his so out of touch. However, black people share a common collective experience, and the term “African” defines this group, culturally, socially, genetically, and anthropologically. Although "black" is often used interchangeably with "African," strictly speaking this is not the term that captures genetically African people, as other black peoples exist who are not African (most notably among Melanesian and Oceanic populations). When so much has already been taken from black people, why would anyone be fixated on also taking their identity of being “African?”

Tennessee7 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I am the sister of Hassan and Ibrahim and would like to contact you to discuss some topics with you. If you have registered on Facebook, they will ask you to contact me on https://www.facebook.com/merlin.игнатова. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geomona (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of Major Competion(s) field for upcoming pageants in Infobox pageant titleholder
I have raised this issue on the talk page for the template. My opinion is that the field should not be used to list pageants that have not yet occurred. We don't know for sure that the person will actually enter the future pageant since they could die, be too ill to participate, withdraw for some reason, or be disqualified. I don't object to mentioning in an article that a state title qualifies someone to represent the state in the next Miss USA pageant, but I think listing it in the infobox it too close to WP:SPECULATION. This same issue shows up on many of the current state title holders. I'll fix it on all of the articles if consensus is that this usage is not correct. Your edit summary [here] suggesting the only reason Alexis Railsback is notable is her future participation in a pageant is not valid. The AFD will determine if she is notable, and so far the only reason put forth is her current state title. Meters (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 44
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 18:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Türkvizyon Song Contest
It seems to be better if on Türkvizyon Song Contest pages names parts of Russia, Ukraine and Moldova etc will be not only with a flag of this part, and with flag of the whole country, like it was on the TV broadcast in 2014. People often don't know part of what country it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.165.225.180 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if this is something you think will benefit the article you'd have to start a discussion here. You can't just make all these changes because you believe they're "better", Wikipedia is a whole community with many varying beliefs and we need to talk these things out before something's decided. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already left an explanation on the project talk page. But I shall repeat it here!
 * They only need to click on the name of the participating country to be able to discover which part of Russia, Moldova, etc they belong to. We cannot overkill on flag icons per WP:ICONDECORATION. Sticking to what was agreed and using the primary flag (for example Tatarstan) is sufficient enough. Deviating away from that may be seen as disruptive behaviour - as does edit warring which you have been undergoing on both the 2013 and 2014 articles and can result in blocking sanctions.
 * thank you for the good work and making sure things are in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies; as well as Project Eurovision article guidance.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  01:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Challenge: Battle of the Exes 2 Chart
If you want to change it, to the original chart, go ahead, cause I am still waiting for MY permission to change it.... Here's the chart:

Dome progress

 * Competition
 * The team won the competition.
 * The team did not win the final challenge.
 * The team won the "Power Couple" mission and put another team into the Dome.
 * The team was not selected to go into the Dome.
 * The team won in the Dome.
 * The team lost in the Dome and was sent to Ex-ile.
 * The team was in Ex-ile during said episode and was still participating in the game.
 * The team lost the Ex-iled match, and was permanently eliminated from the game.
 * The team was removed from the competition due to illness/injury.

Bbfan23 (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about? { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  17:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment
Jjj, don't forget to assess newly created articles that you add the WikiProject Eurovision banner to their talk pages. Lately people seem to be just adding them and leaving it all to myself to do the assessment. I had to carry out assessment of 181 articles on 25 January (3 hours of editing time), only to have a further 50+ added within a matter of days. I don't mind doing them periodically, but when people are adding them and expecting me to carry out the clean up, is a bit unfair. If in doubt, then WP:ESC/A should be of help.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  22:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would definitely assess the articles myself, I'm just not sure how? { [ ( jjj   <font color="#000000">1238 ) ] }  22:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ESC/A provides instructions into the assessment process. The "class" scale depends on the size of the article, and details on how to determine that can be found at WP:ESC/A. The importance scale for Project Eurovision is determined on what the article is about, low for artists and song. Again full list can be found on that shortcut link.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  22:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I'll start assessing the articles now instead of just putting the banner on the talk page. <font color="#AB2B2B">{ [ ( jjj   <font color="#000000">1238 ) ] }  22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 45
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)