User:Knulclunk/Sandbox Aerosol Paint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aerosol Paint Entry is now online. Go there. This is just my sandbox now.
Please discuss there, or on my talk page

Contents

[edit] more thoughts on Lane's review and misogyny

Just to continue on this thought... I still find Lanes review ludicrous. I mean, the main characters, particularly Bigwig and Fiver, repeatedly and openly dismiss does as little more than breeding stock. But the rabbits show only selective empathy to one another throughout the whole story. Only Coswslip's warren do rabbits develop more complex relationships and are considered very "unrabbit-like". In fact, when faced with the apparent death of Fiver, his brother, Hazel seems to have little emotion about it at all, "it is a shame".




[edit] so very white

Cheeser has it. For example, the first part of Employment and economics is fine, as the examples are based on studies designed to explicitly identify if white privilege was a factor in hiring practices. The second paragraph only seems to compare income inequity, which can include multiple factors. As it is written now, it is not clear that white privilege leads to income inequality or that income inequality leads to white privilege.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)



[edit] so pretty

It hadn't bothered me. The opening paragraph "sociological concept" already implies that we are defining a concept that is held and discussed as theory. Most statements in the article are given as expert viewpoints or case statistics. Are you concerned that WP may be advocating the for the concept of white privilege in this article?


[edit] Why the My Lai massacre image?

My reasons are:

  1. It is both recent and historic. Recent enough that many editors directly remember it as news, but old enough to have been taught as history as well. Not current events.
  2. It represents an armed military attacking an innocent population. A classic example of a massacre.
  3. It is NOT part of an extermination porgram that was politically motivated. A classic massacre being that of armed troops acting outside of orders on a helpless population.
  4. It shows a well documented event representing two distinct parts of the world. (ie not ethnic or sectarian violence)
  5. The facts are not in dispute and it is well documented.
  6. Though grisly, the image is not unnecessarily horrific. It is not Wikipedia's job to be a "Never Forget" memorial.
  7. The image is well known, the photograph itself sparking outrage and debate.
  8. One picture will suffice. There is no way we can capture enough images to cover all of human suffering.