User talk:Jimbo Wales

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. ^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 ([1]). 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 [2], 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, [3] 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. ^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,

• The Racist Trope That Won’t Die
• Discrimination against blacks linked to dehumanization
• The Problem with Picture Book Monkeys: Racist imagery associating simians with Black people has a long history
• Simianization: Apes, Gender, Class, and Race
• Comparing black people to monkeys has a long, dark simian history
• The ape insult: a short history of a racist idea

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." 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

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, 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: ^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 [4] 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

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 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". [5] 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 [[6]]. 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 ( 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 ... [7]. ~ 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

“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)

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 barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Wow... Dương Triệu (talk) 03:32, 15 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:Getting to Philosophy

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)

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)

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)

...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."[8] ~ 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.[9] ~ R.T.G 11:29, 23 July 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.

Finally, some free personal advice (and worth every penny), don't go looking for any knighthoods - that game isn't going to be working for awhile! (bad joke - sorry).

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

A kitten for you!

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