User talk:Redbeard3006

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Redbeard3006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Proud Boys, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a reason and stated that I removed incorrect information. Redbeard3006 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed extensively sourced material and replaced it with unsourced opinion. All content on Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable sources in mainstream media. This precludes using materials sourced to the organization itself. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed “sources” that were themselves simply opinions and was working on supplying real sources. I’ll make sure to wait until my my edits are complete before publishing. I didn’t realize there would be a bunch of auto bots undoing my edits instantaneously Redbeard3006 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for presenting an organization's views about itself. For example, we don't use Queen Elizabeth as a source for information about the Royal Family, since she has her own agendas and preferences for how the Royal Family is to be perceived. We use sources that have written authoritatively about the Royal Family to present how the Royal Family is broadly viewed in scholarship and journalism. Please read the verifiability policy, the reliable sourcing policy and the neutral point of view policy. In any case, such extensive changes and removal of references must be done by consensus, and not by a bold, undiscussed change. Please use the article's talkpage to present proposed changes and sources. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. sources from the organization itself are more reliable than someone’s opinion about an organization they are not apart of. If I say I like eating fish, but some guy that doesn’t know me says that I don’t like eating fish because he hasn’t seen me eat any. Which is the better source on whether or not I like eating fish, me or him? Redbeard3006 (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:RS. It explains why self-sourced material is to be used sparingly and with great care. Acroterion (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. It says to use it sparingly and with care. It doesn’t ban it outright. You would think that what a founder of an organization says his organization is about would be held as more reliable than the opinions of biased and vindictive journalists who express only their opinions and do not offer any concrete evidence to support their claims. Redbeard3006 (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the very tenets of the organization contradict what others say about the organization. If the KKK says they hate blacks, but I say that they like blacks because I saw a KKK member in the same grocery store as a black man. Who are you going to take as the more reliable source? The KKK member, or me, because I write for a newspaper? Redbeard3006 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to convince other editors that you're right, by using the talkpage to politely provide proposed changes and sourcing that comply with Wikipedia policies. Please don't use straw man arguments like the one above. Wikipedia explicitly relies on mainstream media, journalism and academic scholarship as its primary sourcing of content. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that, but judging from previous conversations it looks like I would have better luck convincing a brick wall. I will try though. P.S. that wasn’t a straw man, that was an example of an identical situation but using the opposite bias so the reader can more easily judge the situation without their own biases getting in the way. Redbeard3006 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it to the talkpage. My point on your example is that you need to argue the issue at hand, not a hypothetical case that leads to a pat answer that doesn't necessarily apply to the case at hand, which is a good bit more complex in how the organization and its founder relate to the world at large than the hypothetical Klansman in the grocery store. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but this hypothetical case is a direct analogy for what is happening. In both cases you have a group, PB or Klan, who say what their organization is about and have a track record of supporting what they claim about themselves. Then you have a third party, guy who saw klan member in groceries store or the media, directly contradicting and lying about the group in question. Regardless of which case we are talking about, it is foolish to believe the 3rd party when what they claim cannot be supported or proven and they have no sources of their own. Just because someone works for a media outlet, should not automatically give their word more weight than the facts that are readily available. I see what you are saying though, so I am trying to directly make my case on the talk page. They seem to dumbly follow “reliable source” “because they have an editorial team”. So, I will work on breaking down that argument. Redbeard3006 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're making a mistake by assuming that "they" don't know what they are talking about. Instead of assuming we are only "dumbly" following sources, please attempt to understand why Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are constructed the way they are. If you don't understand why we're saying what we're saying, don't be surprised if we're less than enthusiastic about listening to you lecture us about how wrong we are. If you have a source where a journalist says that the KKK isn't racist, let's see it. Otherwise, this is absolutely a straw-man argument. You are spinning a fable and presenting it as an analogy. The KKK isn't a reliable source for the KKK articles, either, in case that wasn't clear. There are, however an overwhelming number of academic and journalistic sources about the various incarnations of the KKK and their members' beliefs. If you have any reliable sources about the Proud Boys, we are eager to see them. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t assume they don’t know what they are talking about, i know they don’t know what they are talking about. I understand why Wikipedia’s policies are the way they are and in most cases it is a good system, but when a “reliable” source has an agenda against someone or something their reliability aught to be taken into consideration on a case by case basis. Especially when their claims are in direct contradiction with dictionary definitions and the policies and actions of the group in question. Speaking of definitions, you might want to look up straw man. Replacing the names in a story isn’t a straw man, when the story is exactly the same. When I have time, I will continue to make my case on the appropriate page. Redbeard3006 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.