User talk:Jon Rosebank

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jon Rosebank!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm ThaddeusSholto. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robert Peary without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Thaddeus but you are completely out of order. I explained very fully why this has been removed, giving the reference to the article in which the sexual exploitation of Inuit women was revealed in an academic journal. This photograph is unnecessary to the article and extremely offensive, both to the Inuit and to women in general. Jon Rosebank (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article talk page if you want to argue for its removal but telling people to read an academic paper in an edit summary isn't an explanation. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need an explanation to argue for the removal of a naked image of an Inuit woman. It is clear and offensive exploitation. Sorry, you'll need a better defence than that. Jon Rosebank (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Robert Peary. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nude photograph of Aleqasina on this page must be removed as a matter of urgency. Posting it brings the Wikipedia community into very considerable disrepute.

The known historical facts are these. Robert Peary took Aleqasina, supposedly as his Inughuit ‘wife’, when she was 14 and she had a son by him. Peary however abandoned Aleqasina when he returned to the States. She became an Inughuit man’s wife. But each time Peary returned to the Arctic he took Aleqasina as his mistress and eventually she had a second child by him.

Research in the Peary archives reveals that the members of his expeditions were in the habit of taking openly pornographic photographs of Inughuit women, who had been taken from their community in NW Greenland and housed for many months on the expedition ship. Some particularly shocking photographs show a naked woman tied to the mast of the ship. We know that their treatment by Peary and his crew caused psychological damage to the women, almost all of whom were married. Many took refuge in shacks constructed of packing cases on the shore – the traces of which have recently been rediscovered by archeologists.

This exploitation of Inughuit women belongs to the eugenicist nineteenth-century discourse of treating first peoples as ‘savages’, who could be exploited at will by white American men. (Let us note that Matthew Henson, the sole American person of colour on the team, was an exception, speaking Inuktun fluently and forming loving relationships with two Inughuit women.)

This photograph is therefore an example of overtly exploitative pornography. Indeed, it was understood as such at the time it was taken. It further betrays the racist attitudes of Peary and his white male team.

I note that Penelope Middelboe asked for its removal some days ago but her request was ignored. I have removed it several times, adding a brief explanation, but each time ThaddeusSholto has reinstated it.

Let us be clear: to reinstate this image is a statement that Wikipedia endorses exploitative and racist pornography, targeted particularly at the first peoples of the northern Americas. This contribution is intended to remove any doubt about what such an action signifies.

Dr Jon Rosebank MA (Oxon), Fellow of the Royal Historical Society

Renée Hulan (2023) Alnayah’s People: Archival Photographs from West

Greenland, 1908–1909, Interventions, 25 (8), pp. 1088-1109.

Dick, Lyle (1995). "'"Pibloktoq"(Arctic Hysteria): A Construction of European-Inuit Relations?'", Arctic Anthropology 32 (2), pp. 1–42.

Susan A Kaplan and Genevieve M Le Moine, Peary’s Arctic Quest. Untold Stories from Robert E. Peary’s North Pole Expeditions (Camden, Maine 2019), pp. 60, 111-13. Jon Rosebank (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Robert Peary. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that I have given a complete reason for the removal. This is exploitative and racist pornography. 83.151.203.12 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on including exploitative pornography without citing any editorial justification - but only procedural points - I take it that you will either remove this image yourself, or provide justification for its inclusion. I am, indeed, profoundly shocked to discover that wikipedia may be at the mercy of racist pornographers uninterested in academic research. Jon Rosebank (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other Wikipedia editors names isn't a good method for editing. See WP:NPA. Also logging in and out to avoid scrutiny is sockpuppetry. You need a policy reason for removal of information and note that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. What you deem "pornography" is historical. Removing information is hardly assisting in academic research. You have no consensus for removal nor have you shown any policy reason for doing so. "I don't like it" isn't valid. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP address has replied here as "Jon Rosebank" but also has claimed to be "Penelope Middelboe". Are you two separate people using the same computer or one person using multiple names? ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your response 'calling Wikipedia editors names' betrays the flaw in your argument. You are unable to cite any reason why pornography, exploiting children, women and first peoples, is assisting research or necessary to this argument. Continuing to draw on procedural objections underlines the emptiness of your position. Wikipedia should be a safe place for children, for women and for first peoples such as the Inughuit. This photograph contravenes every one of those principles. It should also be a safe place for academics to bring to bear the fruit of their research and have it considered without procedural obstruction.

Caricaturing a reasoned and referenced argument as 'I don't like it' suggests you are unfamiliar with the discourses of the academic process. The point here is that you have yet to suggest any reason why this item of pornography should be reposted, except that it was, at some point, put there.

Separate individuals using the same IP address remain separate individuals - unless you have discovered a procedural objection to prevent that also? My point was that your objection that this topic needed to be first raised in the talk was otiose: it had already been raised.

Suggesting that I am logging in and out to avoid scrutiny is a piece of illogic. You have no idea why I may have quit my computer - especially if it is being used by more than one individual. You will kindly refrain from unfounded allegations.

As I have explained at considerable length, reposting this image is an act that implies assent to explicitly racist pornography. I might also add that it is to consent to paedophilia, since the woman in question was under the age of consent. If that's what you choose to do, then you have no alternative but to accept that you have freely chosen to bear that label. So be it.

I believe it is time to extend this discussion to a wider community. Jon Rosebank (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-etiquette[edit]

With the picture removed I hope you will continue to edit Wikipedia but I should caution, there are etiquettes to editing that you as a new editor will need to learn going forward should you decide to. I'm willing to help you so long as you are willing to commit to learning them and operating within policy even when you don't necessarily agree. If not, I wish you all the best in your endeavors. I do hope you choose to stick around, though. Even so I apologize for the bit of unpleasantness you encountered. --ARose Wolf 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you say, the correct response would have been straight away to explain the correct procedure (since this is entirely not self-explanatory) so that we could have conducted this matter in an appropriate and constructive way. Thank you for your kind apology - as you suggest, it has been a very disheartening experience. I am of course very willing to be led on correct practice. Jon Rosebank (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Rosebank: I'm sorry you had a bad first experience here. I support ARoseWolf's comments on what happened here, and I too hope you stay. You did give a reason for the removal and even cited an academic journal--that's an impressive first edit!

I can understand the frustration after that. Your experience is not unusual, by the way. The top of my user page is for new editors in your situation. Please see User:David_Tornheim, and click on Advice for New Editors. The essay WP:Don't take the bait also gives similar advice. I think the main reason we have this problem is that we are all volunteers, and holding editors accountable for negative behavior is quite a lot of work, and a lot of "he said; she said". Experienced editors don't always have the patience to treat new editors with the good faith they deserve--disruptive editors who vandalize are common and we spend a lot of time undoing their disruptive edits.

Thanks for coming in with your valid concerns. Again, I hope you say. I too would be willing to help you if you run into problems and do your best to follow the rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. I was writing something to Jon that followed your statement closely but you summed it up much better. I do think there were things that Jon could have done, like avoiding some of the ad hominem statements but, I can't say I expect new editors to always react appropriately and we should be about educating them rather than shutting them down. Just taking a few moments to de-escalate and actually hold a discussion would have eliminated a lot of the issues. I also understand patience is difficult sometimes because of what we experience and I am empathetic. --ARose Wolf 18:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much David. I very much appreciate your concern. Jon Rosebank (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you both.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address one issue brought up above that is important towards any future editing you make. Please make sure that you are the only one that accesses and uses this account. One user per account, One account per user. Start with that premise and don't worry about the exceptions because the majority of us won't fall into that category. Under no circumstances is this account to be used by an organization or group to edit on Wikipedia (WP:NOSHARING). I know in the links it was an IP, which is not necessarily applicable, but I want to make you aware. While on that subject please do not edit while logged out. I do not believe the assertion that you were editing logged out to avoid scrutiny because you acknowledged it and were not trying to make it seem you were a different person but it is always a good practice to check before make an edit. Thank you. --ARose Wolf 14:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Editors who do this often get blocked as WP:SOCKPUPPETs. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Yes, the accusation about sharing an IP was particularly perplexing since this IP address derives from a wifi router, and hence everyone in the building would fall under the same suspicion. Similarly, I was not aware that it was possible to edit while logged out. All this, I'm afraid, underlines my growing impression that wikipedia lacks the necessary signposts, the clarity of guidelines, the essential transparency and sufficient safeguards to be a safe place for me to work. David Tornheim helpfully reassured me that the trolling I faced was not unusual. While that is comforting, it is also a warning. While I am delighted that the offending photograph has been removed, and while I am very grateful for your help, on reflection, I do not feel that it would be wise to involve myself in wikipedia any further. 83.151.203.12 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Rosebank you were logged out when you wrote the above comment. I understand you are a new user and it takes a while to learn how things work around here. I do not think you were "socking" (meaning using multiple accounts inappropriately.) It's clear to me that you are here in good faith, and I hope that you decide to stay and contribute to the encyclopedia.

Should you decide to return, and I hope you do, make sure you see your user name at the top of any Wikipedia page - if you see your username, that means you are logged in - if you don't see it, you are logged out. Please let others who use the same IP know that they too can create an account and a username specific to them. (I am guessing these would be colleagues with offices in the same building on a campus.)

If you ever have any questions about editing WP, you can always ask at the Wikipedia Teahouse WP:TEAHOUSE, or for more technical questions (like coding or formatting) you can ask at the Wikipedia Help Desk WP:HELPDESK.

You can also create a user page for yourself, where you can share a bit of information about your interests.You would do that by clicking on the "redlink" near the top of the page that says "user page" which will open up to a window that says "Creating user: Jon Rosenbank". Make sure you save your changes by clicking on "Publish page" at the bottom.

It's understandable that you feel discouraged right now. Online communities can be strange, that is for sure. But I can speak from experience that once you get a sense of how WP works, you will find it to be a welcoming and collegial group of really interesting people. Netherzone (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]