User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 242

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 235 ← Archive 240 Archive 241 Archive 242 Archive 243 Archive 244 Archive 245

Racism on Wikipedia

In honor of George Floyd, I'm going to list some of the subjects on African Americans that should be included on Wikipedia. Excuses aside, discriminating against African American subjects and history is wrong.

FloridaArmy (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • These have nothing to do with racism, at least with Wikipedia itself. it is the fact that reliable sources of the past have not given sufficient coverage to many underrepresented groups (African-Americans, women, etc.) and as an encyclopedia, we require good sourcing to have articles on these people. There could other ways that the WMF could support a "Who's Who" of individuals that have met certain factors of importance but that's beyond the scope of WP. --Masem (t) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

We've had this type of debate before with articles about women in science etc. It's always difficult to create articles when there is a dearth of reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is racist or sexist.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe there could be a number of "Niche Wikipedias" wherein each one would address specific issues of importance like a "Wikipedia (Racism)" entity which would include all of the RS info which does not, for whatever reason, does not qualify for general Wikipedia inclusion? Just an idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There's certainly the idea of a possible Who's Who sister project that would be ideal to allow short bio entries for any person that just meets the basics of verifyability, with outgoing links to the wikis for those that actually have articles there. 1-5 sentences at most for any individual, possibly restricting this to deceased individuals (as I can see this being a honeypot for self-promotion if there's no clear guidance of whom can be added based on what sourcing). --Masem (t) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I like the Who's Who idea, it could actually be fluid as a place where full blown Wikipedia articles could incubate and blossom or where articles for deletion might be downsized to. The restrictions, if any, could be determined after it's up and running. This topic certainly is demonstrating a need for more attention being given to these individuals who have a critical effect upon human society; even if given a short attention span by RSs. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking some of those have RS like substantial obits that just have not been accessed, because such things require library research, and actually looking through a number of archives and specialty books. I think that's probably true for women, too. Relying on just the free internet, and not the library (or paid resources), is a difficulty for Wikipedia. We wish we were not limited by the easily surfaced on today's free internet, but in reality, we are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Regarding Draft:Thomas Cardozo, there is a section about him in the article about his brother, Francis Lewis Cardozo. In the first reference of your draft, which is Dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction, there seems to be a lot more information than you put in your draft. You might use the Francis Lewis Cardozo article in Wikipedia as a model to try and write an acceptable draft of an article about Thomas Cardozo and then argue for its inclusion by comparing it to the Francis Lewis Cardozo article. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, On comparison of the two articles with regard to sources, they look similar. In fact, the Francis Lewis Cardozo article uses a source that is about Thomas Cardozo for information on Francis Cardozo! The reason of the reviewer for declining Draft:Thomas Cardozo doesn't seem correct when just sources are considered. However, in the source Thomas W. Cardozo: Fallible Black Reconstruction Leader there is, "Although historians have frequently extolled Francis Louis Cardozo, prominent leader in the reconstruction of South Carolina, as a symbol of integrity, they have generally ignored his brother Thomas Whitmarsh Cardozo, Mississippi's superintendent of education, except to mention him occasionally as an example of Reconstruction venality and corruption." So it looks like Thomas Cardozo isn't as notable as his brother, although that doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, In any case, you can add information to the Francis_Lewis_Cardozo#Thomas_Whitmarsh_Cardozo,_younger_brother section of the Francis Cardozo article. If the section becomes too big, you may then be able to spin it off into its own article. See WP:SPINOFF. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there is no gray area over whether Mississippi's Black and Jewish Secretary of Education during the Reconstruction Era is notable. Nor is there any real case for censoring the other African American history related subjects I've listed above from inclusion on Wikipedia. An African American architect who served in the state's architectural board, co-designed an African American Museum and a significant African American community library (which not surprisingly also doesn't have an article). An African American recording artist and co-star in Western films who also appears with Frank Sinatra in a film with famed dace numbers. A Jamaican movie director and writer who has whole articles about him in the largest newspaper in Jamaica. An African American comminity in North Carolina. A predominantly African American high school with many decades of history, prominent alumni and faculty, one that's had a role in Civil Rights events and continies to make news. The truth is that African Americans don't have an advocacy group on Wikipedia and until a group like the NAACP or ACLU puts pressure on Jimbo & Co. discrimination against subjects related to African American history will likely continue on Wikipedia. Their schools. Actors. Politicians. Artworks. And community leaders have been deemed by Wikipedia consensus as being unworthy of inclusion. It's a clear as a sunny day sickness of institutional racism. We must do better. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no involvement with the WMF or board, only a volunteer, but as a volunteer, I can tell you the community here is very aware of the implicit discrimination against underrepresented minorities like African-Americans and the like that is a result of what external sources give us to work with, but by no means at all is there any type of active discrimination against these. We cannot create information out of a void to create articles on these, and historically, underrepresented minorities simply did not get the type of coverage that white males got in the media in pre-21st century media. But as Alanscottwalker said, there actually may be information out there but requires more effort to obtain, like actually going to libraries local to where these people lived and worked, rather than relying only on a Google search, as we're not at a point where everything's digitized yet. Key point here is that no progress or policy or guideline allows for discrimination, and that we would take action against editors that actually used their own personal ideas to discriminate on underrepresented persons. It is 100% wrong to accuse WP of actively discriminating here. Again to stress, we are well aware that there is implicit discrimination caused by the lack of coverage from sources for underpresented minorities; we can try to encourage more volunteer time to try to locate more sources, but the absence of sources is not WP fault.
I will say that we do want to make sure AFC standards are being applied equally. FloridaArmy's got several examples here of articles that I agree with the AFC reviewer that they can't go to mainspace, but I worry if we have articles on well-respected groups (white people) of equivalent quality of sourcing that do get pushed through AFC. That would be a problem. From what I've seen of AFC, this is is not the case; such an article would similarly be rejected for mainspace, but we have to be mindful of this Ideally, AFC reviewers should have a racial/gender/whatnot blind eye in reviewing and are only reviewing on source quality, which gets back to the main issue of implicit discrimination coming from external sources, not WP. --Masem (t) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't be the only one who wondered why such a prolific and experienced editor would be going through AfC for all their article creation. After a bit of research, I get the impression someone's trying to appropriate the furor over current events to continue a years-long battle with Wikipedia's concept of notability. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I came to a lot of grief for creating lots of articles on subjects like African American policians and a University in Jamaica. Some Wikipedians were outraged I was unable to include birth dates and background biographical information for former slaves who became politicians. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, For evidence that your proposed articles on African Americans have been discriminated against, you might show existing Wikipedia articles on white people who are less notable than the African Americans in your proposed articles. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Bob K31416, That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that doesn't usually work. We probably do have plenty of white folks who don't meet GNG, but have articles. However, many of those were created back before we began the more rigorous AfC process. Many of them should likely be deleted, but are just so low trafficked that nobody has noticed. TLDR: just because other articles are bad doesn't mean yours can be. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, Could you give an example? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I got Hugo Jeske and Nathaniel Kahn within the first ten clicks of the random article button. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to offer a, perhaps, somewhat unique perspective ( I grew up in the racially segregated South of the 50s but have lived in Canada all my adult life ) my point would be that if Wikipedia is, to any extent, influenced by Americans or American culture, it will more than likely have substantial systemic racism built into it, without the contributors of said racism being aware of it.
I'll give you one example. When my son was in first grade here in Toronto his best friend was the only black kid in his class. One day I asked my son whether he noticed anything different about L___. My son thought and then the light went on in his eyes, and he said. "He's taller than the rest of the kids".
Ironically, for the purposes of this discussion, some 18 years later my family was considering moving to Santa Monica, California. We had several real estate people showing us properties and every one of them showed us racial demographics about the schools located near the properties. Even I was surprised but my Canadian kids were shocked and 1 daughter blurted out "that's racism" to the real estate saleswoman.
After 1 day of that, the same son I reference above said; "Let's go home, we don't fit in here." Everyone else agreed. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems like Wikipedia is very aware of its issues with systemic bias and has taken many actions to address it. That doesn't mean there isn't room for further improvement, but it's not productive to suggest Wikipedia is ignorant of its issues and to ignore what's already being done. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia needs to figure out some way to identify and completely block out of content any systemic racial biases and do it now. If the argument is that racial bias is not here, that is a reasonable position, if true, but to say we are aware of it and doing our best, in 2020, is shameful in terms of our level of competence. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Institutional racism

Of course there is racism on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia it is called Institutional racism. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[1][2] Please don't be thoughtless and deny that racism exists on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William MacPherson of Cluny" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on November 23, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  2. ^ Home Office, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, Cm 4262-I, February 1999, para 6.34 (cited in Macpherson Report—Ten Years On in 2009); available on the official British Parliament Website.
I haven't yet seen an example of Wikipedia (ie, the WMF or groups of longstanding Wikipedia editors) engaging in "discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." As Masem says above, Wikipedia is already taking action to address issues with systemic bias, which is the closest thing you'll see to (but distinct from) institutionalized racism. Such actions are the antithesis of "ignorance" and "thoughtlessness." 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
That some people who are Wikimedians are working to eliminating institutional racism, structural racism, or systematic bias seems to make the point that there is a problem and not that doesn't exist. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As I stated, systemic bias is not the same as institutional racism. Conflating the two does not help your case, and misapplying the term "racism," here or anywhere, does a disservice to those who have fought against actual racial injustice. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@FloNight: Once again, do you have any examples of institutional racism through "prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping" by the WMF or a consensus of longstanding en.Wikipedia editors? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
From your comment and question, I believe that we have a different understanding of how structural racism, institutional racism, and systemic bias are related and the manner that they contribute to racial injustice. I don't have my textbooks available to me but an internet search show many books, articles, and websites that explain the way that an institution's policies, procedures and practices enforce racial injustice. One important point is that systemic racism may not be as readily obvious to those privileged by the system. It can be entirely unintentional. That does not stop it from being institutional and structural racism and systemic racism that causes harm through racial injustice. I have a few examples in mind that I can write up and share. It will be tomorrow my time. Thanks for engaging. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@FloNight: Well, even without examples, I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Systemic bias leads to disparities in our coverage of certain topics, such as those relevant to racial minorities. You consider this disparity to be "institutional racism," as it disadvantages those with interest in these topics, right?

While this is a reasonable stance, I take issue with the use of the term "racism" for this phenomenon. Systemic bias does not target just racial minorities, it affects all groups which lack coverage in reliable sources. Systemic bias also doesn't target racial minorities on the basis of race, again, it's a matter of topics that concern any minority groups only receiving a minority of the coverage in reliable sources. It may seem like a convenient shorthand to call this "racism," "sexism," or "[whatever]-ism," but such terms are misleading. To say there's a problem with "racism on Wikipedia" is to say that addressing "racism on Wikipedia" will address the problem. But of course, neither the WMF nor the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are racist, and many will take corrective action against any perceived acts of "racism." The claimed "racism" is merely a symptom of the overall systemic bias. Unfortunately, there is (to my knowledge) no widely-accepted term for the systemic disadvantages felt by underrepresented groups in general. But using the term "racism" necessarily draws focus when it's only one part of the larger issue of systemic bias. It distracts from the relevant aspects of the problem almost like a red herring, and inhibits discussion of the broader issues. It also leads to unnecessary confusion, as we had here. If FloridaArmy had instead said that systemic bias was preventing him from writing articles on certain topics, he would certainly have had less objections and more support. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

+1. It is always explained clearly when WP:GNG was the reason for declining a new article for submission. It isn't helpful to throw around allegations of racism or sexism in this situation. This doesn't, however, solve the problem that some people (including important living academics) do not have a great deal of coverage in reliable secondary sources. There has been a long discussion about this at WP:ACADEMIC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time I'm commenting on Jimmy's talk page, but I have very strong reservations with people insisting that systemic bias shouldn't be equated with institutional racism. Unfortunately, and I speak at this coming from a minority community on the English Wikipedia, it is emblematic of institutional racism, and I'll be very blunt here: many English Wikipedia editors from the Anglosphere — and especially some who've participated in this conversation so far — have absolutely no idea what we go through just to get our articles to stick, especially in the last 5-10 years.
The English Wikipedia's insistence on "perfection", whether at AfC, AfD or elsewhere, is particularly detrimental for us from minority communities. How many Wikipedians from the Philippines or India or Nigeria or elsewhere have been driven out of our community because some editor from the U.S. or the UK nominated the articles they put a lot of effort into making for deletion, all because they didn't have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG? I myself have had to deal with this, and at least I've survived long enough not only to be here today, but to also give a presentation on it. But because we're a minority community, we have to navigate through structures that the majority of our community — who just so happen to be composed of highly-educated white males from the Anglosphere — have built, and have built without any consideration for how it can affect those of us who aren't from that community and have to deal with all the handicaps that come with it. We used to allow stubs to stand and have others jump in to improve our work, but now we insist on having a perfect article the first time around or it will be nominated for deletion or declined at AfC? What on Earth happened to us?
Yes, Wikipedia isn't outwardly racist, and casual racism is something that doesn't prosper here. But we cannot deny that systemic bias exists, and that as a result there is a structural racism that we must continue to challenge and destroy so that we can have a more equitable, more equal and more open project that is accessible to all. But we are nowhere near there yet, and we have a lot of work to do. If I, with all my privilege, can recognize that systemic disadvantages exist on the English Wikipedia that happen to benefit a group of people at others' expense, I hope those who happen to be the most privileged (who also happen to be the very people having this discussion to begin with!) can recognize that too. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If you've read my comment above, you haven't understood it. I have other issues with your comment, such as your claims about stubs and your repeated assumptions of the demographic makeup of this discussion, but I see no point in engaging if you haven't digested this section yet. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Explaining to a person of color that he doesn't understand institutional racism is a new low point even for this page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I know I said above that the racism claims are like a red herring, but that actually is a red herring. Good show. It seems that "inhibits discussion of the broader issues" was prophetic. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I've read through your slides and that's not anything like institutional racism. You're identifying the fact that we have too many people that coming to Wikipedia without spending anytime to learn policy and guidelines and quickly grow frustrated and leave when their edits and contributes aren't kept. That's a systematic disadvantage but no specific group except for new users who have no patients to learn. We try to welcome new users but far too many run off to the worst possible places to make their first contributions, often driven by personal interest - such as running to pages about Trump or COVID - which creates major problems that we (experienced editors) can't afford the time to explain why there's problems with that. Or they come and try to write articles on people or topics they think are interesting but spend no time to read on WP:V and WP:N and we are forced to delete their contributions. Or a number of zillion reasons Ive seen. I come from the pre-Endless September days were "listen and lurk" was the recommended practice before contributing to a community but that's loooong gone today. People want instant gratification, but we require their contributions to meet very specific requirements. So yes, we are systematically acting against these types of people, but by necessity to keep the quality of the work, not because we don't want their contributions. This is blind to race, gender/etc.
Now you do raise a good point on topics outside the Anglosphere, but I do stress that our sourcing policies do not require English language sources except in the case of exceptional claims where we need at least some clear English translation. But we do have the issue that most of us in the Western countries NA and EU don't have good familiarity of what are reliable sources outside the Anglosphere so I can see a valid point that an AFC may be rejected because the reviewer can't make that distinction while they'd keep an AFC of similar sourcing quality based on clear English sources. That is something we wish we could do better on and that's not so much "racism" but "language-ism". All we'd can really do is hope that AFC creators are more helpful to explain non-English sources to AFC reviewers and AFC reviewers are more open to what are RSes from nonWestern countries. --Masem (t) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
First off, as someone who's been on Wikipedia since 2005, I can see on its face that the creeping bureaucratization of Wikipedia over the last decade or so has had a visibly detrimental impact on those who are less able to keep up. I have difficulty as it is keeping up with the volumes of policy and guidelines we have on the English Wikipedia, and that's despite me being very privileged for someone who happens to be a person of color. What about someone who doesn't have the capacity to keep up? As it is, we have difficulty retaining editors as it is in the Philippines owing to the many social, economic and political factors that coalesce to deter people from effectively participating. What more if they have volumes of policy that they need to comprehend on top of that? (Not to say that having policy is a bad thing, but in this case, perfect is the enemy of the good, and it clearly shows.)
We cannot deny the fact that there are people who are disadvantaged by the way Wikipedia is structured, and the ones who are often disadvantaged are people of color. For those who happen to identify with the majority community, they don't realize that there are clear injustices that can be perpetuated in the name of policy. No one questions the reliability of U.S. or UK sources, yet major sources in the Philippines — despite being in English! — have had their reliability questioned (which was my point re: sourcing). No one questions the notability of a U.S. or UK celebrity, yet African musicians need to have a Grammy to be considered notable. You can insist 'til kingdom come that our policies are "blind" to gender, race and language, but while that may be the case on paper, it is rarely the case in practice. I know, because I've lived it. Many of our editors of color have lived it. You're likely extremely fortunate to not have to go through what we face, so please, don't you dare tell me that I don't know what the institutional racism on Wikipedia perpetuated by systemic bias looks like.
The fact that I'm probably the only person of color actively involved in this discussion (a cursory glance at user pages tells me most of the participants here are either from the U.S. or the UK, with one person from Romania) says volumes about the immense privilege many English Wikipedia editors have. We're too busy with real life to edit Wikipedia, and yet when we're privileged enough to be able to edit Wikipedia, we fight the uphill battle to ensure our nations, our histories, our cultures and our languages are adequately represented to begin with — something that you are privileged enough to not have to experience. While you get to enjoy having meta-discussions on policy and culture, we have to contend with fighting for the reliability of sources, advocating for oral citations just to get our stories adequately represented, and, heck, just ensuring that we can even continue to exist on Wikipedia, given what we face to even get to the door. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I see a single editor questioning that source at that AfD, and the AfD (on a topic most relevant to the rural Philippines) ultimately received nothing but Keep !votes. This is an example of institutional racism? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"No one questions the reliability of U.S. or UK sources," yes, they do, all the time. Look at WP:RSN, or any of a number of AfDs. "No one questions the notability of a U.S. or UK celebrity," yes, they do, all the time. Articles for thousands of minor and aspiring celebrities have been deleted, including many from the US and UK. I hate to be insensitive, but please consider that your bias may be holding you back, just as you claim "most of the participants here" are blinded by their "privilege."

The only evidence provided in support of the idea that "racism" is the underlying problem here are appeals to emotion and claims that those participating 'just don't get it.' (FloNight left us high and dry) It's true, we don't get it, and that's because the arguments aren't very convincing. I can only imagine the emotions these discussions must bring out, but we need to have high-quality discussions if we want to resolve these problems. These comments based on passionate appeals and personal grievances are devoid of substance and do no one any good. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to stress to @Sky Harbor: that none of Wikipedia's policies and, only speaking as a volunteer, as best as I understand the Foundation's policies/principles, support any position that would allow racism or any form of discrimination towards an editor as a person. We actively fight that when we see it happen or are notified when it happens. This is something that the WMF appears to also be establishing to roll out across all its projects in terms of handling civility, harassment, and discrimination towards persons. This is where when people call "wikipedia is racist!" its a very iffy charge because we absolutely do fight that when the discrimination is directed towards editors as persons.
What most of your presentation was about - and what most of this discussion has been about - is the racism/discrimination of the contributions of editors, which we do not give any bearing onto the person itself, outside of behavioral issues that tie the contributions to disruptive behavior that has to be dealt with (eg someone going around adding a negative slur to all African-American articles and clearly non-apologetic for it when asked about it- which we'd likely quickly ban per my first paragraph). Someone going around editing in good faith African-Americans is fine, that implies nothing to us about the editor outside their interest in that topic area. It is just that now, we're talking an area that we know systematic bias can occur: that this is an underrepresented group and sourcing difficult if not impossible to find to justify full articles, and there's not many volunteers that share that interest to help in that area. That we may not allow many drafts of articles on African-Americans to stay in mainspace, or even have these deleted is not a reflection on the editor supplying these articles at all -- which is where some your argument seem to be directed at - only the fact your contributions to date may have problems with the systematic bias that Wikipedia has a hard time overcoming.
There are things Wikipedia can try to do better like getting more volunteers involved in various underrepresented areas (like the Women in Red project does) or other similar article drive attempts, but there's only so much we can do about the lack of sourcing issue that comes from how history has treated these underrepresented groups and that is something that an encyclopedia we simply cannot overcome. (Hence, why I suggested maybe whos' who type project within the WMF bounds that would serve this better?)
And I would emphasis that why WP is not being racist or discriminary to you as an editor, only your contributions, is that if you also edited in articles that were outside underrepresented topics, where there was plenty of sourcing, in addition to your attempts to bring underrepresented topics to mainspace (assuming all contributions made in good faith), we'd still readily accept the other contributions, as your contributions int he underrepresented topic area against have no impact on you as an editor or affect your other contributions. This might be a point to try to get across to new editors better: that working in an article area that is better covered in sources as your first experience rather than something obscure is likely going to make your initial editing experience better, or that if you opt to spend all your time in underrepresented topics that you're likely to see a lot of difficulty getting your topics into mainspace because of the known systematic bias and provide resources to groups that might be able to help. But to the point: none of this is reflecting on any racism or discrimination on the editor as a person themselves, only their contribution.
This is probably where a lot of new editors do leave WP early because they don't understand that WP makes this distinction between the editor and their contribution. They seem their edits reverted, and feel that we've slighted them as a person and run off. Again, maybe we can set up our newbie documentation better to make is clear that just because they were reverted, or their article wasn't accepted, that they would feel bad about themselves. This might help make it seem less like we have any racism/discrimination occurring from that point of view. But there's only so much we can force a new editor to read before they hit "publish" for the first time, and there will always be some that don't see a word of that , and then come running calling a reversion of their edit as "censorship" or "racism" or whatever to an ANI board, which is obviously no the case. --Masem (t) 16:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: I've started a discussion of the "Who's Who" idea here, as this section is getting unwieldy. 2601:194:300:130:F405:9C39:A641:A0B2 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC) <- Same anon, different IP
(Apologies for not responding yet. I had several unexpected visitors yesterday.)
First off, I want to say that I’m engaging on Jimmy’s talk page to have a dialog about a topic that I believe to be of utmost importance to the success of Wikipedia. I understand that racism is an ugly word and something that people want to distance themselves from. But in my view, organization and people who now pause and reflect about the ways that they perpetuate racism will be viewed in a positive way. Here and now, I encourage others to look deeper into the way that words and practices result in racism in our movement orgs and to provide a safe space for reflection about how change could happen.
Next, I want to make clear that I’m not an expert on institutional racism, structural racism, and systemic racism, but I did deliberately study the topic of racism over the course of a decade as an adult at a university to gain a better understanding of why racial inequity is persisting in major organizations (in particular health care orgs) in the United States. After I began editing Wikipedia in 2005, I expanded my studies and reading in order to gain a better understanding why Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is failing to meet the mission of providing free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Why does Wikipedia continue to attract a narrow demographic of people making it impossible to create unbiased content? How do the sociotechnical structures create barriers to participation?
I can see that recognizing and correcting the flaws that allow for systemic racism in Wikipedia will improve the lives of millions of people and change the course of human history. I’m not here to argue point by point for a win, or have anyone’s ideas dismissed as irrelevant because they are based on emotion, or someone's views declared invalid by the majority on this page. This approach is not going to move us toward having a community that is more welcoming of people who are underrepresented in the Wikimedia movement and on English Wikipedia.
I believe the vast majority people in the movement are not racist or sexist at heart and are capable of meeting the challenge. We need to make it a priority to look deeper into all of our processes and policies to see how they are impediments towards diversity and inclusion.
I also request that we show empathy for people who express concern about racism and other types of injustice especially as they share their stories.
I understand that some of these items I identify below are challenging to change based on the traditions of the movement. But it is essential that we look to the future instead of the past if we want to achieve our mission.
  • The success of Wikipedia is largely based on volunteerism where well educated men from North America and Western Europe are spending their leisure time creating article content and enforcing policies. Niche paying jobs like Wikipedians in Residence and ED, Event Coordinators, and Trainers are limited to a tiny segment of the community. Programs that allow for compensation by way of stipends or jobs to create content are regularly quickly dismissed by the majority of the community as undermining volunteerism. There are many cultures or subcultures that do not allow for leisure time to spend engaging with Wikipedia. People of color are significantly more affected by this. Because this is a known fact, I believe that this is an example of systemic/institutional/structural racism because our community has devalued the significance of lack of leisure in people of color from creating Wikipedia content and kept it as a barrier to creating content.
  • The moriturum/slow movement toward growing larger new affiliate Chapters is resulting in the more people of color being in smaller affiliates known as User groups. These smaller groups have smaller budgets resulting in a disporpatate amount of funds and resources continuing to go to the existing Chapters affiliates.. I have concerns that this overly cautious approach to funding affiliates who are in parts of the world that are underrepresented in the Wikimedia movement is rooted in systemic racism. This affects the ability of these groups to do the amount of training and recruitment needed to bring in a more diverse group of users.
  • The nobility policy needs to be reevaluated because it is not working. Far too many articles about people of color that have encyclopedia type content are deleted because of lack of understanding of their relevance to their culture. We own this problem and need to find the solution instead of placing the blame with the outside world.
I'm sure that some of these are hard to accept, especially on first reflection. But I hope that we can open a dialog about them in the coming months. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@FloNight: Thank you for your continued engagement. I too hope something productive can come from these discussions.
racism is an ugly word and something that people want to distance themselves from True, but not relevant to this discussion. As I stated above, referring to systemic bias as "racism" is simply incorrect and leads to confusion. You insist that we not dismiss concerns rooted in emotion, yet this seems just like an attempt to dismiss an argument because (you claim, despite evidence to the contrary) it's based on emotion.
I agree with you, in spirit, on many points. Systemic bias is one of the most serious and widespread issues affecting the content of the encyclopedia. Finding effective methods to further reduce the effects of systemic bias would greatly improve Wikipedia, and thus the experience of millions of people who use it.
As to your first bullet point, it is true, and unsurprising, that the editors of the English Wikipedia are mostly from English-majority countries, and that this contributes to systemic bias. Increasing editor participation from other parts of the world would help reduce the effects of systemic bias. I do not, however, understand how this would be considered "racism." People may not be able to contribute due to a lack of time or resources, but their ethnicity is not what prevents them from contributing. The same applies to people in the ethnic majorities who happen to be poor, busy, or uneducated. Nobody is barred from the English Wikipedia on the basis of race.
I can't speak to your second bullet point, although like many in the community, I think there needs to be greater transparency and accountability with how the WMF applies their ever-increasing budgets.
I disagree strongly with your last bullet point. The notability policy is one the most fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Notability is not a measure of importance. Articles are not deleted because someone thinks they lack "relevance." Notability is purely a matter of sourcing, and whether sources are available. This does put many cultures at a disadvantage, because they may lack the well-documented and widely available sources as had in the western world. But Wikipedia, by design, can only contain information available in reliable sources. To change that would mean that Wikipedia is no longer a tertiary source, and thus, no longer an encyclopedia. There are no easy solutions to this. All we can do is make the effort to locate, access, and promote reliable sources that cover the topics areas in which we're lacking. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation could fund and promote projects to improve access to reliable sources in developing countries, or even to create new reliable sources of information (ie, help to publish books and promote local media). But these solutions are tangential to Wikipedia itself.
And therein lies the crux of my contention. Changing Wikipedia won't solve problems that aren't actually Wikipedia problems. The WMF and the Wikipedia community can exert their influence on the outside world in ways that benefit Wikipedia, but Wikipedia, by design, shouldn't be exerting it's influence on anything. It's very tempting to think that the solution to these problems might be as simple as changing a few lines of code, or a couple of guidelines, or reallocating some budget, but the issues driving the problems are far larger than Wikipedia. It is absolutely worth the effort to improve access to information and increase representation online for marginalized groups, and I applaud those who do so. But changing Wikipedia, in an attempt to change the world, will not only have minimal effect on the world, but would also result in massive collateral damage to Wikipedia. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
^^^ IP here has captured what I was going to reply with. Particularly with #1, we really need to not call this racism or discrimination. That's systematic bias we work as hard as possible as a volunteer project to convince editors and whatever outside forces (like school projects and editing drives) to help correct but it is not going to be a correction that happens naturally. But it is not racism and calling it that hurts this discussion. And the point on notability is spot out (outside that it is a guideline and not policy and we have some wiggle room at times) - it all starts with sourcing and that goes back to the systematic bias of where volunteers live and where the necessary sources actually are.
A good reminder to keep in mind; WP is always considered an unfinished project. Hopefully as technology catches up, we can get more local sources digitized, making them easier to source from anywhere in the world, and then searching becomes easier, and then we can add them. We've got the framework ready for when that can happen. It is not possible now because of the systematic disparity in the world, which is nothing WP can do to fix. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This was a very interesting read, even though I disagree with much of it. The point about bias resulting from well-educated Westerners' greater leisure time is interesting. I went and checked the stats for two countries, India and Nigeria (both large enough to have clear numbers, and free enough that the WMF doesn't need to hide editor stats to protect the people there), to see how far we still have to go, and to what extent we are failing to convert readers to editors outside wealthy countries. The stats were quite far from what I was expecting: India makes up 8% of ENWP's readers and 8% of ENWP's editors, and Nigeria makes up 0.4% of ENWP's readers and 0.4% of ENWP's editors.
I am surprised by these numbers. I don't know quite what to make of them, especially since even if lack of leisure time somehow didn't affect editing, there are plenty of other things that I would expect to affect it in the same direction. --Yair rand (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Examples

User:Bob K31416 to answer your question, almost every article subject we have on politicians, judges, and athletes is less notable. Every pro athlete is automatically notable. Every run of the mill state rep, often real estate agents and small business owners, is considered notable. But these extraordinary men and women who achieved firsts and major exploits, some as former slaves, the Wikipedia community has deemed unworthy. You can come up with all the excuses you want. All of the above articles clearly meet inclusion criteria but they face an uphill battle. So yes, it's racism and if you want a scientific example here are my first three hits on a random article Jerome B. Friedman, Koala emblems and popular culture and Mali, Nepal. Yes, it's bigotry. And it's disgusting. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Re "You can come up with all the excuses you want." — Don't look at me for excuses. I'm just pondering all this stuff. There's another thread on this page, Larry Sanger: Wikipedia "scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
When the left and the right are both accusing us of bias, you can be sure we're pretty close to neutral. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the rest of the world, both Republicans and Democrats are right wing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, true dat. Joe Biden's platform is closely aligned with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Guy (help!) 23:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, Could you give examples of articles that you created about African Americans that have been accepted? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There are lots and lots listed at User talk:FloridaArmy.--Salix alba (talk): 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Actions, not words

I feel, as several above have pointed out, that our lack of coverage of minorities reflects the bias of our sources and society more than it does our editors. However, us sitting and talking about whether or not we have racism is not as useful as asking: if so, then what? For argument's sake, lets assume Wikipedia is racist. How do we fix that? What would we change? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The appropriate action to take is to accept and improve article subjects on African Americans and other unrepresented article subject groups that meet our inclusion criteria as those listed above clearly do. If someone disagrees and wants to take them to a deletion discussion all the better, as they will close strong keep and be further improved along the way. Enough with the excuses: the wrong action to take. We shouldn't need balkanization and an "African Americans in Black group" or any other special interest group to advocate for inclusion in order for these very notable subjects to be included.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
They do not meet our notability guidelines based on the sources provided, that's the point of why they have been rejected at AFC. They haven't been outright deleted because there is a slim chance that there may be more sourcing there for them but they fail notability to be put into mainspace at this time. To get them into mainspace, someone needs to do the legwork to look for more sources to show that either they meet one of the subject-specific notability guidelines, or more sourcing actually exists. You cannot just handwave and claim them notable because of your person importance standard. And this is where we have to be careful, we're not calling this out as being a matter of this being African-American subjects and thus require an apparent strong goalpost for inclusion. This is being impartial to what our policy and guidelines are for sourcing. If these were about white people in the exact same positions in life with the exact same type of sourcing, we'd be also not promoting them into mainspace and asking for more sources as well. Trying to twist this back to being about WP being racist doesn't help, we know what our limitations our with the systematic bias and do our best to fight it without losing our purpose as an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Masem, so if someone is notable in, let's say the Philippines, but there aren't enough sources that would satisfy WP:GNG despite being notable, they aren't notable? The English Wikipedia as it is has editors who question the reliability of sources from outside the Anglosphere, so even if the policy on its face doesn't intend to perpetuate systemic racism in nature, practice suggests otherwise. Not to say that white subjects don't fail AfC, but the way the world is structured gives them advantages that allow those subjects to more easily pass AfC than, let's say, a non-white subject. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
First, we're talking en.wiki's definition of notable, not the real-world definition. If you have reliable sources from Philippine papers that would meet the GNG (independent, in-depth secondary coverage - just not necessary in English) then we'd still be able to use those for GNG notability and sourcing; we don't discriminate against foreign-language sources. One key factor though is that en.wiki's definition of notability is not the same as the other sister wikipedias. Those other wikipedia may help point point to sourcing but just because an article exists in those doesn't mean we'd have an article. --Masem (t) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that this is systemic racism, not institutional, though for some that’s a matter of little distinction given the democratic nature of this project. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • We would first need to know in what ways Wikipedia is racist. For example, if there's a group of racist editors causing disruption or pushing their POV, then we should have policies that allow us to block them for disruption and develop a neutral point of view. But we already have that. If editors are insisting on using low-quality sources with overt racial bias, then we should develop and enforce guidelines on reliable sources. But we already have that. If we can get some better examples of this supposed racism, we might be able to devise targeted solutions to the problems. But changing Wikipedia won't solve problems that aren't actually Wikipedia problems. The evidence thus far suggests that the issue lies outside Wikipedia, with the available reliable sources. Wikipedia, by its very nature as a tertiary source, is a victim, not a perpetrator. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, I don't think Wikipedia is racist (though we occasionally turn over a stone and find a racist here). We do have systemic bias, and always have had. Guy (help!) 23:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Editor group projects. Do edit-thons, etc. with people who have access to libraries and research skills (students/teachers/librarians/academics/NAACP members/ACLU members/HBCU's etc. etc.) and want to write on the topics (see, eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot to digest here, and I'm still digesting...for the moment I wanted to zero in on CaptainEek's comment, above, about how to fix racism/bias.

One thing I do, when I consider what subjects I want to edit: I look for scholarly dictionaries or encyclopedias on undercovered topics that will at least help me establish a foundation of notability for my articles. See Fati Mariko for an example (a couple of other Nigerien topics as well). They may not help me overcome the sourcing issue raised by Sky Harbor, but I hope they will at least keep such articles away from AfD. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Article reviews on FloridaArmy's Talk Page

I looked at FloridaArmy's Talk Page and found reviews of the account's many submissions, including 30 archives! And the FloridaArmy account is only a year and a half old. This account is an extremely prolific article creator.

I certainly couldn't look through all of the reviews, but as I started to look at the reviews on the current FloridaArmy Talk Page I didn't see a pattern of racism. There are so many articles in the 30 archives that I'm not surprised that someone could pick and choose the relatively small list that we were shown for the claim that Wikipedia is racist, which may be a misrepresentation. I'll wait to hear from FloridaArmy before deciding what to think of this. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Subjects related to African Americans and the African diaspora are far and away the hardest to get accepted. Even after they have been accepted they are the ONLY ones I've had dragged to deletion discussions. As the lengthy list of excuses above makes clear, subjects about Black people are largely unwelcome on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see it. Good luck with your articles. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate they are being rejected because of the subject matter. And to do that, you need to find articles of near equivalent "quality" in terms of the sourcing, the person of the topic of the article in terms of their status in life, and other similarities except race, and show that we routinely keep those at AFDs (or at AFC, do not challenge them and let them go to mainspace), as to show we are implemented a bias that is beyond the systematic bias related to sourcing. We've already established there's a sourcing bias against minorities, you need to normalize that out to proof that WP has its own bias beyond that. --Masem (t) 04:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, you've done nothing to establish your assertion. If you feel that you can do that, Masem has provided a framework. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that AFC inherently will have a slightly higher "bar" for notability. Probably the biggest reason is that a reviewer has to put themselves on the line to say "this is wp:notable" for it to pass, and that other people may be looking at their decision later and so are probably more likely to "play it safe" and make sure it is not borderline. Whereas, later on it needs somebody to decide "this is not notable" to AFD it. So the borderline ones are less likely to make it through AFC. Also because AFC might be a bit of a teaching / mentoring area for new editors, where holding one up for improvement or finding more sources for wp:notability could be seen as a part of the teaching / mentoring process. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A new WikiProject?

After stating "We shouldn't need... an "African Americans in Black group," FloridArmy has created Wikipedia:WikiProject People in Black, seemingly by copying Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red (without attribution, oof). I note that a less ambiguous name might be "WikiProject:Black People in Red," and that we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, who should probably be involved with anything like this. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point about attribution. My mistake. Hopefully anyone who thinks Wikipedia should cover notable subjects related to African Americans and the African Diaspora will sign on. Sad that it's needed. But as the discussion above shows, it clearly is needed. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Assuming that you mean wp:notable, that is already the norm, and you've done nothing to support your claim otherwise. Repeating the accusation (as you again did implicitly again in the above post ) does nothing to support the accusation. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update of article draft list in OP

Six articles in FloridaArmy's original list have been accepted. Here's the updated list with the accepted articles indicated without a bullet.

Vince Proby
Lucius Brooks

Hamilton High School (Memphis, Tennessee)

Thomas Cardozo
Lawrence Lindell

Ferdinand Gaynair

I did a little editing on the Thomas Cardozo article. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Effective use of false racism charge

It looks like FloridaArmy just used a false charge of racism to help get articles through the AFC process. Reminds me of a scene from Beverly Hills Cop. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please use the deletion discussion process to eliminate any article on African Americans or their history you don't think belongs on Wikipedia. Your argument that Wikipedia isn't racist but that we are correct to omit these article subjects from mainspace is farcical. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say "that we are correct to omit these article subjects from mainspace". In fact, I even edited one of your articles that I got interested in.
I support your efforts to create articles related to African Americans. It's a noble project that you have done magnificently and I encourage you to continue creating articles and also to expand articles that you created. I just think your racism charge was wrong and that it was unfair to editors at AFC who are working hard for Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
KP: I recently saw an article that zoomed through AfC, fat, lush in its fullness of facts, repeated as information, then reformulated (again) and restated with different quotes from different parts of the same serialized publication (each cited separately), decorated with copyright violating images, and replete with some amusing SEO name-positioning. Insta-Pass! Being a bit more prolix (wordy) might get you through AfC more easily, I don't know, FA. What I am sure of is that I'm glad you & KP got me to read that JSTOR article about Thomas Cardozo. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Progress of one of the list articles Thomas Cardozo

May 2, 2020 — Last time the article was declined by AFC. [1]

May 29, 2020 — Article posted here in list of declined articles. [2]

May 31, 2020 — Article accepted. [3]

June 5, 2020 — State of article now. [4]

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

June 9, 2020 — Thomas Cardozo article upgraded from start-class to C-class and mentioned by a media organization.[5] Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

July 1, 2020 — Thomas Cardozo article passes 20,000 bytes in size. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

More evidence of racism

I've now been hauled before ANI, as I was after creating stubs on the African American Reconstruction Era politicians of Georgia. The hearing resulted in my being severely restricted.

Here we go again. The articles used as examples of my horrible editing include entries on African American politicians who were elected in North Carolina. Many were murdered soon after. But User:Guy doesn't want them included unless they are DYk length.

But No No No. No racism on Wikipedia. We can't have an editor adding entries on these subjects but it's absolutely not racism. No racism here folks. Absolutely no racism. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, bullshit. The problem is the creation of large numbers of undersourced stubs. You did that in mainspace, it overwhelmed AfD, so you were told to send them through AfC. Rather than banning you form creating articles (we have done that before), I advocate that you are reminded to at least put enough effort in to meet the standard of ...And?
If you are smart you will realise that this way you get more articles to mainspace and less drama. Which, it seems to me, is what everyone in that ANI wants. Guy (help!) 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, undersourced stubs on African American politicians, Cameroonian cuisine, and the military school where the Netherlands trains leaders of its former colonies. YOU ARE RACISTS. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This is name calling. Most Wikipedians are not racists, if this is defined as prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. Various people have pointed out that trying to interpret WP:GNG and making good faith decisions based on it is not racist.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@FloridaArmy: Calm down. There is no excuse for personal attacks. You're just giving them a reason to block you. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It is an established problem that African Americans or notable academics may not have enough secondary sourcing for a decent length article. We have been through this many times before. Once again, systemic bias is not the same thing as racism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Let the racists block me.
Here we are on Blackout Day when we're supposed to be honoring George Floyd, an African American father killed with a knee on his neck as he begged for air and his life for 8 1/2 minutes. And a large group of editors is working stop me from creating articles on subjects about African Americans. The examples THEY targeted are Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush. Guess what these people all have in common?
Let the racists block me. I'm not going to calm down or be quiet. I was attacked for asserting Wikipedia is racist. Not enough evidence. Honestly what more evidence do you need??? So let these Racists block me. It will be fitting. Especially going down after this discussion on Jimbo's page. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@FloridaArmy: And how will playing the martyr help your cause? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm upset and angry over the Killing of George Floyd but it isn't helpful to throw around accusations of racism when an article for creation request is turned down.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What do they have in common: they were Republicans. FWIW: I see the two black men's entries are now in mainspace, while the two white guys' stubs are still drafts. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
SashiRolls, the determination to ascribe motives is rather depressing. I hope that no experienced Wikipedian would be unaware of the fact that Republicans were historically progressive, and that the link between the Republican party and racism was a deliberate policy to hoover up disaffected racist Dixiecrats after the Civil Rights Act. Guy (help!) 10:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'm going to steer clear of the mudslinging, but I'm not clear what the purpose of your "history lesson" is. I mentioned that the four pages were about Republicans because the tacit assumption was that they were about African-Americans. The pages above are related to the Reconstruction Era, which ended in the late 1870s. By the 1880s, the bank & railroad party (i.e. the Democrats) had consolidated power in the South with the aid of allied paramilitary groups (White League, Red Shirts, KKK, etc.). The Southern Strategy was several generations later (more than 20 years after Strom Thurmond's 1948 run as a Dixiecrat).
Also, Hoover, as you may know, was not one of our better presidents. His association with the Lily-white movement helped him break the Southern block in 1928. I suppose, being British, you may have been talking about "Boss" Hoover rather than HH? :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
SashiRolls, the only point was that nobody's going to reject these articles because the people were GOP, because we all know that the GOP was different back then. That's all. Guy (help!) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, it is rare to find any human who is entirely free of racial bias, but calling me and others racists is not going to win you a lot of friends around here. Asking for at least a minimal level of sourcing is not racist, it's Wikipedia 101. Guy (help!) 10:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, I looked over there at ANI[6] and so far you haven't been restricted more than your current restriction of requiring AFC for new articles. So far it stands at 3 admins for further restriction, 5 opposed, and 1 neutral.[7] Also, they don't seem inclined to block you because they think you're a net positive for Wikipedia.
Apparently the issue is the high rate of new article submissions by you that is difficult for AFC to keep up with. How would you feel about reducing your rate of new article submissions? You could use the extra time to expand your existing articles or expand articles before submitting them. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggested the solution which is to remove the requirement I go through AfC. The community made clear that it doesn't want one or two sentence stubs so I don't by and large create those any more. Occasionally I do make exceptions. But I aim to please and always try to respect community consensus as best I am able. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
First off, I'm not familiar with the workings of AFC. I went over there[8] to try to see how articles are chosen for review. As far as I could tell, the review of articles was voluntary. So it seems that if FloridaArmy was submitting articles at too fast a rate, editors at AFC would have the freedom not to review them. I'm probably missing something and maybe someone can help clarify. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, that's not going to happen for the exact reason that the AfC drama is happening. If you can't be arsed to write enough of an article to establish why we should care, then don't write the article. I'm astounded that you are so extraordinarily passionate about having these people on Wikipedia, and yet this passion stops short of being prepared to write a proper article. Stubs were fine when we had ten thousand articles and no Draft space. Now we have millions and the expectation is that a new article will be more than a directory entry. Guy (help!) 10:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't control whether racists care about African American politicians or article subjects from Africa and Jamaica, but if the subjects meet notability criteria they should be included. I understand that not caring and not liking these subjects is widespread. Racism is a BIG problem especially here on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Bob K31416 , I can at least reply to this, not barring Guy’s response, given my familiarity with AfC. There are a multitude of factors behind the acceptance of an article, though notability as guided by the GNG is paramount. With caveats for different subject areas, and POV forks. Perhaps you could provide us links to these AfC submissions so we can comment on specifics? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, here's a clue: if you write more than a single sentence, the notability question becomes obvious. Wikipedia is not a directory, and writing what look like directory entries is a recipe for drama - as you already know. A lot of us support what you do, but your militant refusal to accept the validity of any concerns does you no favours at all. Guy (help!) 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)
Pardon the interruption, but Guy, you seem to be familiar with the workings of AFC. Could you respond to the request for clarification in my last message? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Bob K31416, I don't think it's a problem creating large numbers of articles.For under-represented communities that can be a real boon. The problem is that FA has been restricted to creating articles via AfC, due to past issues with sourcing as far as I can tell; he resents this and it's becoming increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that he sees this as some kind of challenge, to force reviewers to either accept his word on trust (i.e. abrogate the AfC process) or pick fights with them.
Saying, as FA does, that everybody who fails to appreciate the innate worth of every article he creates is a bigot or a racist, is profoundly unhelpful. It comes across - really rather strongly - as playing the race card. And I think if he continues to call individual editors bigots based on his own personal interpretation of their motives, rather than any objective evidence of bigotry, then I think he will end up blocked, which is a shame.
So to answer your question: I don't think anyone cares how many articles he creates, but they need to unambiguously establish notability before he clicks Submit. The most I saw created in a day was about six. That's not so many. But it's too many to have to go and look up the subject in your library every time. Guy (help!) 11:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy, Re your comment, "But it's too many to have to go and look up the subject in your library every time."
If any reviewer feels that way, doesn't the reviewer have the freedom not to review FloridaArmy's articles? Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Bob K31416, not that easy. There's a backlog, and the backlog doesn't identify the author. So you keep opening articles and finding one short paragraph with a couple of passing mentions as sources, and no real indication of actual substantive notability. And as you see here, you get unbridled hostility if you don't accept the article.
Reading between the lines, FA resents having to go through AfC and resents even more any submission that is not immediately accepted because he resents having to go through AfC in the first place. And being frustrated, the then calls people bigots, liars, racists and what-have-you, which makes matters worse. Guy (help!) 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy, regarding your comment, "There's a backlog, and the backlog doesn't identify the author. So you keep opening articles and finding one short paragraph with a couple of passing mentions as sources, and no real indication of actual substantive notability."
After a reviewer opens an article, can the reviewer decline to proceed and return the article to the backlog? If a reviewer can do that, the reviewer can note the article title to avoid it the next time. Seems like this would significantly cut down the time involved. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


  • Liars and bigots do not belong on Wikipedia. If my article creations on African American, Jamaican, and African related subjects are upsetting to some that is their problem. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    FloridaArmy, no, the problem is your refusal to write enough of an article that AfC reviewers c an easily see that the subject is notable.
    You know this. You know this is why you have to send articles via AfC. At this point you are doing a stunningly accurate impression of someone who wants to make it as hard as possible for AfC reviewers, because they resent having to go via AfC. And the irony is that both issues would be fixed if you just took the time to write a couple of decent paragraphs on the subject before hitting submit.
    AfC reviewers would stop bitching, and the AfC restriction would probably be lifted.
    Please meet people halfway and at least establish, in the article, why they should care. Guy (help!) 11:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that it's a bit of a shambles to post an article with an erroneous birthdate to Jimbotalk... given the prevailing attitude about "completeness". Personally, (and yes I know this goes against current policy) I would prefer to run across sparse but interesting entries that need "correction" because I know it can be fun to "fix" their wiki-surfaces without changing the quality of what counts (the references)... someone being "wrong" on the internet can indeed be a motivating force some mauvaises langues might even say that's part of a "movement" strategy. Just look how solid that article has become in the last day... it's not just the birthdate that's been repaired for Mr. Q95967914!
I would submit to FA that JzG's statement the AfC restriction would probably be lifted might be worth pushing on at ANI (if that's still open) before piling up the briars & ligots for a self-immolation on Jimbotalk. It's lame to have to go through AfC when you like to work on edge cases. But your detractors are not all racists, some of them probably just like standardized punctuation and accurate birthdates (when they're in the refs)... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Issues in Systematic Racism and Wikipedia and Notability

Contributors:

  • Wikipedia makes systematically certain that no one has to know the race of any contributor, and for (almost all?) contributors their race is unknown. Question: Why is that not enough to ensure that racism is not systematic? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • One comment here: there are some editors that based solely on their editing patterns one can make a guestimate of their gender and/or race and/or geolocation. An editor that focuses on biographies of women? Good chance that editor is a woman. That said calling this out at any point if the editor hasn't already offered that information, short of behavioral issues, is an absolutely no-no under OUTING, but I know over time we've had cases involving editors mistreating other editors based on such implied behavior from editing patterns. When we know this is happening, we call it out as disruptive and put a stop to it. This may play a tiny bit into the systematic bias aspect - the ones that tend to raise this issue - even if they don't mention their gender/race/etc. - may reveal some insight, and other editors might call them out on this, which is not a good thing. In these types of discussions, we have to be very aware of not trying to make this a personal issue to the editor raising the question. --Masem (t) 23:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I am thinking the same as your question presupposes. I don't see a racism issue here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @FloNight: speaks of a developed world demographic. Questions: How is that not classism, instead of racism? If race did not exist, would not unequal distribution of wealth/resources ensure skewed demographic, anyway? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

African American topics:

  • From both personal experience writing and just looking around Wikipedia, Wikipedia does cover African American topics. Question: Does that not prove there is no systematic bias in this area? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There are multiple books/encyclopedias/journals/archives on African Americans in multiple fields. Question: As a systematic access problem to those resources, how can access be systematically remedied? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability:

  • "Notable" may be one of the worse concept-names there is -- it causes confusion, anger, and sometimes, it seems, even pain (as in, 'Obviously exceptional African American person is not notable!' Response: 'What the hell is wrong with you?'). Question: Why does not Wikipedia stop leading with its ass, and get closer to what it wants to discuss, something like, "Topic sourcing requisites", short name "WP:TOPIC-ABILITY"? Followed by, "General Topic-source Guideline" (GTG)? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes it absolutely is classism. Race is a standby for class in a fair number of instances. My experience is that bourgeois snobbery is rampant here. (Most editors are not actually rich or even have a rich-person education, but you know: they identify with the ruling class.) But... I mean the Wikipedia is rampant with young, white, first-world, college people. That makes sense, so I'd expect bourgeois snobbery here. But... I mean, a person can transcend that, you know. But most people won't, either here or in real life. It's like water to a fish: you might as well convince a fish that they're wet as convince most Wikipedia editors that their mindset is blinded by class bias. And most of the rest are proud of it.
As to the subject a hand... a normal person would think "Here is an entity that is clearly notable (a band, let's say). We have evidence that huge crowds attend their concerts, their sales figures are thru the roof, they started a whole new genre of music, plus they're preternaturally skilled. However, nobody writes about them. They're from Franistan where the government absolutely forbids writing about pop music, and anyway the country is small, poor, and mostly illiterate, and anyway there's not even a decent machine translator for the Franistanian language. BUT, they're very well known and important anyway, in Franistan. Since that's so, our job here is dig up whatever references we can to support at least a small article about them. And to that end we should bend our standards some if needed... after all, we're not rule-bound here. We're here to serve the public."
But, like "reliable source" or "consensus" or many other terms, "notable" has a somewhat fuzzy relationship to the term as used by normal people in real life. To a Wikipedian, "Notable" means "has refs (to our standards)". That sorta kinda mostly works out -- genuinely notable entities often do have sufficient refs, but not always, so the paradigm breaks down sometimes, especially at the margins.
A functional response to that is "well then let's refine our rules to match reality" rather than "let's ignore reality when it doesn't fit our rules", but... it is what it is. People, you know? Herostratus (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Herostratus: This young white college stereotype is old and ridiculous. Have you ever been to a Wikimedia Meetup? How many young white college kids you see Wikipedia:Meetup/Gallery? And it looks like some Franistani revolutionaries need to make work of their oppressive government. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yer all wet. Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks TryKid [dubious – discuss]
these photos are wonderful....the happiest most engaging bunches of people I've seen in at least 50 years....truly a beautiful gallery of groups of happy people from all over the place. These photos say it all about Wikipedia's fantastic influence and accomplishments. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
People sometimes ask why Wikipedia has copious articles about characters in The Simpsons but not an African American activist or a female academic. The sad fact is that it may be easier to write and source an article about Mr. Burns than it is to write an article about these people. So it is time to accept that WP:GNG is not perfect, and can produce systemic bias. This is not the same thing as racism or sexism, although it can appear like that to some people.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
A point I've made time & again, based on my own experience. Why are there so few articles about Federal government ministers of Ethiopia, some of the most notable people in that country? Because despite a lot of effort, I could not find enough information to write more than a two-sentence stub on them. (And at the time I felt Wikipedia had far too many stubs, so I was loath to add more.) The easiest articles to write on Ethiopia was 19th & early 20th century history -- the time of European Exploration & Colonization -- & perhaps the least useful for defining the unique character of that country. (Even sources for history of the last 30 years were inadequate; one of the reasons I finally gave up writing articles on those topics.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That said - certainly some of the top level posts in the government of Ethiopia are notable as government positions, and it would not be unreasonable in a standalone article on such a position to list all those who have held the post, which would give use redirect targets for any individual otherwise not notable otherwise. We'd not be able to include full bio details but this is where additional references for that person can be included. --Masem (t) 20:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to do that. Online resources about details of the Ethiopian government (which is what I was depending on at the time) are sketchy, to put it mildly. For example, there was one government website that appeared to be the product of an afternoon's experimentation with IIS. Print sources, on the other hand, can be often be critically out of date. In short, in some subject areas of Wikipedia one must devote a great deal of time & effort to find the needed content. And the Foundation could offer some form of help in these efforts. (There are ways to help editors besides money, but finding the right person who is willing to help is often a discouraging challenge.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Ianmacm, if we relax GNG based on subjective "under coverage", I am reasonably confident we will have 50 articles on obscure Christian worship bands for every one on Nigerian scientists. Guy (help!) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting relaxing the GNG rules, but have pointed out that the reliance on the sourcing that exists will sometimes lead to systemic bias.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If you both agree that GNG is correct, then you may both agree that Wikipedia is not at fault for any bias that is caused by limited sources for some subjects. I mention this because when systemic bias is mentioned, there seems to be an implication that Wikipedia is at fault for something it has no control over, i.e the available sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Concrete examples

I think that anyone who questions the prevalence of racism on Wikipedia should probably spend 5 minutes reading the talkpages of our articles on, well, pretty much any unarmed African-American shot by the police. Or the archives of Talk:Barack Obama. Or how about the time when we had an editor who was quite literally a member of the KKK—he uploaded his self-produced pictures of cross burnings, which he insisted we call cross lightings, in the interest of neutrality—and the Wikipedia community was like, "you can't ban him just because his views are unpopular!" We actually had an admin say that it was a good thing to have him editing our articles on the KKK, because of his subject-matter expertise ("OrangeMarlin called for a Klan member to recuse himself from editing the Klan article. But really, who better?") Think, for a moment, about the way a non-white editor might feel about our embrace of outright KKK members into our community under the guise of "neutrality" and "objectivity".

But back to the present day. Take a look at Talk:Ronald Reagan. Reagan was recorded on the Nixon tapes mocking African diplomats as "monkeys". (His exact words to Nixon were: "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!") This portion of the Nixon tapes was suppressed during Reagan's lifetime, to protect his image, but was released a year or two ago, attracting substantial coverage in reliable sources (e.g. The Atlantic, New Yorker, TIME, BBC, etc), and some scholarly work has incorporated it into an understanding of Reagan's racial views. However, there is an ongoing, and likely successful, effort to suppress any mention of this material in our article on Reagan. The excuses range from the desperately silly ("This was a private conversation and there is no evidence Reagan knew it was being recorded", "this was a decade before he became President") to the outright shameful (minimizing it as "an unguarded and foolish remark in a private setting"). The article is full of fulsome trivia about Reagan, so concerns about notability are implausible. Anyhow, maybe we could start by committing to reject active KKK members from our ranks, and to basic honesty about notable, well-documented racist utterances from our political idols. It would be a modest start. MastCell Talk 23:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(The hits keep coming: we shouldn't include the commentary because it "was not reflective of anything (other than the man he was trying to make nice with)". Nixon made him say those racist things! I mean, who could possibly be in Nixon's company and not say racist shit? Definitely not notable and not a reflection of anything! Jimbo, you have a problem. MastCell Talk 23:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Your criticism of editors who downplay racism and your connecting it to the broader problem of racial bias on Wikipedia makes editors "uncomfortable" and they feel you should be sanctioned for it per this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masem#Uncomfortable. That, if anything, just strengthens concerns of racial bias on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
No, the issue is near direct calling out a specific editor as a member of the KKK based on the discussion here and the Reagan page, which is near a NPA and absolutely not allowed. --Masem (t) 17:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Where does Mastcell all out the specific editor who downplayed racism as a KKK member? I've read his comment above and all of the comments on the Reagan talk page.[9] In his comment above, he's addressing two manifestations of racial bias on Wikipedia: allowing racists to edit (a long-standing issue that has been addressed in the broader literature about Wikipedia) and downplaying racism (an issue that reared its ugly head in the currently active RfC on the Reagan article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The KKK-member editor was awhile ago, and he's long-since banned, but he was welcomed and valued by a substantial portion of the Wikipedia community despite his very open affiliation. He even had other editors affiliated with the KKK come to his page and leave supportive messages. His presence was defended in the interest of inclusivity of "unpopular" viewpoints, while people who objected were derided as "politically correct", irrational, or biased against unpopular viewpoints. I brought it up because it demonstrates how we as a community approach racial issues. I don't see any reason to think much has changed.

Separately, there is an obviously bad-faith effort to suppress well-documented racial issues right now, at the Reagan talkpage, and so far the major concern seems to be tone-policing me for bringing it up. Seriously, go check it out; editors are arguing that mocking African people as "monkeys" is somehow not racist ([10]). MastCell Talk 18:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's the clear implication of the second half (I am ignoring the first part that deals with the long-past editors). Mastcell points out the past cases (which I will assume were true), and then goes on about their current problems at the Reagan page, and then says that "maybe we could start by committing to reject active KKK members from our ranks". No, they are not calling out any specific editor, but it is very clear between the lines which specific editor they are having problems with (since we know this is from the Reagan talk page) and why they are commenting here on this. It is clear as day who that editor is. I'm not saying there's anything wrong about the downplaying of racial issues, and I agree we need to be careful about suppressing information where appropriate, but you do not go around calling any other editor racist or the like , even indirectly, like this. WP:NPA is an absolutely policy, and if you cannot see the issue with your comment and implication, that's not good. --Masem (t) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The fact that you've spent a lot of time and effort tone-policing me, and made zero effort to confront the guy who sees no problem with referring to African people as "monkeys", makes my case more eloquently than anything else I could possibly say. MastCell Talk 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Masem is always very concerned that we never refer to harassers and other deplorables as exactly what they are but only seems to care when his blp concerns affect deplorable folk but not their victims.--Jorm (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This has crossed the line into incivility. --Yair rand (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I agree with both Jorm and MastCell here. Masem was only brought here by someone who is on the other side of the argument at the Reagan talk page, and only seems to be concerned about BLPs when its someone on the opposite political spectrum of what most would consider the left. I think he should recuse himself from policing the politics area of Wikipedia as he lets his obvious bias cloud his judgement. This is just from an outsider looking in, so please feel free to ignore. Valeince (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I will look for any case where we're not being neutral in how we use labels, and not only to BLP but bios and entities. The problem is, the problems arise nearly exclusively on the right, there is rarely a case of left-leaning labels that even come up for discussion, let alone exist. BUT this situation has zero to do with BLP or anything like that. It is an editor nearly calling out another editor on NPA for being a KKK member, and I dropped a caution on their talk page about getting close. If it was calling out the editor for being Antifa, all other factors the same, I'd do it again. --Masem (t) 00:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think that there are more labels for the right than for the left exactly? Could it be that they are accurate descriptors of behavior that is typically championed by the right than the left? There are more pseudoscience positions held by people in power on the right, examples being climate change and the fact the earth wasn't created in 6 days. There are more people engaging in the hate filled, racist rhetoric and ridiculous conspiracy theories peddled by the right then the left, examples including "pizzagate", the 75 year old protester that was recently abused by the cops being an "antifa provocateur", calls for journalists to be hunted due to reporting on false statements made by the President. There are more reports on the right engaging blatant falsehoods, emboldened by Trump who has such a documented detachment from the truth that he is fact checked on nearly every remark. Now, this isn't to say that the left hasn't had its issues as well, and when they come up they are documented based on what's been reported, but to say that they should be treated equal when they are clearly not is why I think you are not neutral in this matter. Valeince (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
And of course, I've never said we can't use labels, but they should be used in a neutral, impartial manner, as BLP, LABEL and several other policies say. It is really really easy in the climate today to stack up label atop label on certain people easily supported by the media (the scarlet letter effect I've talked of). That's fine, but we still are an encyclopedia writing for the long term, and we have to working from a much more neutral stance to be impartial. Doesn't mean you can't use labels, but they shouldn't in Wikivoice (eg they need attribution or some clear statement that it's a common label and that need to be backed up by consensus on talk pages), and shouldn't be the first thing said about a person or group until we've had a chance to actually state who or what they objectively are. That's it, 90% of the time. So yes, most of the time, this is only coming up with persons and groups with right-leaning labels, but point me to where left-leaning labels are misused in the same way, I'll be there. A lot of editors are angered (rightly so) by whats happening externally and the inability do anything about it - except on WP - but we are still committed to being an encyclopedia and we can't let feelings like that cloud judgement which happens far far too often nowadays. --Masem (t) 00:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've stated at an ANI thread and at MastCell's talk page, I have been shown I was overzealous on the warning related to a possible NPA, so I'm being clear as well to publicly apologize to MastCell for that as well as to consider that matter closed from my side. (There's a separate ANI issue related to the Reagan talk page that i'm not inolved with). --Masem (t) 04:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
What matters is that editors here don't engage in racism or other problematic behavior toward each other. It is wrong to ban editors who stick to all the rules w.r.t. editing here including proper conduct on talk pages, just because their views on certain subject matters is considered to be racist, homophobic, misogynist, antisemitic, etc. Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Count Iblis, I think you are missing a point here: advocating for content supportive of bigotry, however politely, is offensive and distressing to editors who are victims of bigotry. A civil POV-pusher advocating, say, the Lost Cause narrative, is more of a problem than one advocating free energy conspiracy theories. Guy (help!) 06:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The Monsters are due on Wikipedia. So gather your bricks and rocks for later, grab a bag of popcorn for now, and sit back and enjoy this clip. [11] Bob K31416 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
MastCell, what can you do once racism has been mainstreamed? We still have the endless circular arguments at white privilege and race and intelligence, to name but two, based on fringe sources that are given spurious legitimacy, occasionally in sources that are nominally reliable. Guy (help!) 06:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I think there's plenty we can do in our roles as Wikipedians, and in line with site policy. When we observe people making obviously bad-faith arguments, we can call them out and stop lending them credibility. We can examine our sympathies, and wonder why we immediately jump to the defense of people who make or excuse racist comments without considering the impact on people affected by those comments. Perhaps most importantly, we can resist cynical efforts to rebrand basic human decency as "political correctness", and we can push back against half-witted invocations of totalitarianism and "witch hunts" from people who are not used to being held accountable for the shit they say. MastCell Talk 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
However, on the opposite site of the problem, and this is related to the matter above, is that not every editor action that is made that works "against calling out racism" (for lack of a better way to describe it) can be considered racist, because there are many other valid reasons that action may/may not be appropriate depending on the situation. Totally separate case, but this is what I experienced when I was trying to argue for a neutral approach to the Gamergate controversy (where at that point, one angle of the story was the instigators of the controversy were pushing an angle about rape and the like against named BLP, and the talk page was being bombarded with IP/new accounts trying to push for inclusion of this story), I was called out as a "rape apologist" on the argument that I must support the rape angle to make the article neutral, which, of course f'ing not. Policies like NPOV are there for a reason and at the time, weren't being followed.
In the case above, one of the editors stated that the material related to the new sound bites on the tapes didn't have due weight on the main Reagan page, a point I'd agree with given how little Reagan and racism had been discussed anywhere on the main bio page, but did have a clear section on his presidency and issues page. (This is compatible to the a previous section here on Jimbo's page about what Obama "conspiracy theories" we don't cover on Obama's main page and where they really are more appropriate) Where the new tape material should be incorporated is a fully appropriate question to ask, and not including it on the main Reagan page but elsewhere shouldn't be taken as a racist editor action (though the stance ... "utterly inappropriate" I think was the wording OTTOMH, was definitely a bit strong and came off dismissive, though in context of further discussion, it was clear what the intent was). End of the day, around that entire situation, trouts for several including myself, as there was a better way to approach it.
But my point relative to this discussion is that identifying things like racism, bigotry, misogamy , or anything similar cannot easily be seen through a single or a handful of edits, and it usually takes a pattern to identify It does not help WP or any other editors to jump to the conclusion that because an editor disagrees about the singular inclusion of what appears to be a significant racial issue, that that editor is racist or perpetuating to keep any claims of racism out of the target article. There are fair encyclopedic questions that are asked that might be difficult discussion points that one might not like the answer to but that's why we have talk pages that we ask for civil behavior and understanding this is open debate from a global community. We absolutely do want to be vigilant against any form of editor-derived racism/etc. but not so hyperfocused to mistake every possible slight as a racist action. Over long-term or multiple actions, we absolutely do want to be careful. I do hope that more editors out of the protests from the last few months have a keener awareness of the issues around racism and other similar matters as to be aware to be more careful with their words in such discussions as to not appear so readily dismissive of issues of high racial importance, but that still doesn't change other encyclopedia policies like UNDUE as well that can come into play. --Masem (t) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
"usually takes a pattern to identify It" And yet despite well documented acts of outright racism, racist speech, racist political policies, reliable sourcing going back decades, we still dont call Donald Trump what he is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
As a label for a BLP, even with something that disliked by the global community, we can't say it in Wikivoice, but the first sentence of Racial views of Donald Trump calls it out as closely and plainly as we can say it factually. (And I was speaking obviously of editors on WP, and here calling any editor directly as a racist or having racism intents, you'd better be ready to back that up with evidence.) --Masem (t) 14:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I could make a perfectly plausible argument for a redirect pointing at Trump for the phrase 'Racist-in-chief' given the amount of sources that refer to him as that. It even brings up articles about trump in search engines that make no actual mention of the phrase. RE Editors: It would actually be fairly trivial to source evidence of racist editors. Its already been done repeatedly on other websites as you well know. The barrier to doing it here is that large sections of the community clutch the fiction that everyone is entitled to their opinions and shouldnt be shunned because of them. I could pick an editor, show years worth of edits deliberately anti-(insert colour, ethnicity, country here) and it would be waved off as 'thats politics' or 'we cant ban people for their beliefs'. Well lets see how that pans out going forward. Its not going to be people like Mastcell or myself who get the sharp end of the pitchforks in the long run. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The sole reason why the Reagan page says nothing about Reagan and race (except to laud him as being uniquely non-racist – I'm not kidding, that's basically what his page says) is that editors with patterns of dismissing race issues and racism (across Wikipedia) gatekeep the article and have reverted any and all attempts to add content on that topic. You then basically point to this successful gatekeeping and censorship as evidence that "Reagan and race" isn't an important topic. And that's partly how racial bias on Wikipedia is maintained and how issues related to racial minorities and racism are systematically omitted from Wikipedia. The demand that editors who want to add high-quality content (sourced to extensive academic scholarship) on race have to build sandboxes or add the content to forks that no one reads is just an example of the egregious hurdles that you want to erect for editors who are actively seeking to fix the well-documented racial bias on Wikipedia. None of the content on the Reagan page has undergone the kinds of hurdles that have been imposed on editors who want to add content related to race. Here[12], for example, you are calling on editors to add the race-related content to a fork that no one reads. These same burdens have not been imposed on any other content on the page. You don't see it as problematic and a clear-cut example of racial bias that race-related content has to cross hurdles that other content[Insert_correlation] does not face? As someone who is very capable of adding extremely well-sourced content (with dozens of academic citations if you need it) about Reagan and race, I'm certainly not going to bother spending hours doing so only to add it to a fork that no one reads, with no realistic hope that gatekeepers on the main article can be convinced to add it to the main page, and even with the very real risk that the editors will immediately revert it from the fork. That's how Wikipedia ends up omitting content related to racism and the historical experiences of racial minorities. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It is one thing that you can pull lots of sources that establish a stance that some considered Reagan racist (and I can see by a quick scholar and news search before 2019 these sources exist), but there is still the aspect of UNDUE that enters into this. Even with the new tapes (from July 2019), today's works are not really discussing Reagan as a racist moreso that the GOP is a party since Nixon that generally has pushing policies that propagate racial discrimination and other factors, even if the sitting President says they're not racist. I'm not trying to dismiss the concern to minimize this racial issue around Reagan but like all other articles we have to balance viewpoints with UNDUE, and a 5-minute browse (which is not thorough or the like so I can't say my conclusive is final) show the stance "Reagan was a racist" to be minor. It's not insignificant nor fringe, and with the tapes from last year, it's more than enough that somewhere there needs to be a decent section within the summary style of Reagan's articles to cover it, but it would not be the type of information that carries the same weight as something like Reagan's legacy of the War on Drugs, simply based on source counting. The main page on Reagan can't cover every single aspect of his life and his Presidency and can only hit the points that have the greatest weight in sources, which unfortunately at this point, his views on racism seem to be very minor. This type of evaluation should not be taken as being gatekeeping or racist on its face, though obviously if done across numerous different bios its the pattern I'm talking about; this is the standard application of UNDUE. Yes, racism is an important issue, but at the end of day, WP can't right great wrongs, unless sources are there to do that. For example, the recent situation with the protests bringing to light the history of Edward Colston and why his wealth, acceptable in the past, is troublesome today). I haven't really seen the sources "turn" on Reagan in a similar manner beyond July 2019, outside of asserting that his behavior matches the long-term GOP platform to disenfranchise minorities. (Separately, I wholly agree that the issue on sourcing for the war on drugs quote is approaching nonsense BS and should be supported by a more academic source.). --Masem (t) 19:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for content that says "Reagan is a racist". I'm talking about inclusion of anything related to race, such as discourse widely characterized as racially incendiary (e.g. dog-whistle politics, Reagan's role in making discourse around "anti-white racism" a prominent thing) and policies with racially disparate effects (intentional and unintentional), among other things. A person who intends to learn about Reagan will find no content whatsoever about Reagan and race, despite extensive academic treatment of the subject. The reason why is that editors who systematically scrub content related to race are gatekeeping the Reagan article. And that's how racial bias on Wikipedia is maintained. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
But again, a fair argument to that is that given the extensive multifaceted career of Reagan, and those topics being about his presidential/political side, and for which many career politicians including most presidents we have separate articles to identify their stance and approaches to a variety of topics (including how they handled race), typically either at "Political positions of X" or at "Presidency of X", this is where I would expect to find that information in detail, not at their bio page, unless, as in the case of Trump, it becomes a dominating factor of their presidency, in which I would still expect only brief mention and pointed to a more detailed coverage in summary style elsewhere. Again, its a matter of UNDUE, not trying to keep the information out, to place the information at the more appropriate level that makes sense. --Masem (t) 20:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds superficially reasonable, but doesn't stand up to even a brief reading of our Ronald Reagan article, which has been stuffed to the brim with homespun, mythopoeic fluff while fundamental—but uncomfortable—themes of Reagan's life are excluded entirely or shunted to subarticles. Reagan's relationship to race was complex and evolved over his entire life, so a serious discussion of it clearly exceeds the bounds of the usual "political positions of..." or "Presidency of..." content ghettos.

Let's get specific. We learn, from Ronald Reagan#Religion, that Reagan invited two Black teammates to his house after they were excluded from a local hotel. (Let's leave aside the fact that this incident has no discernible connection to Reagan's religious beliefs). The source is a scholarly work entitled Deconstructing Reagan, from a chapter entitled Reagan and race. So right away we know that race is a major focus of scholarly historiography and reliable sources on Reagan's life—something which is being actively denied right now on the article's talkpage. Secondly, the source clearly contrasts Reagan's early views on racial equality with his subsequent rightward evolution and embrace of racially discriminatory or outright racist views and policies. He famously rejected the landmark 1964 civil rights act as a "mistake", and as a gubernatorial candidate, his public position was: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."

So editors of the Reagan biography are clearly aware of sources dealing with Reagan and race—in fact, they use them as citations. But they carefully cherry-pick these sources for details that reflect positively on Reagan, while actively suppressing the actual content and focus of the sources they cite. This is incredibly poor editing—in fact, it's shameful. It could be chalked up to ignorance rather than intentional deception and tendentiousness, except that people are still actively claiming that there is no room for discussion of race in Reagan's biography. Shameful. MastCell Talk 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, a source that is reliably used to show one aspect of Reagan's actions of beliefs regarding race can and should be used to show other aspects; so you are certainly correct there. That being said, Reagan's actions in bringing his excluded black teammates to his parents' home for the night don't necessarily contradict his stand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Quite a few white politicians outside the Deep South (Goldwater would be a more prominent example at that time) opposed the law on the narrow (I would say too narrow) grounds that it was a violation of private property rights. In fact I can imagine young Reagan saying something like this to the hotel manager: Well ... that's your prerogative sir, so I'm going to take these gentlemen to my home to spend the night. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Excellent point. People forget that today. In fact, Everett Dirksen (of all people) began to question some of the civil rights legislation of the era based on property rights.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
MastCell, this is of course not uniquely our problem, and in some ways we handle it better than, say, Facebook or Google, because we have more transparent processes, but in the end there are two themse we need to be aware of IMO.
First, the idea that banning racism and other hate speech discriminates against "conservative voices". Here we do much better than the social media platforms, because while they wring their hands and worry about mean editorials in Breitbart, we know that the problem is not that most conservatives are racist (they aren't) but that most prominent racist voices are identified with the conservative movement. Of course we also get mean editorials from Breitbart, but we don't care.
Second, the "I know it when I see it" problem. This is actually two problems in one: the use of coded language by racists, and the tendency to interpret marginal statements as racist when they may merely be tone deaf. Here we do less well. Polite dog whistling can be ignored, like any other form of civil POV-pushing, and tone deaf comments can attract a heavy-handed reaction. Guy (help!) 09:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No racism that true men.Tbiw (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not denying that's an appropriate source, nor that we need to address his racism. But we're still dealing with the UNDUE issue. I'm looking at the archives of the talk page, and also trying to judge by searching, and I'm not seeing a multi-sourced based approach to supporting the including of a section on his bio page to address this (even briefly to use as a link to the more detailed coverage in his "political position" page) - it's been argued but but not from a source base, and just addressing the tape issue isn't sufficient. Yet, and in support of why there should be more effort to find that, I hit this article from the BBC [13] which states "Critics accused Reagan of racism throughout his career." Now, whether that means that in the long-term he will be considered a racist, or that politically his opposition sought to criticize his racial views while the GOP/conservatives tend to defend him, I don't know, but it does suggest there should be a decent body of sources that should be out there to better raise the issue if racism should be mentioned on a higher page than a presidental policy page. Peacemealing the arguments one source at a time is not effect for UNDUE-based arguments, which feels like what you've been fighting against, and why those trying to keep it off the main bio page are succeeding. A good UNDUE arguing will present an inrefutable bulk of sources at one time that's make it denied (And here, more than just the burst of coverage around July 2019). --Masem (t) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much all the charges of racism around Reagan center on his campaigns. (For which we have separate pages....including the so-called "Southern Strategy" page.) In his private life there is virtually no recollection from those around him of this sort of thing. (And needless to say this includes people that have been critical of him both before and after his death. (Including his son Ron.)) There are some pretty good reasons why we don't go that much into that within his own bio. First off, these charges are pretty flimsy and fairly meaningless. Despite one editor's claims of all the good "academic scholarship" on this.....it amounts to anecdotes and opinion. (Ian Lopez's book on "Dog Whistle" politics is a(n) prime example.) Anybody who thinks Reagan won 44 & 49 state landslides based on some sort of "southern" strategy (for example) simply doesn't know what they are talking about. This became prominent folklore in the Democratic party decades after the fact. And furthermore, the Democrats didn't use to buy this themselves. (Remember Bill Clinton running as a "new" Democrat in 1992?) This simply wasn't central to his campaigns and the fact of the matter is: Reagan's rhetoric was fairly consistent no matter where/who he was talking to. Now, if the Reagan bio page was long enough (and it has already been criticized for being too long).....this would warrant discussion. But since it isn't.....and since virtually no credible historian I can think of believes Reagan's ascendance was due to race (read 'Restless Giant....' by: James T. Patterson for starters), I really don't see the need for inclusion of this sort of thing. I have to admit though: that's been one of the more frustrating aspects of this article over the years: how long should it be? The answer hasn't materialized yet. Even admins have made this comment in the past....without guidance.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(i) The book Restless Giant by James Patterson is a historical overview of several presidential administrations (covering 26 years, of which Reagan served 8). I accessed the book just now, and even at just a glance, the book clearly goes over how race was an important issue related to the Reagan presidency ("African American leaders in the 1980s denounced Reagan’s general approach to race relations... [several examples of why they did so]") and for Reagan's legacy ("The Reagan administration’s major legacy in race relations...") in the few chapters that cover him (and there's more than just those two quotes). If I were to add content from this book that you praise so highly, there is no doubt in my mind that you'd scrub the content from the page. Because extensive academic treatment is not something that is going to convince a person who thinks it's not racist to call blacks "monkeys"[14] and who seeks to scrub blatantly DUE race-related content across the encyclopedia.[15][16] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
(ii) I also find it interesting that you choose to describe an Oxford University Press book (the same press that published Patterson's book) by a Hispanic law professor at UC Berkeley as "anecdotes" and "opinion", as well as "academic scholarship" in scare quotes. Not only is the book peer-reviewed but it's written by a renowned expert with 12,000+ citations. The book in question has more than twice as many citations as Patterson's book in less than half the time. This is not to dismiss Patterson's book – it's just to point out how absurd and ill-founded your critique is. It highlights the kinds of hurdles that editors of this type impose on other editors who seek to rectify racial bias on Wikipedia: peer-reviewed extensively cited content by recognized experts related to race can just be hand-waved away as "opinion" and "anecdotes". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll ignore your usual personal attacks....There is (of course) no question that Reagan had a rocky relationship with the African-American leaders of the time and he is viewed negatively within the African-american community. There are a lot of reasons for that (including his anti-Big Gov views)...however that proves nothing with regard to the question I raised: was Reagan's ascendancy due to race? No heavyweight historian buys that. (Including Patterson.) Speaking of that.....your laughable comparison of a law professor to a award winning historian I think says it all about your ability to weigh sources and content. Despite your claim that Lopez's book is "peer reviewed", it is obviously deeply flawed. For starters, he claims that Reagan's "welfare queen" was "mythical". Do you know what the problem with that is? (In this "peer reviewed", "academic" resource?)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
REGARDLESS of the quality of the sources or issue with authority, all of this is adding to the pile of what I was asking/driving towards earlier: that the BBC statement "Critics accused Reagan of racism throughout his career." seems to suggest there is a wealth of sources out there to better drive a discussion of Reagan and race from the long-term view, even if this remains a matter of debate in the sources, and subsequently, how much UNDUE/WEIGHT that carries to put to his bio and/or Presidency page. There's clearly two different schools here, and what should be done is collect sources in both schools, and figure out how to present a detailed discussion that works in both schools without necessarily calling either right (if that is the case), and then judging the WEIGHT to talk in context of his Presidency or his larger career. --Masem (t) 02:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. But I wish someone could set a (target) length for that article. That was one of my main reasons for posting here once i noticed this conversation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
No one has sought to add content on the topic of "was Reagan's ascendancy due to race?" but thanks for trying to play along with a strawman to defend your own efforts to block all race-related content from the Reagan page. Also thank you for demonstrating to the broader audience what kind of caliber of editor is actively fighting all efforts to introduce race-related content to Wikipedia. A reason why no race-related content can be added to the Reagan page is because this editor (who sees nothing wrong in calling blacks "monkeys"[17]) and others like him gatekeep the article and admins such as Masem aid those editors by adding additional hurdles such as requesting that editors who want to contribute race-related content need to add countless academic publications to sandboxes that no one reads before they'll consider whether it's DUE or not (which will of course never happen because no one is going to waste hours putting up text that no one will read and which will be rejected by the gatekeepers). This is how Wikipedia ends up omitting history and scholarship as it relates to race, racism and minorities. It's not only because of the kinds of editors who think there's nothing wrong with calling blacks "monkeys" but editors who turn a blind eye or are even willing to aid the first kind of editor in blocking race-related content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Let me spell it out for you: the reason I was discussing the "ascendancy" issue (talking to someone more reasonable) is because at the article's current length (or especially if it is trimmed down as one editor recently commented there that it is 5 times as long as it should be, and I've heard similar comments over and over through the years) it is an issue (with WEIGHT) to start pumping it full of this stuff. ("Stuff" certainly being the monkey deal....and possibly a lot of the other racial issues as well.) With a trim article, only issues central to Reagan's life/character should go in. (So obviously his rise to power and some about the man himself should be in.) IF (however) the article should be deemed to be even longer.....there is no question we can go into these issues and take on WEIGHT and DUE. But I saw a comment by a admin and I wanted to make this point to (perhaps) settle the question. If we want to make it as long as a Lou Cannon bio....we can have all kinds of stuff (heck, we can start talking about his love of jelly beans)....but there has to be a cut off point here. (Even if we do include some of it.) I don't like working with nebulous criteria. Clear enough? Or do you have some more racial paranoia you'd like to share?Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, just in general in considering writing such a section, remember that we generally we avoid WP:PRESENTISM. I don't know enough about what the situation was in the 1980s, but if it is only recently (eg since 2010-ish) that Reagan and racism has been an issue and never was a question while he was in office, we have to be careful to make sure it is presented that it is a newer consideration. But from what arguments are here, it does sound like there were critics of him during his time in office so this probably is not a major point of concern. I just wanted to bring this up, in considering the Edward Colston matter (that in his time, no one batted an eye that slave trade was wrong so his wealth and philanthropy was fine, but since the 1980s, that became a key issue, so our article on him makes sure to present this change in social factors appropriately in discussing him, only placing his judgement by modern standards as a separate discussion after introducing his history contributions for that time). --Masem (t) 17:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know that I (i.e. someone who was there) would call it 100% "newer". Certainly Reagan's "cutting" of social programs and (seeming) indifference to the poor opened him up to this sort of thing. As far as the whole "southern" strategy deal goes.....that (IMHO) is definitely very much in retrospect. Virtually all of that materialized in the decades that followed. Yes, the southern strategy had been ID'd and connected to Nixon during his campaign.....but you would be hard pressed to find a national media figure of the time who would say this was a big part of the Reagan campaign. I could give a million examples.....but I'll stick with 2 now: Dan Rather (someone I am going to assume nobody will accuse of being some sort of lap dog for the right) said on election night [1980] that Reagan ran a "smart, classy, high-road campaign....". In the debates, no journalist posed this question, and although the topic of race relations came up....nobody went in this direction. I (also) can't think of any book written on the campaign in the years that immediately followed that made the point this was central to the campaign. One of the best measures of this though (I think) is: what did the President's opponents do? In response to two landslide losses, the Democrats formed the DLC (to bring the party to the center). One-time DLC Chairman Bill Clinton, ran as a "new" Democrat in '92. Unless someone wants to say there is a racial angle in that.....they are stuck with the fact that the Democratic party (at least in the eyes of the public) changed on a whole host of issues outside of race.....and were losing elections because of it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sure there are plenty of other factors involved. I can't speak to that (and I did live through the Reagan years and can't bring to mind much of these issues), but what I Can say: 1) there does need to be a valid talk page debate that brings together sources on all sides speaking to claims of Reagan and racism (whether it was his own policy or something from the GOP or other aspects, etc.) and to develop the section on the Political positions better, and then 2) a secondary consideration of how much of that balances all other factors of his political positions to see if should filter up to be mentioned in the Presidency page and even possibly his bio page. I don't think the arguments that have been presented that there's been a wholesale effort to keep any of this off the pages equates to "editors being racist or perpetuating a whitewashing stance against racism", I just don't think that a proper discussion under UNDUE has been had. I expect the discussion will not be easy but I think everyone can agree there's more to be written to establish that there's various schools of thought on Reagan and race and that leads to how much we'd cover that to a larger view. --Masem (t) 18:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I, for am glad that racism opposition has taken over discourse; sure it's a "religious" belief or axiom, not anything having a bit to do with silly and oft-misquoted notions such as "science, empirical" evidence and whatnot, but in the end, it's a good belief, and hopefully one which will pave the way for the dissolution of the rampant yet archaic 19th century "scientistic" nonsense, and its documented history of use and abuse in racist ways and ends. Much as how Jesus of Nazareth was promoting peace between Jews, Africans, and Samaritans as far back as the days of ancient Rome, while "science" was and is still being used to create eugenical progroms, nuclear threats, and concentration camps as far up until the present day. IT's nice to see that a simple opposition to racism cutting through the archaism and institutionalized racism of said quaint little "scientific" establishment like a hot knife through butter, perhaps, along with the internet, the information age, and social media, eventually leading to its undoing and its 16th-19th century irrelevancy in the modern and contemporary world and era of information. As far as "charges" go, that's a bit dramatic and pretentious, as if it were comparing the impotent and irrelevant shriekings of some barely-literate freak of nothing approaching legal "authority" whatsoever, over imagined "racism" on some dank corner of the internet, something which would easily be laughed out of any actual American or European court of law, in which thinking men or thinking women are present to begin with (as per the distorted notions of the imagined institutional racism themselves, given that most men and women judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals in America and Europe are decidedly "white", at least on the surface). So no, I see nothing akin to any "charges", it's not as if some irrelevant and potentially racist nobody whose only "legal" knowledge comes from Divorce Court is capable of articulating one to begin with, not even considering what laws, civil or criminal they'd be likely breaking in even peddling such an idea or notion to begin with, as if most would be bored enough to charge such an irrelevant little freak or troll to begin with, as easily as they could if they were in any way inclined to, mhmm.--Inquiz13 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP policy whitewashes BLPS from racism and other problematic behaviors

Compare e.g. Luboš_Motl's biography on RationalWiki to his biography here on Wikipedia. A world of difference! While we have our policies for good reasons, we have to note that our Wiki article gives you no clue at all about what you can expect if you have a meeting with Motl. The Rational Wiki article describes the real Motl and gives you a good account of what you can expect should you ever meet him. Count Iblis (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"World of difference" indeed. That's about as unencyclopedic as it gets. Rationalwiki's article on Reagan says (I'm not making this up) in the introductory sentences: Saint Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), aka "Ronnie Raygun" and "Teflon Ron" (February 6, 1911–June 5, 2004), was the GOP's messiah Sith overlord of the Galactic Empire, a B-movie actor and racist,[2] with a long career in "freeing the world from the evil grip of Communism". Originally a dead-dog Hollywood Democrat, old Ronnie got his start in politics by giving The Speech at Goldwater's Presidential nomination in 1964..... I mean come on, I have a sense of humor as good as anyone else.....but that is just preposterous. And furthermore, when racism is central to someone's life/work, we don't "whitewash" it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This looks like the beginning of a tour of some kind of Circles of Hell. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This part is spot on: "Reagan would, by twenty-first century standards, be considered an ideal caricature of an agreeable liberal centrist keen on maintaining America's integrity and ensuring that productive policy be achieved via positive bipartisan solutions despite Teapublicans forever claiming he was a stalwart defender of strong, right-wing, conservative values, and "would never-ever dream of cooperating with brain-dead snowflake leftists on any issue, and even claiming that he even so much as resembles anyone left of Ted Cruz would be a clear indication that the individual making such a claim is a godless commie and socialistic anti-American supporter of the deep state" as they would say.[citation NOT needed]". Count Iblis (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, as far as childish rhetoric and trash sites like RationalWiki goes. If one intentionally sought out some far-left Communist like Bob Avakian, or those kids who were comparing the Daily Show to the Daily Stormer, they'd make Obama or Bernie look like some far-right wingnut in comparison, so who cares about that (anymore than they do about silly, irrelevant, and nonsensical job titles)?
There's a reason Wikipedia is the world's tenth most popular website and RationalWiki isn't. Our use of neutral encyclopedic language and reliable sources might have something to do with it... Now that's not to say that we couldn't cover controversy a bit better. But unless there's a reliable source talking about Motl being an arsehole, we can't cover that, and for good reason. Unlike rationalWiki, people trust and rely on Wikipedia, and thus we are held to a higher standard. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
We are certainly more reliable that RationalWiki. But we've got some serious (structural) issues here. The fact anyone can edit is a big one because (once you get beyond the vandals) we've got way too many people here editing with a agenda. What i have thought for years (as a remedy) is to have a knowledgeable, objective person in charge of each article (or maybe article types).....and change requests get submitted on the talk page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
If we would forego our COI policy and allow him to write his own biography (he is active as an editor here), it would have been more critical than the present article. A friend of Luboš had this to say about him in an interview. The general opinion of him is considerably less favorable. Count Iblis (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Language is more significant than statues, and these times make us forget the finer details

The top hit for "neutral" on Commons was this "neutral density filter demonstration"

Dear Jimbo, I know people are fighting and hating and hurting and that is significant... but do you know what is the worst rising (internationally) cultural phenomenon I can see in recent years that indirectly aggravates Afro-European disharmony, no matter what side we prefer..? Jimbo, let's change the name of the page Black Friday (shopping) to Peachy Friday (shopping), and thereafter, black anything as a disaster colour. I'm not going to explain it. We all know it is true.

Richer language has been shown to improve the depth of colour perception, and we humans almost did not discover that fact. The proof almost went extinct. ~ R.T.G 07:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how paring down the number of meanings a word has could make the language richer. That would seem to make it duller and more like a programming language. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If we are trying to avoid instituting negativity? ~ R.T.G 09:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles employ the most commonly used name. Changing the name of the Wikipedia article in the hopes the change will catch on is a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Black Friday (shopping)#Origin of the term says the current meaning of the term actually has positive connotations. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute this? Has there been significant backlash against this specific term? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A black Friday poster in Netherlands
Yeah, to stop using the word "black" to represent disaster, would not be as simple as changing the name of an article. You'd have to change the world around it.
List of Black Fridays summarises the "positivity" of the phrase like this: imprisonment, financial downturn, financial crisis, disaster, anarchists hanged without evidence, the Conciliation Bill failed, a riot, announcement not to call for strike action against wage reductions, the crash of Wall Street, a day of devastating bushfires, an air raid, a disastrous attack, an air battle, a riot, flooding, massive layoffs, protest against the House Un-American Activities Committee, the assassination of US President John F Kennedy... a massacre, economic turmoil, tornado outbreak, a tornado touching down, a stock market crash, a... (something to do with a movie about Aladdin?), a series of bomb explosions, production nearly shut down, singer killed, Cinema fire, a crackdown, protesters killed, terrorist attacks, poker sites seized, terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks.
A veritable joy-joy phrase which makes us all remember happier times. If "black" is going to be so deeply racial a term, let us embrace that, and make Black Friday a day of African heritage, and start renaming "black" disaster days "bad", as intended. Oh but, that would be difficult, and there hasn't been a social war against it yet to force us... It's just some good psychology. Yeah I know, it will never happen, and yet there it is. ~ R.T.G 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Your first post requested a change to single article, but now you've moved the goalposts in order to make your point, and thus haven't addressed my response. Have you thought this through, or was this section just an off the cuff emotional knee-jerk with a simpler, more superficial goal? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I stated it pretty clearly. You're right though, sensitivity doesn't have to be an issue. Or does it? ~ R.T.G 21:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you're on to something. It is a big task. We've got a problem right off the bat with the fact there are no really white people, maybe some albinos. It's a paradox because to really get past racism there should be zero awareness or acknowledgement of race, especially not in censuses or anything official. Yet, I'm not getting the impression that destination is where many of any race want to head. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well there are some almost white, very rarely, and some almost black, very rarely, mostly in Scandanavia and Africa, but yes, mostly we are varying stages of brown, yellow and red with some bluish and greenish highlights... However, for the moment, the colour black has a special status in social constructs, so should not be used lightly. It's psychological, and psychology is what you do when you don't need psychiatry. Though we are not socially aware of that, the alternative is often... psychiatry... For every mistake psychology might have, psychiatry has a punishment which helps you with the issues that arise from just reacting normally to the world around us... like the old aspects of religions which we are all so keen to avoid... ~ R.T.G 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit: (Okay... the best psychiatry is psychological, it's not actually about punishing you, but prevention is usually much better than cure, and choosing psychiatry over psychology would be punishing indeed) ~ R.T.G 08:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In order to progress in this area, We may have to deal with something that has become endemic in much of the world, which is an ever decreasing % of the population who "think for him/her self". It's readily apparent on a daily basis when you see chunks of the population adopting the positions of their political leaders on things that are so personally important like whether or not to wear a mask re: Covid.
"Sheep" is really the best word I can think of, and it's an ingrained habit apparently first developed in childhood.
And, maybe Jimbo will agree, maybe not, a few generations ago there were many more people who did "think for themselves" and, thus, although usually aligned with a political cohort, like conservative, might have strong and opposite opinions from conservative leadership on many issues. There used to be very few people who you knew what their opinion was on things like "abortion" or American "exceptionalism" without even asking them. Nowadays, the like minded stick together is social bubbles and there are not nearly as many 1 on 1 healthy and heated political arguments as there used to be.
Fortunately there has been more attention, imo, at least within the upper classes, to "critical" thinking and the term has even manifested itself in some ads for STEM schools and even JPMorgan. BUT, I dare say most Americans have no idea what the term means. Now if that is a problem that needs to be dealt with in order to move the collective mentality forward, that is a huge hurdle, because of inertia ( which the last I read is the most powerful force in the universe ). The ultimate solution to this issue (teaching individual critical thinking abilities) may be a focus upon it in public education, starting very, very early. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Racism/Stereotyping/Comedy nexus

I have liked watching Tucker Carlson for a long time, mainly because he started out so young and, to me, reminds me of the old fashioned "straight man" in comedy duos...and maybe a bit like Johnny Carson (related; remember that funny turbin Carson would wear sometimes?) So, I was surprised to see Tucker in trouble for some kind of "racism" issue, even if tangential, so I looked into the issue for a half hour or so. The guy who got caught putting out the racist comments made 1 comment identified as racist which I think is worth thinking about, at least alittle bit. "Black doods staying inside playing Call of Duty is probably one of the biggest factors keeping crime down." What I find interesting is how this comment can be seen as conflating racism, comedy and Stereotyping. A complicating issue is that were Richard Pryor to still be around and be telling it, nobody would be offended. Another complicating issue is would it be a big deal if Neff had been joking about honkies"? Another one is, how come it's so acceptable for the N word to be used in music lyrics?

Maybe the answers are that the racism has been saturating everything for so long that it's just fine or necessary that a period of over the top anti-racial stereotyping/anti-racial jokes is justified or even required to get the pendulum back where it should be. I just do not know if the conflating, imo, of racism, stereotyping and racial jokes is a longer term issue in terms of so-called Freedom of Expression? Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

An alternative view re: monuments' removal

Jimbo, I thought you may find this highly respected person's observations/view exceptionally interesting and/or enlightening ( as I do ). More importantly, do you think, as I do, that this report provides insight into the way the "silent majority" is seeing and reacting to current events? Also, Jimbo, do you agree with the writer that Orwell's 1984 predicted lots of what's happening now?

"xxxxxxxx I have written letters to the members of City Council. I do not believe the removing of the statues is best for Richmond now or in the future. These actions were the results of broken trust by the City Council, our Mayor, and lawlessness. Our neighbor who is a real estate agent said the property value on Monument Avenue has plummeted. Two properties with proposed development and plans already completed on paper, one in Scott's Addition and the other in the Museum District, were cancelled by the investors this week. Several of the families xxxxxxxxxxxxx are leaving Mary Munford, the number one school in the city. They are moving to the county due to the lack of the city's leadership and lawlessness. Their reasoning includes the destruction of historic Monument Avenue. Tourism and conventions, which filled downtown hotels and restaurants, will and are suffering, and this is not just due to the COV. I have had more than one adult tell me, " I will not take my child downtown for anything now, including The Nutcracker." Also, people are saying repeatedly, I will never drive on Monument Avenue again. The City Council had promised to add appropriate signage. Dumping the statues at the City Waste Water Plant on the bare ground is an insult. Revisionists are not telling the whole story, only their version. Also, many historic names are being removed from MCV, JMU, Shenandoah University, the Naval Academy, etc. These actions are predicted in George Orwell's 1984. History is for everyone. When we start to pick and choose because of what offends us, we are on a slippery slope. Richmond's Monument Avenue is now a testament to violence's success." Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well hell

Some days you feel that the world is going to shit and getting worse. And then... this. NASCAR teams push Bubba Wallace to the front of the grid for Talladega, in a giant "fuck you" to racism. There is hope. Guy (help!) 22:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, tear to my eye. Good stuff. This was good too. Non-Americans and possibly even Americans who didn't grow up in the South probably don't realize what a legend Richard Petty is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, wow! Much respect. Guy (help!) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Especially since there was a period when Petty, never a raging liberal, was being used by some of the vilest right-wing Republicans in North Carolina as a mask for how bad things were getting. He is being (as we don't say much down home) a real mensch. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Update - CNN - FBI says Bubba Wallace not a target of a hate crime. Atsme Talk 📧 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, It's sad in a way that all it took was the FBI to look at photos, while everyone else was quick to jump on the bandwagon without any evidence of wrongdoing. Bubba himself said very bad stuff about NASCAR fans and went on CNN itself and said stuff even after it was pointed out that it's a garage door pull. This is similar to the case in Oakland, CA where a noose was found in a tree and a black man came forward and said he put it there to help him with exercise. The mayor said, regardless of intent, they will still investigate it as a hate crime. Note how in this news article they leave out one key detail about the incident. [18] Sir Joseph (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Here, the white mayor, tells residents the history of racial violence. “Intentions don’t matter when it comes to terrorizing the public,” Schaaf said. “It is incumbent on all of us to know the actual history of racial violence, of terrorism, that a noose represents and that we as a city must remove these terrorizing symbols from the public view.”
“The symbolism of the rope hanging in the tree is malicious regardless of intent. It’s evil, and it symbolizes hatred,” Williams said.
Yet the man said, "Victor Sengbe, who is black, told KGO-TV that the ropes were part of a rigging that he and his friends used as part of a larger swing system. He also shared video of the swing in use.
“Out of the dozen and hundreds and thousands of people that walked by, no one has thought that it looked anywhere close to a noose. Folks have used it for exercise. It was really a fun addition to the park that we tried to create,” Sengbe said." [19] Sir Joseph (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, sure looks like a noose to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, which was there for how long? It's a pull rope for a garage, used often, and as photos pointed out was there for many months. So not sure what the issue is here. I'll take the FBI, NASCAR and Bubba Wallace saying there is no issue here over people still trying to make it an issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well this is certainly a "White Lives Matter" argument if I ever saw one. Sir Joseph thinks "it is sad everyone else was quick to jump on the bandwagon without any evidence of wrongdoing" while I believe that it just may be the dawn of a new day that white people finally are beginning to realize the injustices that our people of color have suffered for hundreds of years, with the first spark of the movement beginning when we were all forced to watch a black man's life end under the knee of a white police officer of the law. It is damn good to see white people react to the sight of a lynch in the same manner that it has terrorized black people for a long, long time. IMO Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It's good that we live in an era where people are privileged enough to have time to get upset about a piece of rope and talk about it on the internet.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well at least you had second thoughts after initially deleting my post. I consider that progress. Cheers! Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record,that wasn't me.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I guess saying that we should investigate something before we ruin people's lives is now a bad thing. Ironic in that you want justice, but justice requires investigation and evidence. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
What a bizarre comment. No one's life has been ruined, and people are paying more attention to racism in a sport that has struggled with it. I'm not sure why that upsets you. MastCell Talk 19:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, the photo has been released,. it is tied as a noose. The inference was reasonable, and in any case irrelevant, because what happened was an unexpected act of solidarity in a sport not known for its commitment diversity, and that is the lesson. Guy (help!) 09:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy, did you watch the CNN report I linked wherein they explained the FBI investigation and that what looks like a noose appears to have been a garage pull and that it had been there since last year, long before Bubba's team was assigned that garage? For some bizarre reason, I thought my 1st obligation was to NPOV, and accuracy based on verifiability in RS per WP:RGW: Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them. But hey, if it's ok with Jimmy for us to express our compassion in solidarity on his UTP regardless of what provoked it, then count me in. I will toss my pragmatist hat aside and rally with you. I just never know from what angle my comments will be struck down, I simply know they will - it's a damned if I do, damned if I don't scenario that makes me feel like Joe Btfsplk. Atsme Talk 📧 12:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, yes, and I have read multiple other stories. What is clear is (a) the rope absolutely was tied as a noode but (b) this had been there a while. The reaction was understandable, and the actual point (whihc was that NASCAR drivers showed amazing solidarity) absolutely stands. Guy (help!) 14:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can conclude with this. We are talking about two completely different sets of ropes. The rope at Talladega Speedway DID look like a hangman's noose so I don't blame Bubba Wallace for being initially upset, unless that kind of rope rigging is common in NASCAR garages which it apparently isn't. The ropes in the Oakland park looked nothing like nooses as far as I can tell and the Oakland mayor's horrible-image "reasoning" in taking them down was absurd. She could have simply said "I'm glad there was no malicious intent in setting up those ropes, but unauthorized ropes like this in a public park are a safety hazard so I've had them taken down. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can everyone imagine the US Army joining Nascar and the Marines in forbidding public displays of the Confederate stars and bars? EllenCT (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. It would make a nice display of false compassion to compensate for the fact that the US military has been ruining lives non-stop for nearly 20 years in Afghanistan for no good reason. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Pelirojopajaro, dick move, bro. Guy (help!) 09:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Pelirojopajaro, Pointing out hypocrisy is taboo in American (Western?) culture.
You simply can't bring up USA government (people?) hypocrisy in 2020, nobody wants to think about hypocrisy, much less talk about it. Plus you left out Vietnam, which was fewer years but many more lives ruined (and your use of "ruin" is a correct word, especially if we include all the wounded, but maybe all those homeless vets in wheelchairs are dying off now and easier to forget), and you left out Iraq (maybe too few ruined to even mention).
And it's downright dangerous to point out hypocrisy. People get really P.O.ed when accused of it. "Hypocrisy/hypocrites" is the most common word used by Jesus in the gospels, and look what they did to him.
This is a time we are all supposed to just focus on the BLM excitement and nobody likes a buzzkiller. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedians are going all over the map on this one, so it may be worth reposting the early message by Atsme of a simple truth:

"Update - CNN - FBI says Bubba Wallace not a target of a hate crime."

Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternate Mississippi state flag nominations

Proposed new Flag of Mississippi in accordance with legislative requirements. Trademark lawyers unhappy about the puzzle piece? How about an eagle?

Jimbo, due to recent events we are able to nominate alternate state flags for Mississippi. You know how much the military history buffs love their pagentry, right? Here is your chance to promote a fun contest. I've started the bidding at Wiki-pe-tan promoting physical fitness in her track suit. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I can already hear CGP Grey preparing a podcast rant about it. Not because of Wiki-pe-tan, mind you, but because of the mismatched background color and the usage of text. Otherwise he's totally cool with it. Nathan2055talk - contribs 02:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nathan2055: It wouldn't be a wiki if I wasn't hoping someone else to do better! <3 EllenCT (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nathan2055: what is it called in heraldry when a motto is written on a ribbon? Ticker tape? Draped over shoulders? Is the heraldic term for a ribbon with writing draped over a bird's shoulders the same as for ticker tape draped over a person's shoulders? It's not clear to me that any state flags depict falconry yet, do they? EllenCT (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Jimbo's user page

I think Jimbo's user page should be indefinitely semi-protected. Vandalism has resumed many times once the page has been unprotected. If you don't think that it should be, please explain. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

“Anyone Can Edit Wikipedia”

I think someone has raised this point before & id like to echo that individual. Although the “anyone can edit Wikipedia” is a fundamental principle of this collaborative project, I feel that principle is what has brought upon us the general misconception that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source for information. Although I don’t have, nor propose any way to remedy anything, I feel there should be a mechanism whereby “not just anyone” can edit Wikipedia. If random people/Ip addresses try to edit Wikipedia for fun & see that they cannot (due to any future mechanism built which prevents them to) people would begin to realize Wikipedia isn’t childs play & take it a tad bit more serious & would also help correct the popular misconception that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source for information. However like I earlier stated, I do not have a proposal or anything but I just thought to let you know that. Volunteers on this collaborative project work too hard to ensure verifiability of information, usuage of reliable sources to ensure veracity of information & listening to colleagues of mine(who have no idea that I am a Wikipedian) say inane things like “Wikipedia isn’t reliable as anyone can edit it” really gets me annoyed to put it mildly. Celestina007 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki isn't reliable for that and a few other reasons. (And I say that as someone who has edited here for quite sometime.) I've felt a remedy would be to have a subject matter expert in charge of a article or a particular set/type of articles.....and they would have to clear any changes before they could be made. These people in charge would have to clearly be objective and have a idea as to what a encyclopedia article looks like. I don't know if there is enough personnel here for that though.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This is like Ratatouille: "anyone can edit" means a great editor can come from anywhere, that doesn't mean everyone is a great editor. We let folks from anywhere edit to begin with, and show them the door if they aren't being helpful. We very much do have a mechanism where "not just anyone" can edit Wikipedia, its in the form of community processes and admins that ban and block troublemakers. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
RAT-tat-TOO-ee! That would be Nice! (proving once again that they do let anybody edit here) Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem is: it can be quite sometime before a lot of these issues are discovered and addressed for certain articles. (The less popular ones...and sometimes even the more popular ones.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The way to solve that is to build better bots and tools, and get more editors, which is what we're doing already, IMV. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Wow... Dương Triệu (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Scrub a dub dub

The Intercept article about the scrubbing of the Kamala Harris BLP. Getting as close to being whitewashed as Joe Biden. Oh, and almost forgot WSJ article. Nice press. m( Atsme Talk 📧 16:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a new phenomenon. I'm old enough to remember how Sarah Palin's biography was carefully scrubbed and buffed, likely by a political operative, shortly before she was announced as John McCain's running mate in 2008 ([20]). If you think political biographies are rough, try inserting anything remotely negative—no matter how relevant & well-sourced—into the biography of a high-profile college football coach. In terms of bad press, I'd actually be more concerned that the media will pick up on what's going on at the Ronald Reagan article; the concerted effort to suppress anything remotely honest, unflattering, or nuanced about Reagan and race wouldn't hold up to outside scrutiny very well. MastCell Talk 21:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
MastCell, on Harris, these look like reasonable removals - weak sourcing. A documentcloud link, for example. Guy (help!) 22:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I looked at your diff over there [21], the page describing use of the tags that you left Template:Better source needed, and the link on that page insufficiently reliable sources. Do those 2 sources belong in the category described by that link insufficiently reliable sources? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
According to The Intercept, "In 2016, Mnuchin donated $2,000 to her campaign, making her the only 2016 Senate Democratic candidate to get cash from Mnuchin, but as senator, she voted against the confirmation of Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury." Sounds good to me! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Bob K31416, normally I'd have removed it per BLP, but in this case it'll probably pass. Single-sourcing to The Intercept is a bad idea IMO. Fortunately we have many progressive editors, and the progressives I know really don't like Harris, so it's likely to improve. Guy (help!) 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I was asking about your opinion according to Wikipedia policy or guidelines that are linked in the template description regarding reliable sources, not your own personal preferences. Never mind. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Bob K31416, and the answer to that is that there is no violation of policy other than by inclusion of unreliable sources, one of which I removed. The rest is a matter for editorial discretion, as always.
If you have a problem with Bnguyen1114 then the correct venue is WP:AE, since this article is under two overlapping sets of discretionary sanctions. Guy (help!) 17:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed there's a mess going on over there at Kamala Harris on the article and talk pages regarding the tags. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Well, MastCell...I'm old enough to remember the phrase barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and it came with no labels unlike all the politically motivated labels attached to people today. I remember the Reagan years well, and a time when it wasn't at all unusual for a mom to lovingly tell her rambunctious kids to stop running around barefoot, to go put shoes on and stop acting like "little monkeys" - no labels of racism attached. In fact, I'd wager that it's still said today with no racist connotation. And then there's the 500lb gorilla picture we use on WP today, with no racist label whatsoever, and Trump being compared to and having the intelligence of an orangutan but that isn't racist. Nope - what WP considers racist is Reagan's private recorded phone conversation, and a phrase he used to express his frustration - not about the people necessarily, but about the country in what I would consider the same intent as the aforemented phrases, but because he's a Republican, his words are automatically labeled racist. We censored Biden's "you ain't black" gaffe, and whitewashed his article of notable criticisms while we pretend it's compliant with NPOV. Right - don't pay any mind to mainstream media's criticism - nothing to worry about - remember, WP is too big to fail. Atsme Talk 📧 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
So when Reagan said, of a group of African diplomats: "To see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them...They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes"... you don't see anything racist in that? You find that comparable to a mom lovingly scolding her children? I mean, I know you just said all of that, but I want to make sure I understand. MastCell Talk 23:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
MastCell, do not make it personal. The only thing you need to understand where I'm concerned has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or yours, and everything to do with our understanding of and compliance with NPOV as it relates to WP and the Reagan article. Since you brought up the "concerted effort" at the Reagan article, I will add that Levivich broke it down quite well and it aligns with my understanding of WP:PAG. UNDUE is the common denominator, but his explanation was much better than mine. Atsme Talk 📧 16:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that Atsme think carefully before answering MastCell's question, and then to answer it with an acknowledgment of the pernicious results of the racism that permeates our society. Trivializing is not helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering when this would devolve into subtle accusations of racism against fellow editors. Glad to see I wasn't disappointed I suppose. Don't be that guy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess that I do not agree with you, PackMecEng, that me pointing out a comparison that trivializes racism is somehow equivalent to an accusation of racism against a colleague. I was commenting on the content of the comment rather than the character of the editor. I hope that I have made the distinction clear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
No, you did not. I need you to explain that you are not making such a heinous implication because from what I can tell you made no distinction. PackMecEng (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I have made my point and clarified. Now it is time for other voices to comment. I will certainly take criticism by other productive editors very seriously. Nothing I said was heinous if you read my words accurately as written. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I will agree with you there, you have made some kind of point. The rest I guess we agree to disagree. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, but isn't this the core of the issue with accusations of racism? Stefan Molyneux is clearly a racist, but Donald Trump is not obviously a racist, he just doesn't care enough to push back on racist messaging from his followers and staff. Responding to the George Floyd protests with ten year sentences for tearing down statues of traitors erected by racists in the 20th Century is not, of itself, racist, but the racists love it and their victims do not.
Yesterday Trump went full culture war in his speech at Mount Rushmore, and in that context he is positioning the protection of confederate statues on the "right" side along with transphopbia and Dominionism - and, like it or not, that puts Black Americans on the "wrong" side. Add that to the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on Black Americans (who are more likely to work hourly-paid customer-facing jobs) and the already significant problem of income inequality, where again Black Americans have not seen a hint of the income rises that the top 1% and 10% have experienced, and you have a pretty incendiary situation. To respond to this with brutality, as he has, is really quite concerning.
I'm sure he doesn't really want a second civil war, but you wonder if his campaign is setting up a strategy of running as a law and order candidate against a background of race riots. The only reason I personally discount malice here is that one should always start from a default assumption of incompetence, and, while his response would indeed require it to a quite staggering degree, the Trump administration is generally recognised as uniquely gifted in that department. Guy (help!) 18:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
My issue was with Cullen implying Atsme is racist. PackMecEng (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, eh? "Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" has been associated with the religious right since I first became aware of US politics, which was during Ford's presidency. It was code for anti-abortion activism before that was socially acceptable. It was only racially charged in as much as the religious right has always encompassed the Southern Baptists, who, as we all know, enabled and fought for segregation to the bitter end and beyond (Wayne Flint called it the "last bastion of segregation").
Do you actually understand why people see a crucial difference between Joe's gaffe and Trump's ten year sentences for pulling down Confederate statues? Hint: "very fine people". Guy (help!) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see..."religious right"...thanks for that new "today label", Guy. All these years I thought it was misogyny which has extreme negative effects on women of all colors but now you've earmarked it with a politically charged designer label that denigrates nearly half the people in the US, a potential pitfall that may lead to losing readership and financial support. Historically, misogyny has been swept under the rug since the beginning of time, and is in full bloom to this day. We can thank our lucky stars for editors like Rosiestep who, along with many other hard working contributors, have done so much in the fight against Systemic bias in Wikipedia. Atsme Talk 📧 20:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, we have an article: religious right. In fact it's most closely associated with the "moral majority". This is just how it is, denying it is a bit pointless. Guy (help!) 22:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, there's more than one alleged racist statement/action by Biden - he's all over the place: NYMag, Snopes, CNN, Mother Jones, and NPR. I couldn't help but laugh at NPR's headline: Biden Pulls Back On 'Cavalier' Remarks About Black Voters. It's cavalier when it's Biden saying it, but a racist slur when it's Trump. We see more labels on Trump than we see in WalMart. The real question here is do you not understand why such remarks have been whitewashed from Joe Biden? As for the statues, I'm not going anywhere near that topic. Atsme Talk 📧 19:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, so, do you see the difference between Joe Biden's gaffes (which are a decades-long theme) and Donald Trump, a man who chose white nationalist Stephen Miller as an adviser, defended literal Nazis as "very fine people", and reacted to race riots by introducing ten year sentences for tearing down statues of traitors erected by racists in the 20th Century?
Here's a clue: Biden shows contrition and is criticised by his own side anyway, while Trump resorts to DARVO and is defended by his supporters regardless. Guy (help!) 22:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That law already exists and the penalties can range from nothing if acquitted but anywhere fron a fine to 10 years imprisonment if convicted. Please get an education before you regurgitate opinions masquerading as facts about a country you are not native of.--MONGO (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
MONGO, I never knew Andrew Jackson or Ulysses S. Grant were traitors. I'm thankful our friend from the UK is here to educate us dumb Americans. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, I am taslking, obviously, about confederate monuments, whihc are the main focus of BLM activists.
Most of them were erected in thge 20th Century by racists. Guy (help!) 23:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG, [22] That's not Grant, Jackson, Lincoln, Washington or Jefferson either. The fact that you think this is the focus of BLM is more proof that you really ought not to comment on US matters since you are so far out of what is going on on a daily basis in the US. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG is obviously referring to Confederate monuments, most of which were erected in the 20th Century by racists, and which are the main focus of BLM activists. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I also forgot Columbus, and reiterate my point about you being ignorant about daily protests in the US and what statues are being protested. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
and the statue of Frederick Douglas, who also wasn't a racist. Frederick Douglass statue vandalized on anniversary of his famous Fourth of July Rochester speech so tell me again how it's only racists who they are targeting? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, The issue of statues is well documented. Most of the targets are confederate monuments erected during the 20th Century. Some noted slave owners are also being targeted, along with Columbus, for reasons that are again well documented.
And yes, some outliers exist: people who either don't know what they are doing, or have a particularly absolutist view. But the major focus, absolutely clearly, is confederate monuments (and indeed confederate names on US Army bases).
You imply that the edge cases are the entirety of the thing, and suggest that any other interpretation is indicative of unfitness to comment. That is a viewpoint, I guess. The irony of course is that the issue of statues would not exist (and hence the edge cases would not even be in question) if the confederate monuments had been torn down last time, or the time before that, or the time before that, instead of pandering to the "very fine people". Guy (help!) 08:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It's more than just a few outliers, maybe more like 25% are in the same camp as the Douglass statue. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Pelirojopajaro, yep, but Guy is so sure of everything, he knows all the local news of all the local cities and all the statues, that he knows that most of the statues are all Confederates, and if we, in the US see differently, it must be because we're stupid Americans. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
MONGO, and how copmfortable were you with a speech that made two laudatory mentions of Andrew "Trail Of Tears" Jackson, on a site stolen from the Lakota Sioux? And which was in fact a campaign speech but funded by the American taxpayer as a presidential address? Are you OK with the statue park, which will include one of the most notorious bigots in American history, as well as Columbus?
This is beyond dog whistles. It's beyond tone deaf. He needs the racists or he will be humilioated ion November, and he is openly courting them with taxpayer's money. That seems bad to me. Guy (help!) 23:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG...why aren't you protesting in Trafalgar Square and agitating to pull down that statue of slave owner and traitor to the British Empire, namely, George Washington. It was given to the UK by that nasty southern US state of Virginia, you know, where Richmond the capital of the Confederacy once was? And they gave it at the height of what you refer to as the KKK period, back in 1924...probably by racists of course. The US "stole" all the land from native American tribes...we also broke nearly every treaty we ever signed with them. The US is evil and full of racists. But we can always overlook such things as the British concentration camps, or the infamous Jallianwala Bagh massacre both of which occurred much more recently than when the US "stole" the Black Hills from the Sioux Nation in the 1870s. That land actually belonged to the Arikawa starting around the year 1100 and was subsequently "owned" by the Crow, Pawnee, Kiowa, Cheyenne and then the Lakota but now, since most of the Black Hills is within Black Hills National Forest and there are 4 National Park sites within the region, it now belongs to the "American" tribe, or namely, every US citizen. The US Government therefore "stole" the land and gave it to everyone.--MONGO (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
MONGO, the canonical example in the UK is Churchill: venerated as a national hero, but actually profoundly morally ambiguous. I am not a fan. He was responsible for millions of deaths, and his favourite adviser, Lindemann, seems to me to have been a racist. I'd be happy if the statues of Churchill were removed.
Arguing over the rights of stealing a Native American reservation on the basis that it had changed hands between warring tribes is a viewpoint, I guess. But it also misses the point: this is an area that is sensitive and sacred to Native Americans, and laudatory mentions of Andrew Jackson are at best tone deaf and quite posibly, in context, deliberate race-baiting. That's what you get when you have a white nationalist as a speechwriter.
I am not in favour of removing statues of Washington (anywhere). Yes, he was a slave owner, but redemption is a thing. He, more than any other single person, brought down slavery in the US, and I think history justly gives him credit for that. But there should be no statues of Lee (and he said that himself), or Forrest, or any of the other Confederates. Statues of Columbus are inflammatory. The Emancipation Memorial is... problematic. Why portray the Black man as a supplicant in a memorial that should be celebrating his elevation to equal rights, the right to stand tall? I can see why some people are upset by that.
I would say that a mature discussion over the disputed or ambiguous monuments cannot take place in the context of an "all monuments matter" narrative. Everyone should agree that statues of confederate "heroes" have no place in the public square. They were traitors, the statues were almost all erected by racists, and many of them were erected as a deliberate rebuke to civil rights. Everybody should agree on this. Coinfederate statues should go from all public lands. And then you stand some chance of a rational discussion about the rest. I do not think people would be tearing down statues of anybody if the confederate monuments had been demolished after the many previous protests. Guy (help!) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Meh...while I can appreciate why a statue of a confederate general would offend especially those looking for a reason to feel offended, most of those offended truly need to do some better research rather than paint such a broad brush and gloss over the facts. The easily offended can surely come up with various levels of anguish in their efforts to appear as good social justice warriors, but most don't actually do a damn thing that truly makes a difference. I highly doubt a tour of Gettysburg would make much sense if we struck everything Confederate about it. Besides, those confederate monuments there are protected by federal law, as they are on every other federal battlefield. What lies in a city under the jurisdiction of local or state auspices is usually outside the realm of federal oversight unless the monument or location is listed under the National Register of Historic Places. I do not see how the removal of confederate statues in Baltimore has done one thing to reduce the violent crime that is so prolific there. People were not going around shooting each other there just because a statue of Lee and Jackson stood in the city...and the violent crime rate there has even had an uptick since it was removed in 2017. I have no idea why in the US and Europe one can go see tanks, planes and other wartime paraphernalia that the Nazi's made and used against the allies. Maybe these relics of such an evil regime should not be kept in places where the public can be offended? Maybe we should resink the Hunley?--MONGO (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
MONGO, confederate statues and confederate flags are monuments to racism and slavery, and should not be in the public square. There are lots of issues on which reasonable people may differ, but this isn't one of them. The history of the monuments tells you all you need to know about what they are really about. Most were erected during the Jim Crow era, a period of resurgent white supremacy that saw for example Virginia's Racial Integrity Act enacted.
This isn't about Gettysburg, any more than Nazi memorabilia is about Normandy museums. There's a world of difference between presenting the sides in conflict on a historical battlefield, and glorifying people who waged bloody war to preserve slavery.
Of course confederate monuments are not a cause of race riots or crime, but they are a powerful symbol of the fact that, more than half a century after the Civil Rights Act, Black people still do not have equality.
No politician should be going to bat for confederate symbols. Give them back to the United Daughters of the Confederacy to put in their "museum" and be done with it. Guy (help!) 09:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, seriously...you're throwing stones at MONGO from a glass house? The Guardian Britain: land of thieves But, more importantly, without acknowledging its past wrongs, Britain lacks the moral authority to lecture others on the domestic and international scene. Atsme Talk 📧 00:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, you don't seem to be aware that I have argued for, for example, the return of the "Elgin" marbles. Perhaps because you have assumed that I only care about one form of social justice? I don't. I want the Rhodes statue gone from Oxford, too, and I support the return of the shrunken heads from the Pitt Rivers Collection in Oxford (one of my favourite museums). As above, I would be happy if statues of Churchill were removed. England has an appalling legacy of slavery, many of our richest families are rich because the government paid them huge sums for their slaves - we were still paying this until 2015.
The problem is, though, one of double negatives. The current US administration is anti-anti-fascists and anti-anti-racist. The current poresident numbers among his vociferous supporters both fascists and racists. Our Prime Minister is an arse who thinks he should quote Kipling in Myanmar, and Brexit was promoted largely through racist dog-whistles. Boris and Trump both make tone-deaf comments to appeal to a racist base. The main difference is that Boris can string together a coherent sentence and has at least some level of self-awareness (in fact his USP is that he knows he is a buffoon). Guy (help!) 09:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who has a neater, sweeter maiden in a cleaner, greener land is entitled to quote Kipling in Myanmar or anywhere else for that matter. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I will speak only to your Brexit issue - it appears your POV is now considered "fringe" in a similar manner to the way the opposite POV was considered fringe prior to the Brexit victory. Neither whining, denigrating and labeling people, nor soapboxing on WP is a productive way to spend our busy volunteer time as WP editors. I really, really hate politics but when I'm wearing my WP editor's hat, the need for accuracy and NPOV summon me. Consider applying everything you've taught me over the years and tweak it as needed to apply to your reality. Funny how things change with the societal tide - consensus can change...and by golly, it does. Atsme Talk 📧 12:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, what on earth are you talking about? Do you think I was ever in favour of leaving the EU?
Fringe does not mean minority. The Democratic Party does not become fringe when the Republicans win or vice-versa. When we talk about fringe views on Wikipedia we mean things like QAnon, not merely minority ideas. Even racism is mainstream. Guy (help!) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, per the linked article's title: Brexit: how a fringe idea took hold of the Tory party - what was the fringe idea in your view? I didn't see it as a minority party but rather, the idea of Brexit which was described as a fringe idea...was it not? If I'm not mistaken, the idea to remain in the EU was overruled in favor of Brexit; therefore, logic says with that reversal of ideas, remaining in the EU is now the fringe idea. You disagree? Atsme Talk 📧 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, you said: I will speak only to your Brexit issue - it appears your POV is now considered "fringe" in a similar manner to the way the opposite POV was considered fringe prior to the Brexit victory.
Up until about five years ago, the idea of leaving the EU was fringe (it scored nowhere on lists of public concerns). It was promoted to the mainstream by the usual unholy alliance of racists, dark money think tanks, and hedge funds. Now it's mainstream. But that hasn't converted Remain to a fringe view. Most polls show that Brexit has only minority support, since the costs became apparent. Something that has substantial support is, pretty much by definition, not a fringe political position.
A 52:48 vote to leave the EU does not convert remaining to a fringe position. As I said, the Democratic Party does not become fringe when Republicans have control, or vice-versa. Fringe does not mean minority. Fringe means delusional and super minority. With sufficient effort even a truly delusional tiny-minority view can be mainstreamed for a while at least. That's often how dictators get started. Guy (help!) 14:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, Guy - as I said, I'm not talking about the party or the people; rather, I am talking about the "idea" - the idea of Brexit was considered "fringe", and now that Brexit was adopted, the idea of going back to the EU is "fringe" since it was not adopted or supported in that vote. Whatever - I don't have a dog in that fight as a member of Project Dogs, I need a better analogy. 8) Atsme Talk 📧 14:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, seriously, Atsme, you seem not to understand what fringe means.
A fringe idea is one that is on the fringes, that is, held by very few, usually roundly dismissed by informed research, and has no significant traction. That was Brexit in 2010. A fringe idea can be mainstreamed, as Brexit was. Mainstreaming racist ideas is a hugely successful ploy for right wing populists.
An idea that has 56.8% support is not fringe, pretty much by definition. The idea of rejoining the EU is not fringe. It is far too soon to say whether it is inevitable or, conversely, inconceivable. Geographically, the UK is part of Europe, and in about six months' time people will realise what Brexit actually means - at this point nothing has changed, but public debate over the effects of being effectively at the mercy of the US shows that the penny has started to drop. Guy (help!) 14:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I thought it was stolen from the Cheyenne? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to take your ill-willed bait, Cullen. You were warned by Jimmy about this type of behavior in the past, and now you are here repeating it. I have lived around the world, not just in my cozy little corner of the US. For a big part of my life, I have lived as a white minority, and that happens to be where I am living today with much love and understanding, and surrounded by beautiful people who help make my humble existence on this planet worth living. The love I have shared and received around the globe extends beyond words, and I certainly don't owe you or anyone else an explanation. My island family and I have had long discussions about the allegations of racism in the US. Personal views, much like what you expressed here along with a few others, brings an article to mind that was published by CNN wherein the author quoted Tanya Hernandez (professor at Fordham University's School of Law): Blacks are becoming more savvy about the difference between "authentic blackness" and "strategic blackness". Our BLP policy attempts to prevent, and dutifully so, opinions based on false facts, and why I tend to write for the opposition, especially considering my 35+ years as a media professional in America's highly litigious society. Keep in mind what the NYTimes and WaPo are now having to defend. Regardless of the allegations, be they true or false, I have learned from experience that defamation cases can be extremely expensive which makes me more sensitive to our obligations as editors and to the WMF. It is easy to understand why I strictly adhere to BLP policy, US Laws, and our 3 core content policies. Accusations of racism, as what you alluded to in this discussion, are opinion-based and while we are entitled to our opinions per the 1st Amendment, there are caveats to how we express them. As editors of WP, we are obligated to avoid WP:OR which you are attempting to do. We are also obligated to state the facts accurately, and properly cite them to multiple high quality RS with special attention to WP:REDFLAG and WP:LABEL because opinions based on false facts create problems as explained in the Case Western Reserve Law Review. I will always choose to err in favor of policy and the WMF. Atsme Talk 📧 14:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Atsme, for reminding me of Jimbo's "warning" on my talk page. It was very pleasurable reading again the many comments by respected editors coming to my defense and also the following section where Jimbo came back to make peace with me. That was great for my morale. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You are quite welcome - and be mindful that losing respect is much easier than it was to gain. Atsme Talk 📧 21:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
"the allegations of racism in the US"??Allegations? You think the history of slavery, redlining, discrimination, and prejudice are not actually evidence of pervasive and institutional racism but that it's only a bunch of yet-to-be-proven allegations? That's textbook white privilege, to be able to pretend and argue that racism in the US might not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:62A:62F0:B6D:20D9:8935:5BB4 (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
2605:8D80:62A:62F0:B6D:20D9:8935:5BB4, The allegations Atsme was referring to were those by President Trump against the WaPo and NYT. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Recommended reading - Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left by Sheri Berman, associate professor of political science at Barnard College, Columbia University, published 14 July 2018 in The Guardian, a year or so after Jimmy resigned from their Board, but who knows to what degree his influence may have had positive effects even after he left. Atsme Talk 📧 17:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
No, Bob K31416. "My island family and I have had long discussions about the allegations of racism in the US" follows some words about how Atsme has lived all over the world and loves people and is in the minority wherever they are living. It's only after that where Atsme pivots to litigation and mentions WaPo and NYT, which, I might add, are suits regarding libel, not racism. Atsme does probably refer to the particular allegations against WaPo and NYT in a following sentence ("Regardless of the allegations, be they true or false"), but the initial "allegations of racism in the US" comes before any of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:62A:62F0:BD60:3E25:EFE7:DC58 (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The IP misconstrued my use of "allegations of racism in the US", so for the sake of proper sentence comprehension see the following examples of allegations of racism (my bold):
  • WSJ - "Walt Disney Co. DIS -0.73% suspended top ABC News executive Barbara Fedida and launched an investigation into her behavior after allegations of racist remarks and other questionable practices were raised in a recent HuffPost article."
  • LATimes - Doja Cat Denies Allegations of Racism,
  • ABC - National black law enforcement group slams alleged racism in St. Louis police department,
  • CPSBC - Response to allegations of racism in the ER (this one is Canada)
  • KCRG - Hawkeye football players voice unity amid racism allegations in program
  • Daily Gazette - Former Proctors employee comes forward with allegations of racism
Hopefully that's enough, but I've got more if needed. Atsme Talk 📧 20:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, in respones to your comment above: Comparing Donald Trump to an orangutan is not, in any way, shape, or form, racist. However, comparing any person of color to an orangutan, or any simian, is a despicable and dehumanizing racial slur without defense.
Recommended reading,
Please do not take this as any sort of accusation, I just want to make sure we are clear on this. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Protected to serve as "...poignant reminders of the darkest period in our region's history..."
Artifex, you and I appear to be products of different times in history, different cultures, environments, educations and experiences in life. I am a realist or pragmatist, if you will, and did not/will not allow hatred, animosity or guilt to consume my life, especially for something that neither I nor my ancesters took part in; the exact opposite is true. Granted, my being female influences my perspective, and I have experienced misogyny, abuse and oppression, and have seen what women of all colors around the world have to live under. Living as chattel is ugly, as sex slaves is worse, but it's only a small part of what so many woman globally are having to endure to this day. Our own beloved encyclopedia has gender issues. I'm of the mind that the US has made great strides to correct injustices - much more needs to be done - but when I'm logged-in, I am wearing my WP editor's hat, and as such am mentally focused on my work which means I'm not here to WP:RGW, WP:ADVOCATE, or WP:SOAPBOX. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and that should be your purpose as well. If you want more, I highly recommend joining one of the non-profit advocacies where you can actually help make change. On WP, our obligation is compliance with NPOV, which means we include all prominent views in our articles – regardless of whether or not we agree with them. I have provided a few different perspectives to consider when editing articles about the situation in the US: Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Anthony Peterson for starters. Look for better sources but keep in mind, the people being interviewed have weight when the sources are not ideal. Atsme Talk 📧 12:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources confirm that comparing a Black person to an ape is a classic racist trope, as ArtifexMayhem points out. You are—for whatever reason—determined to deny, dispute, and suppress that. If you were truly wearing what you call your "Wikipedian hat", you'd be capable of following the sources even when they point to an uncomfortable truth. Instead, you are the one trying to right what you perceive as a Great Wrong, and then opportunistically reframing your actions as a defense of Wikipedian principles when they are the exact opposite. MastCell Talk 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
MastCell, you said: "You are—for whatever reason—determined to deny, dispute, and suppress that." That is a blatantly false accusation, and it is even more shameful that you stated it matter-of-factly despite my asking you to not make your comments personal. Now it appears that you are bullying me with false accusations and spewing nonsense based entirely on your misconceptions of what I said. Why don't you back-up your aspersions by quoting exactly what I said, in context, and support your accusations that I am "determined to" : (1) deny a racist trope... (2) dispute a racist trope... (3) suppress a racist trope. This is not unlike what you did to me in the relatively recent past over your misconceptions about my position regarding clickbait headlines, notnews, breaking news, recentism and news org. If you have a bone to pick, I suggest that you go to the supermarket and buy a chicken; they have plenty of bones you can pick. Stop projecting what you are doing to RGW onto me. Looking at your past year's worth of edit contributions, you've made under 150 edits total vs my 6,800+ edits, and who is here to build an encyclopedia? You know, MastCell, if suppressing racist tropes was truly an issue for you in your quest to RGW, why aren't you at the Joe Biden BLP helping to put an end to the denials, disputes and suppression of his racist connotations and gaffes, and the fact that he was against busing, or that his respected friend and close associate was Senator Byrd, head of a KKK chapter? Why aren't you doing more damage control to protect WP's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia by paying closer attention to what the critics are saying about us, which is exactly why I started this entire discussion in the first place? How in the hell did it end-up with a focus on racism? Who diverted my discussion to racism?
  • Wow! Nevermind that last question...I just scrolled up the page and saw your tl;dr discussion about the Reagan article. What was that you were saying about me being determined, or the part about RGW? You are way off the charts, MastCell. Atsme Talk 📧 22:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You argue that calling Black people "monkeys" isn't necessarily or inherently racist; you describe it as just an expression of "frustation"; and you compare it to a mother lovingly scolding her small children. I mean, you realize that we can see what you wrote here, right? And you helpfully added a picture of an ape to the discussion, to make your point.

The fact that you've made 6,800+ edits is exactly the problem. You're a prolific editor and de facto content gatekeeper, so when you simply refuse to acknowledge the racist context of a comment or trope, no matter how obvious, then there's a direct link between your denialism and the systemic biases in our content. That's a problem that I find worth addressing in the portion of my time that I choose to spend here. MastCell Talk 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Given your history this sounds like The pot calling the kettle black kind of situation at best. Perhaps it is time you take another break and cool off. Is this really the road you want to go down? Just something to think about. PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm quite proud of my history, so you'll have to spell out whatever you have in mind rather than insinuating it. I'm also comfortable with what I've said here—I'd be more uncomfortable listening to this horseshit and not speaking up, your efforts to run interference notwithstanding. MastCell Talk 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
You have consistently been wrong about me, MastCell, and nothing has changed over the years except that you are more wrong now than you have ever been where I'm concerned. I'll spell it out for you because you need to STOP your PAs and the ill-will you've shown toward me for something I did not do. Following is exactly what I told you from the very beginning about how I felt about Reagan's racist comment and our PAGs. I said to you, do not make it personal - and the rest of my quote follows: "Since you brought up the "concerted effort" at the Reagan article, I will add that Levivich broke it down quite well and it aligns with my understanding of WP:PAG. UNDUE is the common denominator, but his explanation was much better than mine."[1] I expected you to read that diff because it "aligns with my understanding" - nowhere have I ever denied that it was a racist comment. I simply tried to put things in historic perspective regarding the insensitivity to certain phrases back then that today we consider racist. I even stated that Levivich's explanation was much better than mine. (following are a few excerpts that I align with):
  • But one racist comment... seriously? Why are we highlighting this racist comment?
  • Is this the only racist comment Reagan ever made in his life? Of course not.
  • Is this comment indicative of Reagan's views? How do we know? Well, if there are a lot of other comments like this one, then we can say "Reagan made a lot of racist comments".
  • By the way, "Reagan was racist" is not some kind of revelation. You can pretty much bet that every single white man in power has said something like that at some point. It's not really a revelation that white people are racist or call black people monkey's. Do we think there's a problem with race in America because no Americans are racist?
Is there a little egg dripping off your chin, MastCell, or are you so "proud of [your] history" that your ego won't let you see the harm you've done by the ill-will you've cast upon me? Atsme Talk 📧 19:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Atsme, you taunt MastCell with comments like, quote, "Is there a little egg dripping off your chin, MastCell", and in the same comment have the nerve to accuse them of making personal attacks??? You're way out of line. Again. But please, by all means, keep going. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


Sources

  1. ^ "User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia. 2020-07-04. Retrieved 2020-07-09.
Atsme, you clearly claimed Reagan's "...monkeys from those African countries..." statement should not be considered racist and that doing so is just politically motivated "labeling"; I'm old enough to remember the phrase barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and it came with no labels unlike all the politically motivated labels attached to people today. I remember the Reagan years well, and a time when it wasn't at all unusual for a mom to lovingly tell her rambunctious kids to stop running around barefoot, to go put shoes on and stop acting like "little monkeys" - no labels of racism attached. In fact, I'd wager that it's still said today with no racist connotation. And then there's the 500lb gorilla picture we use on WP today, with no racist label whatsoever, and Trump being compared to [an orangutan] and having the intelligence of an orangutan but that isn't racist.
When MastCell questioned you on this you responded by accusing him of making "it personal" and then proceeded to dodge the question entirely. Cullen328 also questioned your comment and suggested you "think carefully before answering" MastCell's question because you were at risk of trivializing "the racism that permeates our society". To which you responded with "I'm not going to take your ill-willed bait", brought up some two-year-old event between Cullen328 and Jimbo —an event that resulted in one of the most genuine apologies I've ever read—, some stuff about living on an island and discussing "allegations of racism in the US" with your "island family", an odd reference that makes claims about "authentic blackness" and "strategic blackness", etc. None of which addresses the original question, or even acknowledges Cullen328's concerns or advice.
At this point, I figured I would make a good faith assumption, supply some sources, and a very brief explanation. Maybe you had no idea that referring to a group of African diplomats as "...those monkeys from African countries..." was one of the most racist remarks one could possibly make about Africans (or people of color in general, regardless of diplomatic status). You responded with —ignoring your personal attacks against me— claims that "[l]iving as chattel is ugly, as sex slaves is worse", really? Just ugly? And being a sex slave is worse? Do you really not understand what being another person's property entails? That being a slave includes being a sex slave...or anything else your owner wishes? Owned. Property. Non-human. No rights. Nothing.
It sure looks like you are indeed, as MastCell stated above, " determined to deny, dispute, and suppress" a well known racist trope. Regardless of what you may truly believe, racism does not require intent. It just doesn't. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Eh to me it looks like Mast and Cull just had no argument so attacked the person. Rather telling on their own beliefs I suppose. Unfortunate. PackMecEng (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed PME, the arguments are based on a logical fallacy that is influenced by the opposition's POV and bias, perceived or otherwise. It's a shame that this discussion has devolved the way it has after being purposely diverted from its original intent; i.e., media criticism over the scrubbing of Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden articles. But instead of expressing concern over Biden's racist comments,[1][2][3][4] sexual misconduct or the scrubbing, denials, suppression of material in some of WP's BLPs that have received wide-spread criticism in the media, he pulls a fast one, and ironically paints me as a racist in a rather domineering fashion, and then twists my words to fit his narrative. I will repeat what I actually said to him when he first asked me about my iVote in that RfC not what he thought I said that has him all riled up. I asked him to quote me, not summarize what he thinks I said. I pointed to opposing inclusion of a single racist statement made 50+/- yr. ago by a now dead US president who can't defend himself. MastCell's diversion tactic worked, for a short while anyway. I'm turning the focus back to my reason for starting this discussion, rather than focus on MastCell's advocacy as evidenced here, a day after the Reagan RfC was opened. In his argument, he invited everyone to take a look at Talk:Ronald Reagan and proceeds to describe what's going on there to his dismay. Isn't that considered WP:CANVASSING? And now he's here bullying me in a very domineering fashion which I don't appreciate one bit. What have you got to say about your canvassing, and why you are so focused on a single comment and not the racist statements by Joe Biden or his association with Robert Byrd? Is it too "today" for you, not to mention his displays of racism and the racist comments he's made? Sorry, but I considered the scrubbing of Harris & Biden to be a higher priority than a single 50+/- yr. old comment made by a now dead US president who can't defend himself. Adding original source from July 4, 2020: see diff; and more: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Atsme Talk 📧 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme says " the arguments are based on a logical fallacy that is influenced...". No. As has been repeatedly pointed out and what Atsme refuses to acknowledge is that the problem was that she genuinely tried to pretend [23] that comparing black people to "monkeys" was not racist, and no different than a mother telling her children to stop acting like monkeys. This is so extremely disingenuous that I'm surprised that no action has been taken here. Add on top of that these ridiculous attempts at deflection (like bringing up this invented fantasy that Harris and Biden articles have been "scrubbed"), blatant BLP violations and personal insults Atsme has thrown around and I think we seriously have a problem here. This isn't just a single isolated instance but a whole pattern showing WP:NOTHERE behavior, regardless of how many "hugs" or "cookies" or such she gives out to admins. Volunteer Marek 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


MastCell is trying to make me out to be something I'm not with his holier than thou attitude. I am actually on the same page as he is with regards to racism, but with a slightly different approach. I'm on board for sure, especially for extreme cases of racism. It doesn't get much more extreme than being the chapter leader and member of the KKK, so if we're going back in time 50 some odd years, we need to fully expose Robert C. Byrd for what he was, and possibly even remove his WP article as a show of solidarity with Bethany College. There's an article about it at WDTV: Robert C. Byrd’s name removed from a college health center. What if his crisis of conscience was politically motivated but over time he really didn't change. What is the cut-off point and what qualifies for total desecretion of a person's existence? "Exalted Cyclops" in the KKK? Atsme Talk 📧 01:36, July 8, 2020 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ "Joe Biden's Stunningly Racist Answer on the Legacy of Slavery Has Been Overlooked". The Intercept. 2019-09-13. Retrieved 2020-07-09.
  2. ^ Viser, Matt; Sullivan, Sean (2019-06-20). "Biden faces backlash over comments about the 'civility' of his past work with racist senators". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-07-09.
  3. ^ "Biden's Comments Ruffle Feathers". CBS News. 2006-07-07. Retrieved 2020-07-09.
  4. ^ Kincaid, Cliff; Selepak, Andy (2007-02-06). "Why the Media Excuse Biden's Racism". Accuracy in Media. Retrieved 2020-07-09.
  5. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/biden-launches-presidential-bid-then-walks-into-race-row-over-obama-slur-434578.html
  6. ^ https://reason.com/2014/09/17/biden-apologizes-for-anti-semitic-slur/
  7. ^ https://time.com/3394403/shylock-biden/
  8. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ireland-biden/northern-irish-mp-asks-for-apology-over-biden-st-patricks-day-joke-idUSKBN0MD2HY20150317
  9. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-lawmakers-demand-biden-disavow-surrogate-s-racist-comments-n1131531
  10. ^ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/05/22/biden-says-you-aint-black-if-youd-vote-for-trump-over-him-uproar-ensues/
  11. ^ https://www.npr.org/2020/05/22/861007175/biden-pulls-back-on-cavalier-remarks-about-black-voters
  12. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-history-of-controversial-racial-comments
The above comment contains multiple unsourced unbacked and false WP:BLP violations (ex. " Biden's racist comments") and is being made by a user who has been repeatedly warned about this behavior. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Atsme, don't you think 15 personal attacks (minimum) is a good place to stop? I mean, I understand that this is Jimbo's page and that allowances are made and everything. But I'm pretty sure there is a limit. (And, yes, I can produce the diffs.) —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to tag any other comments you feel need sources using the [citation needed] tag. I already sourced it once when I opened this discussion, and I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that says we have to source repeat sentences that have already been sourced when it's in the same UTP discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 17:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme and I are both women, we are both about the same age, though I think I'm a little older, and no ancestors of mine had arrived on our shores prior to the year that slavery was officially ended (and note that I say "officially" because that proclamation was far from the end of slavery in our country). But I found ArtifexMayhem's suggestions of articles that would help one to see discrimination from an African American's perspective extremely helpful and I was surprised with how much I still had to learn, especially information about children's books. I believe that we are living in a long-awaited age of the beginning of what African Americans have been praying and hoping for for a very long time. There are all sorts of well-educated speakers of great renown, but I look to the wisdom of Mohammad Ali, who is well known for speaking the plain down-to-earth truth while expressing these truths with the art and beauty of an accomplished poet. See here on this 2017 presentation by ACLU attorney Jeffery Robsinson where he "discusses the dark history of Confederate symbols across the country and outlines what we can do to learn from our past and combat systemic racism". [24] Ali speaks shorty into the presentation but if one sets aside a little time and watches the entire presentation I can guarantee that their lives will be enriched with a lot of needed information about how it feels to be a person of color living in this land. Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I'm older than you but if you want the credit for being older, I will relent as my gift to you. ^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 22:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, we can dream, I guess, but with Trump tweeting in defence of the confederate flag today I think it may be a long haul. Guy (help!) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as a general much broader comment, after lugging out my NOTNEWS/RECENTISM soapbox, is that much of the conflict that is encompassed by the above comes down, yet again, to that we have far too many editors in this "hyperreporting" mode, trying to document way too much about what people are saying about things now on topics - particularly BLP - rather than to wait for dust to settle and figure out the longer-term view of that person documented by more academic and distant sources from the events that actually transpired. I can easily feel the draw to take to Trump related articles and document every little squabble that comes up as I otherwise feel powerless to do anything else as the US degrades further and further under his presidency, but being able to write in a key important website gives me a tiny bit of feeling of power to control a narrative. But just as myself (and I'm certain many other editors) feel that way, there are also those seeing what they see is a downplaying and suppression of conservative speech by mass media, and again, editing WP is a way to give them back that bit of control. These feel that hyperreporting cycle. We need editors not to do that, and that goes back to my long-standing points that across the board, we need to be less worried about how much focus we give what's reported "now" outside of key, fundamental facts in a story, and instead consider coming back to it a year, 5 years, 10 years later when more retrospective can be had and more sane and less details summaries can be written. This is the same type of idea applied to the Reagan story as well, seeing what affect those tapes, nearly a year now since revealed, have had on the views of Reagan and how that affects the article. Those types of discussions need to be much more commonplace but we need a wiki-wide shift of attitude to achieve that. --Masem (t) 19:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This resonates a lot with what I think an encyclopedia needs to take into account. Regarding "consider coming back to it a year, 5 years, 10 years later", I still agree, but here, I think, the mechanisms (as far as they exist) should be in place in terms of re-visiting. In the mean time, certain facts, acts, statements still can be reported and explained, but maybe give it a while (that while may well be less than "a year, 5 years, 10 years", however). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Masem, what comes to mind are the real denials, disputes and suppression that inspired me to start this discussion in the first place. I came here initially to draw attention to the scrubbing of material in Wikipedia and by some freak turn of events, I get accused of doing it, which is totally absurd. Biden's unacceptable actions and how the media quickly accepted and focused on his apologies, rather than his racial insensitivity (aka the spin) are what I find disconcerting. Imagine what his private telephone conversations will be like 50 years from now. His association with Robert Byrd was downplayed despite Byrd having been a leader of a KKK chapter. While I oppose guilt by association, the exception here is the fact that Biden and Byrd served together in the US Senate, which makes that association far more notable considering the policy decisions they made which effected the entire American citizenry. The media accepted Byrd's apology for being a KKK chapter leader - they were actually kind to him which helped him become the longest serving member of Congress. The Democratic party was quite forgiving of his racism, as they are of Biden's inappropriate behavior - and to think...all it took was an apology. Would the opposition get the same consideration? How about a dead man who cannot apologize? Will the historians and academics who will eventually provide their retrospectives be biased or neutral? Reagan never donned a white robe or burned a cross to my knowledge. WaPo published an article in 2017 about Reagan and the First Lady showing up at the home of a Black family in 1982. There is also an audio recording in that article. The family had been terrorized in 1977 by the KKK. To my knowledge, there's no mention of that visit in the Reagan article. Perhaps both incidents should be included from a NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 01:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
One thing that strikes me a as rather odd about editors such as MastCell and JzG getting quite upset with other editors for not wanting to include Reagan's racially insulting remarks into the Reagan Bio is that MastCell and company, for some strange reason, seem focused solely on Reagan to the exclusion of other modern presidents. Several post WWII US presidents are known to have insulted Blacks in their private conversation, Truman in particular, seems to have made something of a habit of it [[25]]. Of course, Truman, for his time was politically progressive on racial issues, but if we are going to include examples of private racist language in their bios, I don't see why he and all the other "racist" presidents besides Reagan should be exempt. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't count me in there, I have no strong views either way with Reagan, certainly not sufficient to be "upset". Obviously we should not whitewash articles, regardless of the politics of the subject. That said, I would wager that the most progressive person in the 19th Century would have used terminology that would today be considered grossly inappropriate - context does matter. Guy (help!) 08:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Truman's letters indicate that he held racist views; the discrepancy between those privately expressed views and his policies as President (which, as you note, were progressive), as outlined here, is an important aspect of his biography that we should absolutely cover. Here's the thing you're missing with your "gotcha" attempts: I'm confident that if I drafted material about Truman and race, I could get it included in his biography. In contrast, if anyone proposes acknowledging Reagan's well-sourced, relevant racist discourse, they're met with a brick wall of tendentious obstructionism from Atsme and other gatekeepers—to the ridiculous extreme that they're seriously arguing that there's nothing racist about comparing Black people to monkeys. That's the difference—the obstructionism and denial of blatantly obvious racist context—and whether due to colossal ignorance, a massive blind spot, reflexive partisan loyalty, or something more sinister, it's inimical to our efforts to build a comprehensive and reputable reference work. MastCell Talk 17:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, MastCell, I am now a little more sympathetic to your cause after reading some of the fluff in the Reagan bio [see my comment below]. No wonder you got pissed off. However, I don't think that direct quoting of the Reagan phone insults is the answer. In the case of presidents such as Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan quick, dignified, summary description of their ethnic slurs might be in order. ex. Nixon frequently castigated Jews and African-Americans in his private musings. In private conversation and letters Truman often referred to Blacks with racial slurs. With Congressional colleagues from the South Johnson often casually referred to African-Americans with familiar racial slurs. See the idea? 70.181.40.210 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your sympathy. (I guess I'd assumed that you had already read the article before forming an opinion about the validity of my concerns, but better late than never). I'm not attached to any particular wording—we never got as far as discussing that, because there is a brick wall of obstructionism on the talkpage forbidding any mention of the topic. Because, see, it would be "undue weight"—in an article that is 90% corn-fed hagiographic fluff. MastCell Talk 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me get this straight MastCell. Are you really saying Atsme has, "colossal ignorance, a massive blind spot, reflexive partisan loyalty, or something more sinister" or am I reading that wrongly?--MONGO (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
She's determinedly denying that there's anything racist about referring to Black people as "monkeys". Those are the explanations that occur to me. If you can think of others, I'm open to hearing them. MastCell Talk 18:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
So, you, an admin on this site, wontonly violates our No Personal Attacks because you disagree with someone over content? I noticed you referring to "gatekeepers"...I assume that means me because I also opposed your suggestion at that Rfc? I also saw you infer that Atsme is racist for adding the image of the gorilla? That image was uploaded by me long ago and adorns my userpage and I do not see either that image nor her caption was in any way a racist trope.--MONGO (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@MONGO: just a point of clarification. Mastcell never said anything about the gorilla or Atsme's adding of that image. (See response below about this striking of my comment.) She added it to make an unnecessary straw man/diversionary point, as no one had implied that every single possible mention of apes is racist. It obviously isn't, and I think that image is great. That's a pretty noble relative to humans.
BTW, the "personalization" of the discussion in a negative manner was not originally made by MastCell, but in the immediate response to his quesiton, as if his asking a question of Atsme, a specific editor, was improper. (Conversations usually involve such direct questions, in case you had forgotten.) He was just seeking clarity about her meaning. That's all, and the personal attacks on him that followed were truly improper. That is the point at which the civil discussion went downhill. Don't blame him for those overly sensitive and personalizing reactions. Thicker skin really helps to avoid these things. Taking offense where none is intended (AGF) is not conducive to civil discussion. Taking the high road never hurts. -- Valjean (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes Mastcell did question the image that Atsme added...right here.--MONGO (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, @MONGO: I have stricken that part of my comment and will get very specific about your unfounded accusation against MastCell: "you infer that Atsme is racist for adding the image of the gorilla". That is not true. MastCell inferred no such thing. AGF. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Be careful of what you say and how you word it. Your comment about apes, "That's a pretty noble relative to humans. Atsme Talk 📧 01:15, July 9, 2020 (UTC)
I was simply expressing my admiration for that image. That's a beautiful animal. I was also expressing my belief in evolution, and that we are related to the great apes. Nothing more. What has happened to AGF? It's this type of oversensitivity that creates disputes. -- Valjean (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That is exactly what's been happening to me - a clusterfrap, all stemming from an innocent statement I made about a time in our history, and you joined in on the pile-on. What has happened to AGF, indeed. Atsme Talk 📧 07:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It is Jimbo's talk page but such personal attacks against another editor, at least to me, are beyond the pale even here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: please read my comment immediately above yours. -- Valjean (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Not true, Valjean. MastCell made his comments personal despite my asking him to stop. He has implied that editors are racist if they don't agree with him that Reagan's racist comment belongs in his biography. He is obviously on a mission to RGW and has been projecting his behavior onto others. His behavior in this discussion is very unbecoming an admin of his stature, especially when the editors he is falsely accusing of noncompliance are actually of the same mind he is about racism to lesser, non-advocacy degree per NPOV, and have provided strong arguments against inclusion of Regean's private telephone discussion that support RECENTISM and DUE. Do the research and read his comments. Most editors already know that you and MastCell are strong allies so we expect you to defend him, right or wrong, not that there is anything wrong with that; just saying. Atsme Talk 📧 13:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
You've insisted that there is nothing harmful about even the most blatant of racial slurs. That is deeply uncivil, and, for many people, a personal attack. Site policy doesn't give you the right to minimize or deny racist insults without accountability, and my concerns about this harmful behavior don't constitute "personal attacks".

I think that even your enablers here realize how indefensible your conduct has been—notice that they studiously avoid engaging with the underlying concern, and instead focus on attacking me for bringing attention to it. Before you say anything else about how awful I am, MONGO, Levivich, PackMecEng: do you agree with Atsme that there's nothing inherently racist about comparing Black people to monkeys? MastCell Talk 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not what she said. You keep saying that's what she said, but that's not what the paragraph you're linking to says. A better question is: do I think the Reagan quote is racist? Yes, I do. Do I think it should be included in the article Ronald Reagan? No, I don't. Does that make me racist, or an apologist, or an enabler? No, it doesn't.

You have been making personal attacks, MastCell. Repeatedly for the last month, against multiple editors, including myself, when you accused me of being part of an effort to whitewash Reagan's biography because of my !vote in an RFC. You need to stop insulting our colleagues. You can't come on this website to blow off steam by picking fights with people, which is basically what you've been doing for the last month. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're not entitled to call editors who disagree with you racist, and you're not entitled to call editors who agree with them enablers. It's got to stop now, please. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's exactly what she said. I linked to her comment, because I figured you'd keep trying to gaslight me about it. After all, you're the guy who just tried to convince me that there's nothing "racially charged" about the term "lynching". As for the rest, I'm comfortable with what I've said. I'd feel worse if I saw this kind of thing and didn't speak up about it. MastCell Talk 20:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Accusing me of gaslighting and implying I'm racist is not cool. This is the last time I ask you to stop before I escalate. I understand you're saying it makes you feel better to act this way, but that's no justification. There are other editors' feelings to consider as well, not just your own. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I feel that MastCell is considering the feelings of other editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well he ain't considering mine when he insinuates I'm racist. Look, I've easily donated over 100 hours this last month working on articles like Killing of George Floyd and Killing of Rayshard Brooks and I am not going to have some asshole call me a racist because I disagree with him over the inclusion of a Reagan quote. I'm not going to donate my time here and then put up with being accused of enabling or gaslighting because of my views in a content dispute. No other volunteer here should have to put up with this, either, especially not from anyone with +sysop. MastCell has been carrying on like this for like a month; enough is enough. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not calling you, or anyone else, a racist. I am saying that if someone is capable of denying that the term "lynching" is racially fraught, or of making up benign explanations to deny the harmfulness of the most blatant racial slurs, then that person has a major blind spot. These blind spots end up excluding people from the project for whom these matters are deeply personal and existential, and not just a topic of bloodless intellectual debate or a platform for defensive chest-beating. Look at how you shouted down Sluzzelin's relatively mild effort to broaden the discussion, and re-centered your own personal anger at being questioned. That dynamic silences a wider range of voices and perpetuates your (our) blind spots, the sum of which is systemic bias in our coverage. MastCell Talk 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
You are calling me racist. You've accused me of whitewashing racism, of minimizing racism, and of perpetuating systemic racism. You accused me of being an enabler. An enabler of what? Racism. You accused me of gaslighting because I disagreed with you. You're damn right I'm pissed off at you, I am one of the targets of the hateful things you've been saying on multiple pages for the last month. Have you considered the possibility, remote as it may seem to you, that I'm right? That "lynching" doesn't always have a racial connotation? That most dictionaries back me up on that? More specifically, that the use of the word "lynching" in this edit summary did not have any racist implication as you allege? And that I do not have a blind spot because I disagree with you about whether or not that comment has a racist connotation? Have you considered that I don't think that Reagan quote should be included because it's not what's best for the article? Because it's actually WP:UNDUE? Not that I'm using DUE as a cover for racism--which is another thing you've recently accused me of--but that I honestly, sincerely, feel that this one quote should not be included verbatim in the biography? And that this doesn't mean I'm racist, or perpetuating systemic racism, or have a blind spot, or any of it. Have you given any of these possibilities any thought? Is there any room in your self-righteous worldview for others to disagree with you? Or do you just have all the answers figured out, and you're here to judge the rest of us? If you really wanted dialogue, you could start by apologizing for the hateful things you've been saying for this past month about me and others. But if you don't want to do that, that's fine. But what you do need to stop doing - and what you continue to do, again today - is to stop talking about my motivations. You don't get to comment on what's in my heart or what's in my head. You don't get to speculate about the state of my knowledge or morality. That's what makes it a personal attack and a violation of WP:NPA policy. You might think I have a blind spot, you might think I'm racist, whatever, I don't really care what you think. But I do care about you trash talking me and other editors. Comment on content not contributors. Your persistence day after day is only going to boil over at some point. Stop. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. For, for me, at least, it sure was a racial slur. Now why don't the two of you stop worrying about who gets the last word and put a lid on it. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Mastcell, I definitely feel that comparing African-Americans to monkeys is inherently racist. Absolutely. But I do not think that is what Atsme said, and I still do not support inclusion in the Reagan article as it is UNDUE. This is an opinion I have based on many years of peer reviewed article work here and elsewhere in real life. Making everyone that disagrees with you out to be a racist is undermining your argument...its definitely akin to violation of Godwin's law.--MONGO (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It is such a relief to have woke editors with critical thinking skills and good reading comprehension ability explaining accurately the course of events. This was all about diverting attention away from Biden's racial slurs ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Sources added by Levivich 05:43, July 9, 2020) and the media's criticism of WP editors scrubbing the Harris and Biden articles. It was swept under the rug so MastCell could focus on his obsessions with a dead president, and a racial comment that was made a half-century ago. Now isn't that par for the course? He was the first to comment after I opened the discussion, and it devolved from there. He hijacked the discussion to focus on his issue at the Reagan RfC, and his "enablers" quickly steered the discussion away from the "today" racial slurs by Biden and the scrubbing to focus on a single racial comment from 50 years ago by Gov Reagan who later became president and is now dead. He can't defend himself or apologize for that racial slur in a private telephone discussion that was made public after his death. Let Consensus decide what happens. What I think should be a priority and truly noble and worthy endeavor, like what MastCell has undertaken, is to consider the following: WHSV, Robert C. Byrd's name removed from a college health center. Perhaps Wikipedia should stand in solidarity with Bethany College, and remove all mention of Robert Byrd from the encyclopedia, not unlike what is happening with the confederate monuments, etc. and other white supremacists, slave owners, etc. Byrd's past ties as a the leader of a KKK chapter is unforgivable. Take your pick - advocate or encyclopedia? Atsme Talk 📧 23:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Good points. Frankly, there are too many people here here grinding axes politically. And it's making the rest of us look like advocates ourselves trying to make this something resembling a encyclopedia.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme: Atsme, first I'm not sure why User:Levivich is editing your comment for you. Regardless, your claim that Biden used racial slurs is a false attack and a BLP violation (neither your sources nor Levivich's support that claim) and I'm going to ask you, one more time, to strike it.
Insulting other editors by sarcastically calling them "woke", falsely accusing them of being "obsessed", falsely labeling any criticism of your own actions as "personal attack" as well as the weird attempts at sabotaging the discussion by suggesting we remove all mentions of Robert Byrd (wtf does that have to do with anything?) are not a good look either. I think you've crossed the line into WP:NOTHERE and WP:TEND several times there. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
VM, you've been here long enough to know those policies don't apply to personal talk pages. Of course we're "not here" to talk about building specific articles, nor are we obliged to. Jimmy's talk page is often used to discuss meta-issues, and the one Atsme opened this thread with is important, it involves the integrity of the encyclopedia.
The issue at hand is that, over and over, Wikipedia is being called out for having obvious bias. While it's common these days to be partisan, an encyclopedia stands alone and above it all. So readers face a delimna (and cognitive dissonance) when they see blatant partisanship on WP: how to know which articles here can be trusted to convey unblemished facts, if any. We don't want to put readers in that position. Atsme values the encyclopedia enough to bring these issues to a wider audience, and this is a perfect place for that. petrarchan47คุก 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLP most certainly applies to talk pages as does, usually, WP:NPA. And usually "valuing the encyclopedia" means "following the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines". Volunteer Marek 08:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like a solution involves moving power from partisan editors to nonpartisan editors. The policies, guidelines, and dispute resolution structures don't seem to be adequate. The only way I can see is establishing a group of trustworthy nonpartisan editors who are given enough power so that even partisan administrators can be overcome. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Riiiggghhhhttt. And who decides who these "nonpartisan editors" are? You? Atsme? Me? MasCell? Volunteer Marek 08:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, The question of who would decide who is a nonpartisan editor is difficult to answer. The question of how one can tell if someone's editing is unbiased, there could be evidence that an editor has a history of having diffs on different sides of the same issue. As an example, on this talk page I know of an editor who has restored edits of other editors that were deleted for being anti-Biden in one case and anti-Trump in another. Also, that editor criticized another editor as wrongfully making accusations of racism in the AFC process, yet also worked hard to edit an African-American article that the accusing editor had created. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That is exactly what I have been thinking. Someone mentioned on Atsme's TP that WP should just avoid covering politics altogether. But the only reason there is an issue, is that partisan editors are allowed (from one side, whilst editors from the 'wrong side' are often topic banned). For truly dispassionate, NPOV editors, it is not a challenge to cover contentious topics. But there must be a deafening demand from the community for those in power to stop allowing partisan editors to control political articles. A simple first step would be for admins heavily involved in this topic area to step aside, allowing apolitical admins to take over, at least during election years. [22 July] I regret making this comment and retract it as ill-conceived. petrarchan47คุก 01:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The very fact that you think that "editors from the 'wrong side' are often topic banned" is pretty clear evidence that you've got a "party" here too. Every editor thinks they're NPOV... even as they tendentiously push their POV. Same goes for these "apolitical admins", which are about as frequent as yetis and unicorns. And seriously, why would you want someone who's "apolitical" to edit political articles, even if you could find such a chimera? Such a person is likely going to be pretty clueless about the topic you're asking them to admin or edit. Which means they'll be easily taken advantage of by editors who are good at brown nosing and cloaking their POV pushing in layers of WP:CPUSH. Finally, why should editors who actually follow our guidelines and policies be punished? Because you think they're "partisan"? No.
Humans are fallible. That's why it's about the sources. Those are fallible too but it keeps us honest. If an editor follows WP:RS, WP:NOR etc then who cares whether they're "partisan" or not? If another editor routinely tries to dismiss reliable sources or misrepresents them, if they push fringe or unreliable sources, if they try to substitute their own original research for sourcing, THAT's the problem. Volunteer Marek 08:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem with that is: you can follow RS and NOR.....and still have NPOV issues. That's a problem in a lot of what I see. Stacking the deck can happen because a lot of these rules are fairly subjective. (That's why we have RFCs.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, partisan editors are allowed from both sides. However, any editor who routinely asserts fiction as fact, will often end up topic banned. Hence we ban homeopathists, young-Earth creationists, and "All Lives Matter" activists - not because of their viewpoint, but because of their unwillingness to accept a real-world consensus that contradicts their personal beliefs. Anyone who comes here agitating to remove the Washington Post or New York Times because they are "fake news", is going to be in trouble not because they are conservative but because they repudiate WP:RS. Guy (help!) 14:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG I don't think it's that simple. Know that I have never suggested the removal of any source from WP:RS, but at the same time I do push back against the idea that any of them are sacred cows. I do that by showing, via RS, how that position is unsubstantiated. Since it is the NYT that is considered gold standard RS on WP, and because the number of times it is cited here dwarfs that of all other sources, I have made an effort to show that they cannot always be trusted, that they too must be judged on a case-by-case basis. petrarchan47คุก 00:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I know you are all worried about BLP and stuff but... is there not some sort of real basis behind images like this? I would have thought it would have been in the article if there was, you know, like evidence of some sort of previous complaint or something ... [26]. ~ R.T.G 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to the Reagan article

For reference regarding the Reagan article,

Text currently in article:

Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people; this faith stemmed from the optimistic faith of his mother[19] and the Disciples of Christ faith,[19]into which he was baptized in 1922.[20] For that period, which was long before the civil rights movement, Reagan's opposition to racial discrimination was unusual. He recalled the time when his college football team was staying at a local hotel which would not allow two black teammates to stay there, and he invited them to his parents' home 15 miles (24 kilometers) away in Dixon. His mother invited them to stay overnight and have breakfast the next morning.[21] [22] His father was strongly opposed to the Ku Klux Klan due to his Catholic heritage, but also due to the Klan's anti-semitism and anti-black racism.[16] After becoming a prominent actor, Reagan gave speeches in favor of racial equality following World War II.[23]

Proposed addition to article:

In July of 2019 a previously undisclosed tape recorded in the Nixon White House was released. In the audio recording, made in 1971 and documenting a phone conversation between then-President Nixon and then-Governor Reagan, Mr. Reagan can be heard saying, “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!“ [1] This statement was made in reference to a United Nations delegation from Tanzania, which opposed the United States in a vote to officially recognize the People’s Republic of China. When the tape was initially released in 2000, the racist portion had been edited out. Subsequent to Reagan’s passing, the original recording was restored and released to the public.

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of the proposed addition above, I would add the following as a Note:

In 2019, a recording was released of a private conversation between Governor Reagan and President Nixon in 1971, with Reagan referring to U.N. delegates from Tanzania as "monkeys".

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So our discussion of Reagan and race expansively covers a college-football memory, and focuses heavily on the progressive views of Reagan's early career, before his rightward shift. But we confine blatantly racist political conversations to a footnote, and completely ignore the role of race in the War on Drugs, the Neshoba speech, the creation of the "welfare queen" trope, and the central role of white resentment in Reagan's political career—all of which are well-sourced subjects of scholarly historiography. The most charitable explanation would be that we have a colossal blind spot, although it's hard not to view this as actively dishonest writing. MastCell Talk 18:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Actively dishonest, indeed.
If you're ever in Simi Valley, you should go to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. I make it a point to go to every presidential library that exists if I ever get near it in my travels. When I visited the Reagan Library I noticed that it stood alone among presidential libraries as a wholly partisan and positive representation of the president in question, obviously having been founded by or perhaps taken over by those who wish to sanctify the myth of the man. Did you know Reagan alone was responsible for breaking up the USSR? Other libraries show at least some of the controversy, some of the ugly side, some of the opposition to programs. Simi Valley will have none of that.
Is there a parallel here on Wikipedia? Absolutely. Reagan fans have written and are defending a hagiography. Truly neutral scholarship is diminished in power or completely absent. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't realize that our Reagan Bio contained such hagiographic copy . . . "Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people . . . [which] stemmed from the optimistic faith of his mother . . . " Jeez!! No wonder MastCell and other liberals want to add the bad stuff to it. I would suggest that the subsection on Reagan's religious background be rewritten with a few objective statements rather than with flattering speculation and that the rest of the article be combed for fluff. As for Reagan's deeply insulting references to African diplomats when he thought he was having a private phone conversation with Nixon, no, it should not go in; not unless were're also going to mention the (apparently far more frequent) racist language of Presidents such as Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Nixon; but I wouldn't advise that either. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, a lot of the incidents/items you list are very much open to interpretation. (As to how much race played a role in them.) A lot of Presidents (for example) have played a role in the War on Drugs. And I just have a hard time picturing Bill Clinton or President Obama (for example) plotting the downfall of black America. Furthermore, a lot of Presidential bios in Encyclopedias are like this. Please point out one bio that dwells on stuff like this. I just looked at Harry Truman's bio in my old set of Britannica(s) (and World Book).....you don't see this stuff. (Same for Reagan's bio.) In fact look at Britannica's (current) article on the 1980 election. You see any of that neshoba crap mentioned? Yeah, me neither. I guess it boils down to what anyone wants: something encyclopedic.....or the dingy [under]world of partisan politics with editors grinding axes. I do what I can.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Too bad that we're in a situation where some (most?) editors opt for the adversarial approach to editing instead of the collaborative. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I started a section for this proposal at Talk:Ronald_Reagan#Alternate_proposal_of_a_briefer_version_as_a_Note. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: I withdrew the alternate proposal. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's time to stop paying so much attention to what happens in the U.S.A.

I get it. I wasted an hour or so last night watching another Jim Jones type USA leader preach to his sardine packed cult with lots of wide gold armbands flashing under the lights and heard about a brand new garden of monuments to be built for the Cultsters to go and worship. So I totally get how its a normal human condition to feel a need to respond to advertising and "news" and gossip, even when its about the most stupid and predictable people and circumstances. But, maybe, for the purpose of having a higher quality product, we should put "everything USA" in the same boat as "everything North Korea", and give the former about the same attention as the latter? Just an idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, I am curious though. That was 100% a political rally, but it appears to have been funded by the taxpayer as a presidential event. Leeaving aside the grossly inappropriate tone, I wonder when he will be reimbursing the costs? Guy (help!) 22:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You & several dozen million other US citizens. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to agree, but, paraphrasing John Connally's succinctness: He's their President, but our problem. That will probably change in the future, when other nations/leader/currencies become 'our problem', but meanwhile, we're dealing with a superpower headed by something unprecedented. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
To your point, Sluzzelin, a news reporter recently made a very good argument that something has no strategy or strategies so it's a waste of time trying to figure out what it's strategy is. She argued that something simply watches T.V. and reacts to what it sees in whatever way it feels like is best for it at that moment in time...that it said it never read a book ( or any national security papers ) and describes itself as being "visual".
So, yeah, I agree it's a superpower headed by something unprecedented that we're all dealing with. Now, there were likely similar leaders/controllers many years ago, e.g. in the Roman Empire, Caligula springs to mind, and now that I'm looking at his bio for the first time I see quite a few creepy similarities like "Caligula worked to increase the unconstrained personal power of the emperor, as opposed to countervailing powers within the principate."
and this: "wanting a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem for his worship" seems not so far beyond the pale with something.
But what makes our problem uniquely/existentially worrisome is its access to nuclear weapons; especially if it gets 4 more years. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you see as a possible scenario with nuclear weapons if President Trump is reelected? Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Bob K31416, to answer that, even with a vague opinion, I want to mention that his niece says he's dangerous and I'm starting to wonder, for the 1st. time because of a recent tweet, whether he is not only a psychopath but also as stupid as a pile of bricks. I'm talking about his mistaken usage of "1/100th." (instead of "100th." or "hundredth" or "one hundredth"). There are some mistakes that a not stupid person could not make....I mean, you'd actually have to add a 1 and a / to do this. Maybe he really did cheat on all his tests; and it was really stupid for him to keep believing the Central Park 5 were guilty after DNA exoneration.
It would not be the first time that a really stupid and mentally messed up person obtained a lot of monetary success just by following in his father's footsteps, pushing people around, and cheating like hell....all the way through life.
So, to my vague opinion, I'd say such a scenario is completely unpredictable in its details. His niece claims Donald's dad was a “high-functioning sociopath”; and I've come to the opinion that is exactly what he has become, except perhaps with even higher functionality.
What's scary, to me, is that since COVID hit he appears to be sliding into something akin to a psychotic episode in very slow motion. Even though the details of a nightmare scenario are not predictable, I would guess it would be something impulsive. The good news is that his inner circle and spokespeople appear to becoming more concerned themselves about his state of mind, I think/hope. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I can see that you are very concerned about many issues regarding President Trump and that for the use of nuclear weapons "such a scenario is completely unpredictable in its details". All I can say with regard to nuclear weapons is that in his 3 1/2 years as president it looks like he has tended to avoid military conflict. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That's true. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
However, I'm thinking about "the nature of the beast"; in the context of something inside of something that can come out when least expected. e.g., with Caligula he was just fine for his early days as emperor, and there is a man who seemed harmless up until he was 30 years old when he decapitated and ate a young guy sitting in front of him on a bus.
There are tons of credible people who now believe that keeping him in power is like playing with fire. And there are many who see him as someone useful for philosophical purposes, like appointing conservative judges, and feel as if, even if he is a basket case, that he can be kept under control.
From an optimistic standpoint, maybe it's close enough to November where the Pentagon and Congress will step in to stop any type of reckless moves he might make, and since many Independents and even many Republicans are now of the opinion he is too dangerous to continue in power....perhaps all of us having to be subject to his behaviour will be over as of election day. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/biden-launches-presidential-bid-then-walks-into-race-row-over-obama-slur-434578.html
  2. ^ https://reason.com/2014/09/17/biden-apologizes-for-anti-semitic-slur/
  3. ^ https://time.com/3394403/shylock-biden/
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ireland-biden/northern-irish-mp-asks-for-apology-over-biden-st-patricks-day-joke-idUSKBN0MD2HY20150317
  5. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-lawmakers-demand-biden-disavow-surrogate-s-racist-comments-n1131531
  6. ^ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/05/22/biden-says-you-aint-black-if-youd-vote-for-trump-over-him-uproar-ensues/
  7. ^ https://www.npr.org/2020/05/22/861007175/biden-pulls-back-on-cavalier-remarks-about-black-voters
  8. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-history-of-controversial-racial-comments

An opaque resolution

According to the foundationwiki, on May 22, the Board approved the "Abstract Wikipedia" efforts, but this was not reflected anywhere on-wiki until July 2, when the Executive Director made a big announcement about it and the wiki was finally updated. Also on May 22, two other resolutions were made, and they were both posted to the wiki within days. During the intervening period, people closely involved with the project were editing the Abstract Wikipedia page on Meta, yet in each edit left the page falsely saying that the Board had yet to approve the project, until July 2, right after the Executive Director made the announcement.

I would like to know: Was the lack of transparency deliberate? --Yair rand (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd ask this @mrs Maher herself and/or someone in WMF's boardroom since mr Wales is "only" emeritus.
Kind regards, Klaas `Z4␟` V 08:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Jimbo is, in fact, currently a member of the board. It would not make sense to ask the Executive Director about this, given that it's regarding the actions and intentions of the board itself. --Yair rand (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


Herobrine303 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

...or not to see also...

Dear Jimbo, and fans and addicts of Wikipedia, did you realise the see also section is being phased out by a small group of contributors who see the section as an indication of a substandard article? Is it just me, or is a see also section a valid and valued part of Wikipedia? I've started a section on the relevant guideline, but similar complaints have arisen before and been snowballed out by a small number of contributors, and I want a good opinion, not simply a red flag and a reference. Sure, a see also section should not be wild and unmanageable, but it should not exist at all?

As an example, the main page featured article section today leads directly to five featured articles, such as Manchester. Between those five articles, the see also sections amount to five total items. How can that be qualitative for the encyclopaedia? ~ R.T.G 10:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

it works most effectively when it is selective. For most possible see alsos. the ordinary hypertext links do the job. DGG ( talk ) 11:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I am in the minority but I really appreciate a lot of links and have felt "badly" when an editor goes though my articles and deletes them saying they are already linked in the text. But knowing they are technically correct I can't revert their changes. Now I need to say, I use Wikipedia a lot and according to research I am one of the few people that reads more than the lead--and even more unusual in that I usually check out a few sources as well. But even still, very often I am looking for information that I need to tease out from articles on related subjects and find the links extremely helpful. It is odd that practically every article has something like "bread" or "potato" linked and yet one would be concerned about a few words to link a related Wikipedia article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
++ Totally. Focus on the readers should be fundamental and of no concern to respect for the editors. ~ R.T.G 20:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally, if a topic is in a see also, I'm of the opinion that it should probably deserve a note [and thus a link] in the article body. Not always of course, but I do actually agree that a see also is sometimes an indicator of an unfinished article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
It shouldn't be. It is a navigation tool, and one with no valid alternative. I cannot see where this idea comes from that anybody who goes to an article must there to read the text more importantly than learn about the subject? ~ R.T.G 20:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean, where did this idea come from that there is some kind of insult if the focus of the article is upon the reader perspective? It's baffling, it forces the reader to make connections off the site, and capitalism is coming for it. Britannica is reading this and cleaning its eyeballs with its hands because when the time is right, they are just going to shoot WP right in the middle and munch that sucker up, with teeth made of its own content. You realise that is available, don't you? Wikipedia owns none of the content. All we have is reader focus... I mean, you know how stuff like Facebook and Steam took over the internet don't you? By swallowing up all of the readership... right? When stuff like MySpace and Gamespy thought it was all over, sleeping giants awoke and devoured them. From Wookieepedia: "In his belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a thousand years." The sarlacc becomes one with the consciousness of its victims, extending supper time beyond their natural lifespan. Sarlacc says, "That's kind of tasty. A bit salty at first... but I'd eat the rest of it eventually." The sarlacc always says that. "Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us."[27] ~ R.T.G 00:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
RTG, What I'm saying is: those links should be in the body of the article. Its not that we remove them entirely, its that we integrate them into the content. Now, for sure, "see also" sections have definitely gotten me down wiki-rabbit holes before. But we don't need click-through to survive, we don't need the ad revenue for page views like social media sites do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the king of encyclopedias because it is the best at doing such job. If Britannica would do it better, then Britannica would become king. We should not be egoistic: let the best man (or encyclopedia) win. Our purpose is to offer freely to the world the knowledge of the world. Our purpose isn't amassing most wealth or most clicks, it is spreading knowledge. Wikipedia is simply the means to-that-end. Let Britannica become "Wikipedia vetted by experts" if they so wish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: I think you are not getting it... at FA... see also is being de facto phased out, not debated or anything like that, but avoided anyway, as an indicator of poor article quality, based on clearly unintentional wording inference in the guidelines. It has been complained about year on year for the very reason, that it may be worded in a way which will depreciate the see also section. The words have been protected by people who didn't want to see a fuss or something (you know, it's Wikipedia, don't ask questions, don't change anything). It's an ever popular attitude these days for people who think some big fuss sort of thing, that happened at the start, is all over. Anyways, 10 years after this rewording, that was clearly stated in summary as an act of concision intending no change, it is starting to become apparent... (what is the name of that thing where WP eventually references a publication that is originated on a faulty WP statement? It is like that more or less) and see also is literally dying from the top down as the result... So, it is kind of dangerous and deconstructive to drop the key nav tool, based on keeping WP the best, best branding or whatever. Wait, it is not simply about generating clicks. It is a key navigation tool which has no valid alternative. It is been phased out with no address to the practicality, and I am keen to see that practicality acknowledged (hence misplaced and struck plea, apologies).
Tgeorgescu, that is clearly misguided. I appreciate that you may be trying to state a neutral position, but Wikipedia is not a series of accidents. It depends on an ocean of purposeful and determined refinement. That ocean is the only reason it is even relevant to compare with Britannica. Refinement should not stop upon the feeling of comfort, the worst excuse to stop, but when refinement becomes difficult to perceive... Not wild, uninformed, unreasoned changes for change sake... but the gradual and considerate march into the future that was started so long ago should continue, unchallenged by either the politics of awaiting threat, or demands for proposals which cannot be refused. When Britannica next challenges Wikipedia, it will not be a competition. It will be a goodbye song. I'm not sure if I want to include the pamphlet on corporate takeover to explain that last part, but you can be sure, that'll be the move if there is indeed a move. ~ R.T.G 04:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
RTG If somebody else can do it better, they should get the chance. If you cannot beat them, join them. Wikipedia is not an end in itself, we're not a clique defending our turf. Anyway, to have a "Wikipedia vetted by experts" would require shiploads of money. Our rules of the game is that all editors are volunteers, they work unselfishly, and anyone may reuse their work for any purpose, including commercial purposes. So, behaving selfishly about our content would be against the rules of the game. WMF is a charity, not a business making shareholders rich. WMF isn't selling a product. In fact, others trust Wikipedia precisely because it is not based upon advertisement. That WMF does not own the content is precisely what protects the freedom of the content. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: you are totally off base. I am vouching for the perspective of the reader, and against none of those concerns. ~ R.T.G 11:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Except the complacency, which is dangerous and superfluous, but I cannot connect the implications you are suggesting. See also is a good thing, and without such good things, Wikipedia is nothing, amen.[28] ~ R.T.G 11:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not "uncharitable", Tgeorgescu. It's about freedom. This site is free in a kaleidoscopic way. Enhance that through restriction, yes, but give it away through disinterest, never. Never ever do that. If someone takes this site from you/us, you've been robbed, just like if they take away the navigation functions within it. It has no relation to being charitable or not whatsoever. As for "selling something", well that is ambiguous. You can sell something in exchange for goods, or you can sell something by promoting it, and promotion of information and knowledge through Wikipedia is the charity, whereas preventing that sale is taking away a free thing, and therefore the opposite of "charity" (see edit summaries). So, and I hope you do not feel personally insulted if indeed you are acting in good faith, but your opinion here is misguided, and that is sad because being well guided is a matter of information and knowledge. Something we are trying to "sell" through Wikipedia. The problem there is bias, not presentation itself, but effective neutral presentation. ~ R.T.G 11:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

An announcement

Institutional racism is a huge problem, and because of it, African Americans are under represented on Wikipedia. That’s why I’m creating the Wikipedia:The African-American 1000 Challenge, aiming to improve and create articles related to African Americans. Feedback is requested to prepare for the start of this challenge, which is planned to begin August 1st. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it, but, remember, it is better to start at the top, with people so notable that nobody will question them., rather than start with those more at the margins Onece you;ve established the top, you can see how far further consensus will support you. DGG ( talk ) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Eternal Shadow, I echo DGG's sound advice. Establish a track record for unquestionably notable topics first, and that will give you capital when dealing with griefers and more marginal cases. Guy (help!) 11:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Getting consensus is a problem, and I’m considering delaying it for a while. I try to find the most notable topics but referencing is lacking. I’m mainly focusing on state legislatures and politics and I’m looking there. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I've done some articles on African-American state legislators, especially those of the Reconstruction era. It's a fascinating but infuriating topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia literally takes us on a journey toward philosophy...

A word cloud based on history of en:Talk:Philosophy, this is what the words look like after people spend years discussing what words define philosophy itself.

So I am sure Jimbo will have seen this, but apparently the instance is continuing to spike. There is something profound about this connection...

See this:

Wikipedia is much more than an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia embodies our collective soul, as best as we have been able to manage so far as a species. Thanks again for the device, Jimbo and co., it is a great toy and more. ~ R.T.G 03:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In a discussion at Quora, a post by Mark Hetherington says that the reason it works has to do with "...the first sentence of an article is almost always a definitional statement, a direct answer to the question 'what is [the subject]?' " and he goes on to explain.
So one can test this by, for example, going to the first link that appears in non-parenthesis text that is after the first paragraph in an article, instead of the first non-parenthesis link in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's one data point. From the random article generator, I got Fear of the Dark (Gordon Giltrap album). I then used the method I described above of going to the first link that appears in non-parenthesis text that is after the first paragraph in an article. I did this 88 times without coming to Philosophy or loops, etc., and gave up. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If you used the first link on the page Gordon Giltrap, you would have ended up on philosophy Here is one that ends in a loop between knowledge and propositional knowledge ... Mary Katherine Fechtel (but of course knowledge concepts are philosophical concepts) ~ R.T.G 07:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If you take one step out of Philosophy's backdoor (the ultimate Wikilink), you're On Bullshit. Take three, back to reality. Seven down, lobbying in the United States. Twelve steps later, full circle, it's Lawrence Wilkerson on bullshit reality lobbying in the United States created and destroyed in the Old Days. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia quiz app

Has the foundation ever considered creating a Wikipedia general knowledge quiz app? It occurred to me that it might help raise more money. Obviously the facts would have to be double checked but I think it would be a good thing.† Encyclopædius 06:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Encyclopædius: By community consensus, all quizzes on Wikipedia must be in the form of the Socratic method.[29] EllenCT (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Right Angles / Paul Blanchard

Hello. Are you aware of https://www.right-angles.global/wikipedia-creation-rebuild/ which contains a link to a podcast interview you gave to Blanchard, the founder of Right Angles? Given your stance on undisclosed paid editing, I would imagine you wouldn't be happy about them using that to make it appear as if you support their services. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Smartse, "Our SEO specialists will build a personal page that references your achievements and activities and ultimately provides a complete and comprehensive profile."
For that statement alone, the company and its associates should be banned from all WMF properties. Guy (help!) 11:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur. I mean we know for a fact that this has been the tactic of UPE at the lower end of the market and I'd suspected this at the higher end too. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy,

I'd guess you know that there is news about Paul Blanchard going around that has a pretty ugly side, e.g. in The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pr-guru-paul-blanchard-wasted-charity-money-and-failed-to-pay-his-staff-j7hnb2lcj# I'd link to a couple more critical stories, but I don't know if they are from reliable sources. One type of story in The Times and the others is something like selling knighthoods. Well not quite -that would be illegal. Rather he formats nomination forms, finds somebody to nominate the client (self noms are not allowed), lines up reference letters, contacts people in government about what to emphasize, or what's missing from the portfolio. Cost given as 80,000 pounds in one proposal, which was not accepted. If the stories are to be believed (and The Times is getting sued), it all seems pretty sleazy.

Given the controversy and the amount of news coming out, I'm sure we'll all be patient in getting your reply, but ultimately it would reassure everybody if you stated that you're not endorsing his Wikipedia paid editing service.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Jimmy,
I've removed the stupid joke from the above message. Sorry about that.
I also listened to the full hour of the 2017 podcast - just to be sure - there is no mention by anybody there about paid editing, so the link on the paid editing website doesn't make any sense to me, except as a cheap shot hint that Blanchard knows you and that you haven't disapproved of his paid editing Wikipedia service. Of course I'd guess that you didn't even know that your photo and the link were in that webpage.
It is news IMHO that a paid editor with a somewhat disreputable reputation is using your name and image in his advertising. So there will likely be a brief mention in The Signpost about the incident (a paragraph or 3?). Just as a matter of checking all the needed boxes, do you have any comment on the inclusion of your name and photo on Blanchard's paid editing site? It might be easiest to answer here, but if you'd prefer, please email me. I'll send the question to the usual press contact address. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, oh, this is the bloke that John Sweeney has been on about on Twitter, isn't it? What a thoroughly unpleasant person he seems to be. Guy (help!) 08:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Children's rights

Let's not entertain this. WP:NLT and indef blocked user for WP:NOTHERE. Ed6767 talk! 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.


Hello mr Jimbo Wales I am an Iranian lawyer sending you a letter. Unfortunately, in the Persian Wikipedia, the pages related to suicide and suicide methods for children do not contain any warnings. After talking about this with the administrators of Farsi Wikipedia, they accused me of supporting censorship. I had a question for you. How to put an age limit mark on a box of movies, animations and computer games for children. But are suicide pages, suicide methods, and sex pages easily accessible to young children without the slightest warning?  Isn't this a gross violation of children's rights on the Internet? I urge the Wikimedia Foundation to investigate this to prevent harm to infants and children.

 thank you for your attention

Ali Naderi  An Iranian lawyer    Behrouz.lawyer (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)      

Hi, Behrouz.lawyer. I am not Jimbo (or a lawyer), but I had something to say. There actually is a warning: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تکذیب‌نامهٔ_محتوا (see also the other disclaimers linked at the top of that page). I think the people at Farsi Wikipedia are essentially correct: we don't want to censor pages or arbitrarily chose what to warn readers about on each and every page. We don't have to do this, because the disclaimers I linked already apply to all pages and are linked from all pages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see [30] for context. Ed6767 talk! 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
hi Finnusertop (talk talk! I had a question for you. How to put an age limit mark on a box of movies, animations and computer games for children. But are suicide pages, suicide methods, and sex pages easily accessible to young children without the slightest warning? Isn't this a gross violation of children's rights on the Internet? Behrouz.lawyer (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Behrouz.lawyer, no. That's the responsibility of the parent to ensure their children do not come across that material. Wikipedia isn't a children's site, it's an encyclopedia. Now we should start tearing pages out of the dictionary that contains objectionable words because, my god, think of the children! Ed6767 talk! 14:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, this user has been blocked [31] and even got his right to edit on his own talk page revoked for constant harassment of users and threatening to sue Wikimedia for the excuse of child protection and put pressure on users by saying "I know a guy in the Iran's top courts, if you don't remove explicit content in Persian Wikipedia, it'll get blocked in Iran soon". The user explicitly said Persian Wikipedia should follow the Iran's law (not to mention how barbaric these laws are) Ladsgroupoverleg 15:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

talk!I asked Mr. Weles. Why do you intervene when you are not asked?Behrouz.lawyer (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't be rude, take your censorship ideas somewhere else. Gnosis (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
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.

Wikipedians who edit articles relating to China can be prosecuted by China

See here:

"The wording of the Hong Kong national security law asserts jurisdiction over people who are not residents of Hong Kong and have never even set foot there. This means anyone on Earth, regardless of nationality or location, can technically be deemed to have violated this law and face arrest and prosecution if they are in a Chinese jurisdiction, even for transit. Accused foreign nationals who don’t permanently reside in Hong Kong can be deported even before any trial or verdict.

Social media companies, for example, can be asked to remove content deemed unacceptable by the Chinese government, even if these were posted outside of Hong Kong or if the companies’ offices and servers are located in other countries." Count Iblis (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

How many years of hard labor would I get for the China paragraph in Streisand effect#In politics? If it's hard labor alongside Chinese people how do I get more? I hope the CPC isn't in league with the agency handling the Devin Nunes cow thing. EllenCT (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The W?F has made a statement expressing concern about this new security law but fails to explain how they think this law will effect volunteers, let alone what the W?F plans to do to help volunteers with this. The previous two post in this thread explain the risks in better detail than that statement. (This concerns me because I have been working on some Chinese philosophy subjects off & on over the years; I don't appreciate being told what I can or cannot write thousands of miles away.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Political implications of the Banach–Tarski paradox

Jimbo, is it possible that a fringe could in some cases have more area than the non-fringe area? EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as long as people believe in fairy tales. See also this debate. Count Iblis (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Count Iblis: we are skating on thin ice but if we weren't we couldn't do figures. EllenCT (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The Banach-Tarski paradox arises in highly abstract forms of set theory, and has no political implications or relevance here. This sort of thread is not useful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the light-heartedness. I am trying to find the words to discuss certain subsets of areas in dispute. EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I feed you

Hello world 6 has given you Baby food! Baby food promotes WikiLove through tastiness and hopefully this baby food has made your day better. Baby food can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else baby food, whether it be someone with whom you've had disagreements with, a good friend, or a stranger.


Spread the goodness of baby food by adding {{subst:Baby food}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hello world 6 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing Jimbo Wales a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not approve of the maid costume. It does not sufficiently promote physical fitness. EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

WMF question

Jimmy - see 2020 Florida Daily, Mother Jones, Haaretz and Politico. In your opinion, is Al Jazeera a RS for statements of fact that WP can repeat in WikiVoice in an article without needing intext attribution? Atsme Talk 📧 00:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is a Knowledge Engineer

Jimmy Wales is a knowledge engineer.

That is all.

Best wishes,

184.22.202.253 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for Creating Wikipedia for Us

Thank you for creating Wikipedia for us. :) ^^ :D

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

184.22.202.253 (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Some pencils for you!

Some really sharp pencils
If you helped create this site, you were the one who made me join Wikipedia. I have given you these as a reward. Cupper52 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Mobile Wikipedia is coming to desktop

Hello Mr. Wales! I'm a long time voracious reader and occasional editor and donator to Wikipedia. Sadly I'm a little annoyed with the new redesign of French Wikipedia. The big problem with the redesign is bringing mobile page width to the desktop version. Here's an example [32] and here's the mobile version for comparison [33]. This makes the page less readable to those who prefer longer line lengths, and also makes it look like an adblocked website because of all the empty space on large monitors. I was told on the Mediawiki website that this change is coming to all Wikipedias and that there will be no opting out for us 99% of readers for who aren't logged in. Can I ask for your opinion on this? 93.136.36.89 (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The default skin is Vector. The frwiki link above displays the page in whatever skin is being used (Vector if not logged in). Links showing the effect are: vector skin and monobook skin (the latter does not yet have this Wikia feature). Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq, when I see "mobile Wikipedia", I think of mobile libraries and Bad Obsession Motorsport's l'Escargot project. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
[34]. EllenCT (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There is some discussion about this topic at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Query_about_the_look_and_feel_of_fr-wiki and mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • First I've read of this, so am concerned and wanted to ask if this means that "mobile" Wikipedia (which is without templates and other major features) is slated to become the desktop/laptop version of English Wikipedia, or is this only applicable if the reader or editor opts for mobile-as-desktop. Or is the planned change only in page size with oddly formed white space. Thanks. By the way, I'm a happy monobook user who still doesn't understand why monobook isn't the default version of the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    Randy Kryn, the link is right there above your post...... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I'm not a mediawiki user but a one-site Wikipedia user. Since this topic has been brought here just a simple answer or explanation would be appreciated. Is English Wikipedia going to radically change in some form because of this? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
      The FAQ mentions a standardized user experience. I take it they mean it will look the same to everyone, as a print book does. That would explain why mobile and new desktop version have the same page width. It talks only about Vector skin, but unfortunately non-logged-in users can't change skins. I was told this is coming to all Wikipedias including English. 93.136.146.80 (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The "You can edit this page" section is misleading

The page is semi-protected. So, you can edit the page only if your account is at least 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits.

Could cause confusion to new users   ApChrKey   Talk 17:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

ApChrKey, anyone can, but some may not. English is a wonderful language. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, does he ever actually respond to these posts on the talk page?   ApChrKey   Talk 17:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo hasn't said anything here since 25 June, but he is not dead, at least according to his BLP article. BTW, it is his birthday tomorrow.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's the diff with explanation for the protection. [35] You might try editing the page yourself to clarify. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You can say that again. EllenCT (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"I've discovered that almost every single article on the Scots version of Wikipedia is written by the same person - an American teenager who can't speak Scots"

I won't claim to have stumbled on this myself; I got pointed at it. And it's not about English Wikipedia, so there's not much that anyone here can do about it. Still.... have a link Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

meta:Requests for comment/Disruptive editing on sco.wikipedia on an unparalleled scale. A good-faith editor but a gigantic mess. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Some coverage of this from Gizmodo: [36] Spicy (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Noo jist haud on, dinna fash, we're a' Jock Tamson’s bairns, for a' that, as Robert Burns nearly said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
And it's in the Guardian.[37] It's a sair ficht for half a loaf.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It's an ill wind – so glad it's blawin' in some overdue attention .... The Big Wiki Rewrite at the Scots Language Centre. A worthy project for those trying to make Scots offeeshul but very tough trying to write in Scots even for a native speaker like masel, with mony pitfalls. Or bear traps, as they might say in Glesga.(Bud Neill caption re wifie with greetin wean: "Awfy crabbit, aye, like a bear wi nae fags") So, a ray of hope it'll all work out well. Orri best, . dave souza, talk 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks and praise for the Scots Language Centre. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I've been to Glesga. Took the train from Embra. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You really had to rile up that Indian fake news editor, didn't you?

I have noticed that there is another campaign (yes, again) to discredit Wikipedia and you on Twitter. You are probably aware that the English editor of OpIndia is currently leading an internet-based smear campaign against Wikipedia after having doxed an editor here. But I have a small piece of advice, after having found out that you joked on Twitter about OpIndia being funded by oil; just ignore them the way one would ignore an internet troll. Do not reply to them on Twitter or anywhere for that matter. You are just adding more fuel to the fire.

Regards, 45.251.33.201 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC) (My IP keeps on changing so I'll regularly check this page if you wish to reply)

Kinda have to agree, Jimbo, this is best treated with our traditional don't feed the trolls. Or maybe don't argue with a conspiracy theorist, because it's like wrestling with a pig: you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
These comments are very appropriate. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
They are also attacking the Ayurveda and Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery pages. 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:5087:C114:425:7A71 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyprus Papers

See [38] and zh:賽普勒斯文件.

--留港不留人 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #4

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

  • More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
  • Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
  • Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[39]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures

  • The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
  • Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"User:Jimbo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The following notification was left on my talk page, and I thought it should also be mentioned here. Apparently, I created that redirect back in 2015, but the talk page was already a redirect, so both are up for discussion.

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:Jimbo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#User:Jimbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Spyware survey on MediaWiki.org

When visiting www.mediawiki.org I was offered to take a survey. The page goes on to offer two surveys on Google Docs. I didn't come here to question the wisdom of revealing your customer base to Google. I came here because of the link to the survey privacy policy. The privacy policy is a ridiculous all-inclusive arrangement, covering data collection for everything from advertising to security purposes.

More worryingly the reason I didn't reach far enough down the page to find out if and to whom will this information be sold or given (aside from obviously Google) is that I noticed that the website hosting the privacy policy itself, professional.wiki, has its own cookie notice in the bottom. The cookie notice has a link to a privacy policy of its own, with both an illegal illusion of choice (there's only an Accept button), and language suggesting that scrolling the page constitutes consent, which are both direct violations of GDPR (to which ironically the survey privacy policy claims to conform).

Does sending this kind of message about privacy sound like a problem to anyone else? 93.136.73.58 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that mediawiki has any special status within the WMF world about privacy, but if it doesn't, I'd guess there is something against the general WMF privacy rules. I do know that MediaWiki voted themselves an exemption to the paid editing declaration rule in the WMF terms of use. That said https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kghbln is pretty clear that he has a paid/COI status (but not in the usual format) and to be fair the notice that comes with the survey, right below the link, says:

The above survey is NOT for the following people. Please do NOT fill in the survey if you are one of these:

  • MediaWiki developer
  • MediaWiki consultant
  • Primarily editor of Wikimedia Foundation projects

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would privacy laws not extend to those for who the survey is intended? I presumed that MediaWiki software and MediaWiki.org are intended to comply with EU laws. 93.136.73.58 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not the software itself which has to comply with GDPR, but its use by websites which fall under European jurisdiction. My own use of a Chinese screwdriver has to comply with EU law, not the screwdriver itself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, the website is in violation of GDPR. 93.142.84.120 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mail concerning the WMNL Dutch interpretation of the Mission statement

Dear Jimbo, i just sent you an email about this topic, as it causes problems in the Netherlands. Thank you for looking into this matter, sincerely Hansmuller (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Hansmuller/The sum of all knowledge is an attempt at analysis of the various interpretations and implementations of the mission statement. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
That's the motto, not the meta:Mission. 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:8D53:B3C1:D158:57FC (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Massive American PSYOPS social media campaign on Venezuela and neighbors shut down by Facebook

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/06/cls-strategies-facebook-propaganda-venezuela-bolivia/

This is apparently the first time an American social media campaign has been shut down as astroturf by a major social media company.

Is there any evidence they were editing here? 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:8D53:B3C1:D158:57FC (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll note that Wikipedia does not consider the Gray Zone a reliable source, see [40]. I'd question any claim they made. Just reading the article, its clear that the GrayZone has an agenda to push and uses non-neutral language.
I find it unlikely that the firm GrayZone mentions could have made edits to Wikipedia, or that if they did, that those edits would stick. I'm not even sure what sort of edits they would make. POV edits don't last long anyways, especially in highly charged areas. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Your cool JustARandom11112 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

URGENT

- I got an inviatation for tommorrows meeting in the UN regarding using science in the decision making procces. however this event is orgenizing by Phillip Morris - not exeacly a good example of listenning to science. please cancel your participation. thanks Avibliz (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenanigans on Russian Wikipedia

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

g InfoUZB (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_242&oldid=1031646039"