Talk:Masindi District

Africa: Uganda Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Uganda portal This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda (assessed as Mid-importance).

new addition

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I have just removed the following contribution:

The District is very dry, but fertile. Nonetheless, it is one of the poorest (and most rural) of Uganda's Districts.

International Care & Relief has a regional base in Masindi, working on a variety of proects with local children and young people.

I have substantial concerns about the accuracy of the first sentence. I remember it being dry, but not particularly so for northeastern and northern Uganda, and feel uncomfortable with a nonquantitative statement like that. "one of the poorest" needs to be qualified - as the entirety of the central north simply has to have a lower per capital GDP since most people don't have incomes. Similarly for "most rural". Given how many seperate questions I had for the first sentence, I may have been overzealous in removing the second. Do people think the NGO sentence is relevant? Cheers, Banyan Tree 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Given that the two issues in sentence two is what drove ICR to work there, I guess they're accurate. I no longer have access to the data, as the days when I was an ICR employee are long gone, but if you're determined, I'll get em.

Meantime, sentence 1 is a matter of perspective. For an equatorial country, Masindi is dry. For Uganda, Masindi is dry. For bordering Disricts, it isn't particularly.

Masindi's poverty is a function of the (even by Ugandan standards) high proprtion of agricultural workers.

How relevant ICR's work is, is to be judged by the impact it's having on communities in the District. I agree in a tiny article my words about the charity have a high prominence. But the article's never going to grow if you keep wiping out anything that is added.

I think it was rather arrogant and heavyhanded to simply revert the article, rather than question me in my talk, or on this page.

Just the kind of action that irritates and intimidates newbies like me.

Dweller 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since the comparative content appears to be the sticking point, why don't we just say "poor and rural", which I certainly don't disagree with. The comparative proportions of agricultural workers across districts is something different. The most recent study I've seen of the conflict-affected central north shows that most people are not working at all and have zero income outside of food aid, so maybe they aren't counted , but they are certainly poorer and would rather wait until numbers appear than have a challenged statement. I simply do not understand what the "poorest" refers to - the bottom 10%, 30%, 60%? Sorry about the second sentence, on reflection is was an overreaction on my part and should go back in to form a basis as the stub grows.

As for the process part of your post, I did bring it to the talk, as I indicated in my edit summary on the article. If I thought on balance that the first sentence was merely questionable, then I would have left it and started a discussion. I believe it to be incorrect or flawed and removed it, which I frankly encourage in editors. You are welcome, indeed encouraged, to prove me wrong. I've had all of the Ugandan districts pages on my watchlist since they were created, and I'm pretty sure that this is the first disagreement over content ever. It's very exciting. :)

In any case, let me try for a compromise wording and you can tell me what you think. - Banyan Tree 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great. Dweller 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you think? Your turn to tweak if you feel it's not acceptable. - Banyan Tree 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a thing of beauty. Now watch some twerp come along and revert it <joke> Dweller 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You must be new. There's always a twerp who comes along and messes it all up. - Banyan Tree 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Masindi District. 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:

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) 21:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic