User talk:GorillaWarfare

Archives
January 2018 – present July 2017 – December 2017 October 2016 – June 2017 August 2015 – September 2016 August 2014 – July 2015 August 2013 – July 2014 November 2012 – July 2013 April 2012 – October 2012 November 2011 – March 2012 April 2011 – October 2011 December 2010 – March 2011 September 2010 – November 2010 April 2010 – August 2010 November 2009 – March 2010

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Surreal Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		to GorillaWarfare, for resurrecting the incel article....4 archive pages and 1500 edits later and still going. I can't keep track. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you... I think :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fubcgy

Per Cluebot and your reverts, I think Fubcgy is WP:NOTHERE. Already reported at WP:AIV. I'd link the diffs but I think you rev del'd them. --Policy Reformer(c) 02:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Herve Jaubert

Regarding your comment that I made changes that are unsubstatiated to the article. I disagree with this statement. The literature list(books he wrote) clearly shows that every statement I made is true and is substantiated as per this literature list. That the literature list, which I also posted can be verified the ISBN, which I also posted. Therefore I strongly disagree with your assessment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:D1E7:9CB9:DC3C:4B03 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see our reliable sourcing and biographies of living people policies. In order to claim that someone's writings are Islamophobic on Wikipedia, it is not sufficient to read the writings and come to that conclusion yourself. You need reliable sources independent of the subject that are making that assessment, and because this is a negative statement about a living person, those sources need to be quite strong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree the reliable source is the both the title of the books and the content. A title "Sex misery of muslims and violence" cannot be interpreted as anything else but islamophobic and I think it is shameful that wikipedia has become a hotbed of islamophobia by not acknowledging facts when it is convenient for islamophobes. This in my opinion very strongly contradicts the neutral viewpoint guidlines not what I did.

Sincerely

Please read the policy I linked -- it will explain how that is not sufficient for sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Even after reading this I disagree with your assessment. There is nothing in that article that in any way seems to suggest what you say.

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There is not interpretative claim no analysis nor a synthetic claim. It is merely a restatement of some of the book titles. I am sorry to say that

It is absolutely an interpretative claim. If Jaubert's writings are blatantly Islamophobic as you claim (I am not familiar with this person and so have no idea if they are or are not), it should be no issue to find and cite an independent reliable source describing them as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Kindly refer this case to a higher authority on wikipedia. There is no proper sense in this discussion. Thank you

You can bring this up at Talk:Herve Jaubert or the biographies of living people noticeboard if you'd like input from other people; you might have more luck at the noticeboard since it seems the article talk page has not been edited since 2011. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I opened a case and also mentioned that it was you and for what reasons you made your assessment as well as mentioning why I disagree.

I see it—thank you for letting me know! I'll follow along. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you even read what you revert?

That was a non-disambig link to James Foley the journalist. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies -- I think I must have clicked the wrong button while using an automated tool. I'll remove the warning on your talk page; thank you for letting me know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Panchen Lama

Dear GorillaWarfare Hi there, this is my very first edit on wiki, so my apologies if I am doing anything wrong. I am hoping this is sending you a note.

Yesterday I stumbled upon many inaccuracies in the page on the Tibetan Panchen Lama, (next in hierarchy to the Dalai Lama).

I was a little shocked that wiki was missing all the most important, recent and relevant information on the Panchen Lama and had no evidence presented. So, I was inspired for the first time to make a wiki edit (and apologies, I had a little difficulty adding all the references).

So, I added a section on his disappearance. This has been deleted, twice! It was erroneously thought to be my personal opinion. Rather, it is factually accurate, and evidence is in multiple places including the Formal UK Parliamentary record, The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, The UK secretary of state has raised it formally with the Chinese authorities, and The UN has a special rapporteur assigned to it to urge the Chinese authorities to release him or information on him.

To be honest I was a bit shocked to see that wiki would shut down something like this down when it is reasonably common knowledge, and across parliaments, and say it was personal opinion???

Across the world the only people who would pretend the Panchen Lama's abduction didn't happen, or is a matter of 'controversy' are those in China (or working closely with China) who believe the Chinese authorities view of what happened. I would much prefer to get my human rights information on china from The United Nations, the UK government or the US Government, or even in this case from the Dalai Lama himself!

I add some refs below, but sadly, after all these deletions and changes I now have insufficient time to rewrite it and hyperlink the refs.

I would be delighted if you wish to forward this to Wiki Lawyers or wiki human rights experts to decide. I can write it in a more referenced manner if it wont then be deleted Obviously there are thousands of articles in the newspapers, magazines and online about the kidnapping, but (as a scientist) referencing a newspaper, TV programme or book is not the high level of evidence I require- so I started with the UN and parliamentary papers for you. Many thanks

---

REFS - there are many more

Mark Field Minister of State UK said We raised the case of the Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, at the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue which took place in Beijing on 27 June 2017. We called on the Chinese authorities to release evidence to reassure the international community of his current status and wellbeing. We urge China to ensure that the restrictions on the Panchen Lama's freedom of movement and communication are lifted, so that he may select the career, education or religious life of his choosing. We continue to support calls by the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief for the Chinese authorities to facilitate a meeting between the Panchen Lama and independent international observers.

MORE https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2018-05-16.144942.h

http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases-statements/open-letter-uscirf-commissioner-tenzin-dorjee-the-panchen-lama

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998-07-28/debates/e66de5f5-df2a-464f-b897-5d270f17c175/PanchenLama

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2000-03-14/debates/64dceb66-e5de-4b2f-a434-01ecde0e544a/PanchenLama

Many thanks Warm wishes Dr Penny Fidler Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Ps - again my apologies if I am sending this through the wrong channels, I could not see how else to contact you Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Penny Fidler: Yep, this is the correct way to contact me! There are two issues with your additions—although you have included inline citations for some of the claims, not all of them are cited (including a direct quote, and characterizations of the Chinese authorities' intentions like "By taking away the rightful Panchen Lama, the Chinese authorities hope that in the future they will prevent the Tibetans from selecting their successor to the Dalai Lama when that time comes.") These very much need to be cited in order to be included. The second issue is that the text does not fit a lot of Wikipedia's style guidelines and neutral point of view requirements. For example, "In some places you will, however, see The Chinese authorities and others portraying this as a 'controversy' to create the impression that there were two options." uses the second person, and uses scare quotes around "controversy". You might benefit from reading WP:TONE, which describes more thoroughly the tone we try to achieve. I hope this is helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many I ask if it was the Chinese expert who deleted my first edits, who then alerted you to what I had written?

So how does this work? There is a page on the Panchen Lama, that contains no accurate information on the Panchen Lama. I write a whole page twice and it gets deleted. Does this keep happening - keeping the status quo? when the entire evidence is missing? clearly where there are human rights issues at stake, there will be differences of opinion from the perpetrating nation . Though most people would take the UN view. The reason I ask is this has taken 4 hours so far to make sure it was all accurate, and I have a day job! I can write in style guidelines.

however, It is not accurate, nor evidence based to call it a controversy. That is the same tactic as the tobacco lobby in the past saying there is a controversy over whether tobacco caused cancer or not, sowing reasonable doubt. For 23 years there has been universal agreement on why the Panchen lama was taken, so I can find a ref for that - but it would be a book or newpaper or article if that's what you need. Many thanks, grateful for how I can successfully change this page in one go, so others can add their evidence. There is much of it Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Penny Fidler: No one alerted me to the edit; I was using a tool that allows me to quickly review recent changes to Wikipedia articles and check them for potential issues. As to whether BabelStone is a Chinese expert or not, I'm not sure—I don't believe we've worked together. One thing to note, though, is that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, regardless of whether they're an expert or even particularly familiar with the subject. For that reason, even things that are common sense to people who are familiar with the subject (for example, the universal agreement on why the Panchen Lama was taken that you mention above) should be cited so that people who are just learning about the topic can verify that that's the case by clicking through to the sources (or finding a book that's mentioned, etc.) To use your tobacco company example, there is a plentiful collection of sources that discuss tobacco as a carcinogen (and the tobacco industry's attempts to cast doubt on that), and that tactic itself and its inaccuracy is discussed in Wikipedia articles. The same should happen for the Panchen Lama article.

One thing I should point out, in case you're not aware, is that edits are rarely completely deleted from Wikipedia pages—you can view the page history to retrieve the content that you added before and avoid having to rewrite anything from scratch.

Thank you for your willingness to learn the intricacies of how we edit topics like this on Wikipedia; I know it's frustrating to have your hard work undone so I appreciate you sticking with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

thank you, that is very reassuring that style guidelines are the reason it has been taken down other. I was one of the early users of wikis 20 odd years ago and like the format. I suspect I wont have time to do it again, and to learn how to add all the refs, and am nervous the whole, rather than part, will be removed again. I worry that the person with most spare time will prevail on contentious issues. Perhaps I can ask someone with more time than me to continue. Thank you anyway for your advice and words. Penny Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but I understand time is a limited resource. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to me! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/87|Indigenous women]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/88|Women of marginalized populations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/89|Women writers]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/90|Geofocus: Bottom 10]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed!]] For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, GorillaWarfare. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 07:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi from Wookian

Hello GorillaWarfare (is it OK to post here?). I disagree with some of your comments and also with the hatting on Talk:Sarah_Jeong, but don't intend to edit war over them. At the end of the day it is fine to agree to disagree, and I don't believe in getting bent out of shape over stuff. If there's anything specific you want to discuss I'm happy to do so. One area of disagreement we seem so far unfortunately not to find common ground on is the whole intersectional social justice issue, which gives selective allowances for negative racial generalizations and stereotyping against what's perceived as the "dominant" people group(s). One of the reasons I don't like that is that it is profoundly disaffirming to young people (with whom I spend a lot of time) to expose them to abusive racial hate directed at their skin color. Even if they are white, they have feelings that can be hurt, and they can be made to feel sub-human. I have spent a lot of time on the internet and I have thick skin, but it breaks my heart to see especially young people of any race receive abuse like that. It's just not OK, and I feel in my heart of hearts that you have to agree with that, even if we disagree on any number of specifics on how society should get where it needs to go. Anyway, cheers! Wookian (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's no doubt that white people can get hurt too, and yet it's not the same thing, since white people (in America) have benefits that non-whites don't have, to put it as briefly as I can. That's hard to deny. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  See, you are so close to me not having a problem with you at all. You just need a magic word like some. If you say some Muslims support terrorism, and some white people oppress black people, and some men contribute to patriarchial subversion of women's advancement opportunities, then there's no problem and no hate speech. But as soon as you say Muslims support terrorism and stuff like that, then you hurt innocent people. That applies to innocent white people too (you do agree with that, right, that some white people are 100% innocent and neither contribute to, nor benefit from all the hurtfulness bigots inflict on each other in society?). Wookian (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think the Good Doctor's point is that if you are white in the United States you have advantages over people of other races, even if you don't want to have them. (Also, hi GW and Drmies) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  #NotAllMen GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wookian: Of course it's okay to post here, I've asked you do so more than once. As a young(ish) white person I think it's extremely appropriate for other white people (younger than me or not) to understand the historical context of their race and their interactions with other races, and understand why PoC often mistrust white people based on that history and based on current interactions. Generalized comments about white people such as Jeong's are not meant to attack every white person, they're meant to draw attention to the shittiness that some white people have historically inflicted on PoC.

Take as an example people who say "kill all men". As far as I'm aware there are no genocidal serial killer feminists advocating that men be wiped out (and if there were I'd think they'd probably not post about it.) It's an exaggerated expression of frustration against men who have historically oppressed women; not a serious call to violence against men. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you GW. As I see so often in black media, "notallwhitepeople", and I'm sure they get tired of having to repeat that. But Wookian, we're talking about structural things here. Hehe, sorry for barging in here, all oldmanwhitesplaining and stuff. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm whitesplaining and if my knees have anything to say about it I'm oldwhitesplaining as well... 🧓 GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hateful speech against people based on their identity is still hateful speech, no? It's nice that Jeong probably didn't intend to literally murder men, but what is a young boy to think when faced with hatred of his identity like that? Isn't it easier if everybody just follows The Rules? Like Jesus (/plus many cultures') Golden Rule, and Dr. MLK Jr's wisdom for race relations, etc? Wookian (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Young white boys would do well to learn about their privilege early on. The golden rule is lovely but it does not take into account centuries of horrible treatment and systemic bias against people of color. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I know (or at least presume) it feels really good to take revenge against innocent people because of their gender or skin color. However this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Just because bad stuff happened in history doesn't make it OK to direct hate speech against innocent people based on their identity. If you don't see that, I'm really not sure what else to say. So it's been a pleasure chatting, and cheers! Wookian (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not revenge, it's addressing a reality. But I understand you don't want to discuss further, cheers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to chirp in; I probably agree with everything you said, but isn't it more unifying to criticize white people (as you would say, address a reality) in other ways, by treating them like people, with a degree of grace? One might think of gaining popularity by being extraordinarily toxic towards white people, and then make a point, but in my opinion, not everyone will get the message. Let me ask this – let's say you hate one aspect of white people. Do you think it's better to draw generalities to all white people, and then make a (if any) divide only between white people and everyone else; or do you think it's better to focus on getting everyone together, against that aspect? In my opinion, the latter is the only way to get white people to admit where they're wrong.

"kill all men" is not drawing any attention, I presume because it's impossible to do it, and then people ignore it. Furthermore, people tend to ignore if someone is repeatedly toxic. With a right ratio of toxicity and non-toxicity, one can optimize the number of people listening. Let me explain why repeated toxicity does not help a productive conversation. If someone responds toxically way too often, it turns out they respond toxically to minor things (also way too often). And if you're non-toxic by default (so more people listening by default), then you have the power to make a point by occasionally screaming about something you really, really care about. And please don't then make it a generalization of men, because while you may observe a generalization of men (not good to always assume a generality), it's better to describe the low-level stuff (to the greatest details, how who what and where so people can understand exactly what you're talking about, and boycott or whatever together, question what allowed for it, get everyone to think about similar instances in their lives, etc. See what I did there? I said "everyone"; if you're generally a nice person, every action you take will be unifying; while in contrast, if you're generally a toxic person, everything you do and say will divide people)

If by talking about "kill all men" etc. you wanted to say that every male is evil because of its biology and culture shaped around it (i.e. that criminals and thugs are the most male people), then we also have to agree to disagree.

A quick question about the golden rule. There are a couple of variations, and to make sure we're on the same page, please tell me if you meant the positive or the negative version to be useless so we can discuss. wumbolo ^^^ 12:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Wumbolo, you think that in general white people are not treated with enough grace? Do you even know how people of color are treated? You really think we're that oppressed? Do you want to make a list of the things that white people think are good enough reasons to call the cops for, if it's black people doing it? So who is it that should be treated more "like people"? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's fragile white male tears, man. Don't engage; it's a waste of time.--Jorm (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm not going to answer in general, because that's not how I originally said it, but yes I think a whole race of people should be treated with more grace than comparing it to goblins. So who is it that should be treated more "like people"? Everyone. Some are treated more like people; some are treated less like people. But everyone should be treated as much like people as possible. Like I said, deliberately treating a race of people less like people is not unifying. wumbolo ^^^ 18:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Aww that's so kumbaya of you, this call for unification. I'm sure the president feels the same way, and I wish that Sarah Jeong could hear you; she'd be touched. Who was she anyway, criticizing white people for racism? It's not like white people practice it. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not sure how I found my way over here, but figured I would throw my 1 cent in. I just cannot see how it is okay to disparage anyone based on their race, religion, gender, or sexuality. Regardless of the backgrounds of the two people or situation. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: This is a good article on generalizations like we're discussing here. Particularly When we write about things that white people do, we use the generic phrase “white people” as a catchall (see also: wypipo). We use it to represent the type of collective whiteness that unites white people even when y’all aren’t all on the same page or following the same agenda or falling into the same category. It’s that “general you” versus “specific you” type of thing. When I make generalizations about white people or men or what have you, I am not saying that every single white person or man on the face of the earth is a bad person or racist or misogynist. I am, however, acknowledging that many are and that it's something deeply rooted in white/male privilege. I don't hate all white people (I am white, for god's sake) or all men.

The golden rule ("treat others how you wish to be treated") is all well and good, but if someone is treating someone else poorly or if a whole group of people historically and disproportionately treats other groups of people poorly, I'm not going to hope that being nice to them will make them stop. There is a weird rhetoric lately about how if we were just nicer to Nazis or incels or whoever, it would help things. I can't agree with that.

Drmies said it well above—white people are generally treated extremely graciously. And I am extremely gracious towards all people in general. But when people are doing harm to other people, I will and do speak out about it. And if a privileged group of people is regularly acting in oppressive ways, I will sometimes speak out about it by using exaggerated generalizations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I will also point out that Dr. King was no stranger to critizing white people:

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
— Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail

GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems there is a reasonable difference between bringing and discussing grievances and things like "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men". Issues should be discussed and everything possible done to solve. I think everyone can reasonably agree with that. But that is not what was happening. Even if we go with the I was being harassed by racist nasty people (which again I doubt anyone is saying that didn't happen) the response was inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"I, a white person, feel aggrieved and deeply attacked because someone I don't know traded insults in kind with other white people, who I must defend at all costs."--Jorm (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jorm: Me and Sarah Jeong are very similar actually. I am a lady that was born in South Korea where I spent my childhood. My family immigrated to the USA when I was 11. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for making some assumptions. Crazy how that works.--Jorm (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it's easy to do on the internet. PackMecEng (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Though she was hardly speaking from the same position of power, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has endured hardly a fraction of the online harassment Jeong has faced, it's understandable to me that she might not respond to every terrible tweet with a smile and a turn of the cheek. It's interesting to me that so much discussion around this Twitter incident has centered on denouncing "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and not "Shut the fuck up you dog eating g***". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Being horrible is not a contest, both are terrible. Though sunlight is the best disinfectant and light should be shown on both sides. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I noted that many whites are fond of quoting Dr. King these days, though I don't think they cite that passage. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)