User talk:ButterBeanBananas

John Speed
Hello,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I note your changes to John Speed (Kentucky) are reflective of an editor yesterday. Why do you consider the source material "faulty"? --Engineerchange (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the editor from yesterday, and he is accurate, the source material is not an autobiography, but a family history written by the family to make the family look good, included in that family history, a section from the clergyman who is doing the bidding of the family to portray the family in a unique light.
 * A biography from a trusted source on John Speed would be valid source, but a self-promotional family history is not a solid source to back up the hollow claim John Speed was an abolitionist. Especially considering all of the information the editor you dealt with yesterday brought up and went ignored. ButterBeanBananas (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Autobiographies are some of the least reliable sources there are. That should be clear to any middle school level student. And I take it, you are quite learned beyond that age. ButterBeanBananas (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Moreover, why are you so personally attached to this sentence remaining? It is not a factual statement but a claim made by a third party about the mental state of a deceased slave owner. There are no direct quotations of John Speed arguing he is against slavery. There is simply hearsay. That is a terrible source and you keeping that in again proves the editor from yesterday's point, you are not applying a fair neutrality standard, you are applying a biased, finger on the scales standard. For what reason, neither of us know, but it is clear your standard is not neutral. One wonders if you yourself are related to John Speed? Because what other conclusions are we to draw when you continue to ignore the will of other editors with valid proof that his assertion is utterly bogus? ButterBeanBananas (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'm confused, how do you know the editor yesterday? Nothing stated has called John Speed an abolitionist. I, and the other editors, yesterday did consider the information provided, as mentioned extensively on their talk page. The source is a genealogical and published book and is used as a reference in other places in the article; the source references an autobiography of a separate individual (not a family member, as far as I can ascertain). Books are generally considered reliable sources, but, yes, genealogical sources should be considered more judiciously. As mentioned on the talk page, you don't censor other references just because it provides an alternative view of an individual; hence, the neutrality preface. Nothing states, "John Speed believed the institution of slavery was bad", instead it offers the reader the opinion that "a reverend wrote that John Speed believed the institution of slavery was bad". It's absolutely not "hearsay"; it's one person's statements about their knowledge of another when they lived together in the same time period. Additionally, I have no familial relationship to John Speed or the other hundreds of articles I've edited, but I appreciate the concern. --Engineerchange (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added another sentence, I look forward to you explaining to me how this sentence does not work. It is pulled directly from genealogical source you referenced. The quote is completely farcical. But again is what the family said about itself, so using your logic, that this source is valid, the ridiculous quotation I've added is valid too. ButterBeanBananas (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I removed most of my sentence prior and reshuffled the citations, and changed some verbiage so it flows a bit better. As stated yesterday, to you/your friend, I agree wholeheartedly that he was a slaveholder, but also that this guy wrote this about him too. I disagreed with just removing the content without considering the point. I appreciate your/your friend's point that my words could have been worded better, and I hope we have found agreement here. I do not appreciate the terseness which both of you have used when replying to another editor. A civil, friendly discussion could have gone a long way before just removing content before a healthy dialogue; commenting on "middle school education" or assuming I would "[need to explain] how this sentence does not work", etc. and trying to offend me helps nobody here. I really do hope you both consider that next time you disagree with someone on Wikipedia or offline. Respectfully, --Engineerchange (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your acceptance of this change. As to your point about our unhealthy dialogue:
 * The question comes down to how facts are arranged and what gets in and what doesn't on a Wiki page--this was the cause of our terseness. The arrangement of facts around the disputed language about Speed & Slavery is a prime example.
 * In one sentence an editor presents the reading public with The Fact that Speed was a slaveholder. In the subsequent sentence the editor presents Speed's alleged oppositional feelings about slavery, alleged by a third party writing about the subject after he is dead in an autobiography published within a genealogical history written by the family in question. Sourcing matters. Arrangement of facts versus the arrangement of claims matter. Again, the first sentence is a matter of fact. The second sentence is a unsubstantiated claim made within a subjective source.
 * It appears Wiki has no way to deal with subjective sources. As long as it's a published book, the assertions, whether valid or not are citable. It would not matter so much, if Wiki allowed for discretionary editorial points to be added below claims such as those under dispute. But when you are unable to delete a citation, unable to offer a critique of a citation, and are handcuffed to find material that can somehow disprove such a citation (imagine being against slavery SO much, you "will" your slaves to your kin, and then one of those kin go on to argue with The Great Emancipator about slavery after said Emancipator visited the plantation where he witnessed firsthand the horrors of the Peculiar Enterprise carried out by Speed Sr. even after his death), the amount of contradictions one has to mentally accept is downright frightening.
 * This makes one not only exasperated, but angry. And thus, creates the ire you have unfortunately received. ButterBeanBananas (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Enineerchange, can you also explain to me who gave you the authority, and others like you, to say what gets in or out in this particular article?
 * I don't know how the authority structure works at Wiki but would like to know, because it clearly isn't as democratic or open as I once pictured it to be. You are in essence a gatekeeper, and basically whatever you choose is the final say, so it seems...correct me if I am wrong. ButterBeanBananas (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely not good to start with anger or exasperation when editing. Assume good faith is one of the core philosophies of Wikipedia. I apologize if it seemed I have been a gatekeeper to you and, perhaps, to your friend. Generally, deleting content without reason (which your friend did over and over again yesterday because they did not add edit comments) is against Wikipedia rules. Today, your edits repeated this behavior but without proper justification on how there was familial bias or the source material was "faulty". As mentioned, again, repeatedly, yesterday by myself, another editor, and a moderator, if there is a disagreement on content (i.e., reverts are happening), you _need_ to seek consensus (please read WP:CONSENSUS), you do that on the talk page of the article. Before editing, it's again suggested you read the policies/practices that are outlined for new editors: WP:Contributing to Wikipedia. Your friend didn't seem to follow any of my directions yesterday, their behavior was obnoxious and rude, hence the block by a moderator (not me!). I hope this all helps. Please read the new editor documentation. It's there for a reason. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow ButterBeanBananas, you really are a great professor. I never expected you to stick up for me like you did, thank you Dr.
 * But I agree with Engineerchange, we need to assume good faith from here on out, Engine has dealt with us honestly and respectfully, even though I got blocked for several days, we made change thanks to his assistance.
 * Godspeed. WikiTricky27 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you ButterBean, it means a lot. Assuming Good Faith requires ALL parties to be good faith and I don't like to make assumptions. I'd prefer to be myself and allow the chips to fall where they may. Strangers have to earn trust, or as old Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify" not "Assume your neighbor is well intentioned." ButterBeanBananas (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We should team up and be the ButterBean and WikiTricks Wiki duo...we could take this Interwebs by storm! WikiTricky27 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Imagine if we pooled our resources and challenged every slaveowners wikipedia page, bringing new facts to light, cutting useless BS out of their pages, we'd be slaying dragons and eradicating the status quo gatekeepers for sure1 ButterBeanBananas (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * BUTTER, YOU ARE A WISE MAN. LETS DO IT! CRT 4 LIFE. WikiTricky27 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WIKI, THEY THINK THEY CAN BLOCK US!!! WE LITERALLY HAVE 1000 ACCOUNTS ON WIKI! THESE MORONS HAVE NO IDEA! ButterBeanBananas (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ to -- Ponyo bons mots 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)