Talk:History of Somalis in Maine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Somalis in Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ci.lewiston.me.us/news/2006/08-03-06b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Somalis in Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/6fCPJhm3y?url=http://www.newsweek.com/lewiston-maine-revived-somali-immigrants-78475 with https://web.archive.org/web/20140909040435/http://www.newsweek.com/lewiston-maine-revived-somali-immigrants-78475 on http://www.newsweek.com/lewiston-maine-revived-somali-immigrants-78475

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 "attacks"

So, right-wing website "Maine First Media" published a video purportedly showing a "gang" of Somalis "attacking Maine residents" in Kennedy Park in May/June 2018. Somebody already added it to the article, complete with slanted language ("Somalis need to be deported" etc). How does Wikipedia handle that? I'm not sure what to do. Rewrite it? Remove it? We need guidance from a more experienced editor, and I'm not sure how to flag it for that? - Kzirkel (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I looked for better sourcing and saw only that every hate group in the US has picked it up - but so far nothing in the Bangor or Portland press so I just deleted it. The video looked like a bunch of young kids to me with one girl with a stick. I'll keep a watch on the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy attention. Deletion was my first instinct, but I wasn't sure about Wiki policy. - Kzirkel (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest info removed

I've removed information re an arrest of several Somalis. I wonder how many crimes that white residents recently committed are in any of our articles on Maine? This arrest is not notable. Gandydancer (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– By WP:DEFINITE and WP:CONCISE, the use of "the" should be dropped from these titles because it simply is not necessary to convey the topics of the articles. Additionally, the use of the definite article in these cases is clunky and should not be in use per WP:NATURALNESS. For now, we can disregard the "political correctness" argument that using the definite article to refer to ethnic groups in certain cases is "othering" and a social wrong. While I personally think this argument is compelling, the true test of whether referring to "Somalis" with "the" is acceptable can simply be conducted by looking at the wider media: In 2019, news articles mentioning "the Somalis" were a very small fraction (6.8%) of articles mentioning "Somalis". By WP:COMMONNAME, the titles of the articles should be changed to reflect this usage by the media. Mysterymanblue (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please cancel these many similar RM discussions and create a multi-RM if you want any responses. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration that may come with the large number of RMs. However, I feel like there may have been frustration had I not segmented the discussion into pieces. This is for the following reasons:

The number of pages to be renamed is quite large, and to put them all into one discussion is excessive.
While most of the pages are "History of the X in Y", not all of them are.
Groups such as the Huns are almost universally referred to with "the", whereas groups like "African Americans" are almost never described with that definite article. Each ethnic group falls somewhere on a spectrum between these two extremes, and this is largely what determines what the title of the article should be.
Forcing discussion about the merits of so many different group names into one thread would be needlessly confusing.

In deciding how to organize the RMs, I elected to group them by ethnic group rather than by geographic location, the form of the article title, or other factors. Reasonable people may disagree with this organizational choice, but I hope that it allows more in depth discussion regarding each ethnic group. Mysterymanblue (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck. I will stay out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support 100% (and Support other similar moves) per WP:DEFINITE, WP:CONCISE, and especially WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONSISTENT. You wouldn't say "I learned about the history of the Americans", you say "history of Americans" – and this isn't any different! (You're right, it sounds almost pejorative and othering with a "the".) Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% as well! Thanks for bringing this up. In so many ways we are prejudiced and not even aware of it. This very subject just came up the other day at the Trump racial views article in which it was noted that Trump calls black people "the blacks". It was an eye-opening conversation for me. It is so subtle and yet so true that it sets certain people apart from the "right" ones (the best ones) (we white folk) . Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for similar reasons to above. -Kzirkel (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. "The" is superfluous.--User:Namiba 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.