User talk:Gumbear

Welcome!

 * I noticed you locked me out of the discussion section of the "Reverse Racism" article. Was there a reason why? Gumbear (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw this. That never happened, you’ve never been blocked or partially blocked. Doug Weller  talk 19:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I'm not new to Wikipedia, I'm relatively new to editing here. I think it was a misunderstanding because I wasn't able to make edits. Gumbear (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, I found this article from SPLC in 2018 that quoted you: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets
 * The article allays your concern for the "emergence of the alt-right and the surge in rightwing populism in Europe and North America." I can assure you, in case you had any suspicions I am one of those alt-right or rightwing populists, I have no ambitions on here other than to help improve Wikipedia and support the goal of objectivity--and certainly not to promote any "rightwing populism." While my opinions lean conservative, I detest any attempt to promote subjectivity or propaganda from either the right or left. In my opinion, Wikipedia should transcend those ideological "wars" on both sides.
 * At any rate, Cheers! Gumbear (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks
I see that on User talk:Zilch-nada you made the following characterization of those who disagree with you in a content dispute: They ignore or enforce the Wikipedia rules as they see fit to protect their narrative. It honestly feels like an astroturfing operation by an organization. One of the editors (Doug Weller) has even been quoted by SPLC in an article about "far right vandals" on Wikipedia.

Are you aware that this sort of conspiratorial post violates our policy against personal attacks? If not, now you know. Please refrain from this behavior in the future, regardless of what you may suspect personally. That's how we function as a huge, collaborative project which invites contributions from people with diverse worldviews.

I'll also leave the standard intro to contentious topic areas, since the current discussion at Talk:Reverse racism relates to contemporary American politics. I genuinely hope that I encounter you somewhere else on the project where we can collaborate more effectively. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That was not an attack. It was note intended only for Zilch-nada that shared my honest opinions about the dynamics of that page--and it was based on factual observations. I avoided posting it in the discussion for for Reverse Racism specifically to avoid being accused of a personal attack. Be that as it may, I am concerned about the "Reverse Racism" page. It took a turn for the worse in August 2017. From that time, one editor has controlled every edit made to the page. Those with opposing opinions have been driven off, leaving about 9-10 editors that are, largely, of identical opinions. Some of whom have been quoted by liberal think tanks about "far right vandalism" on Wikipedia. Generally, Wikipedia contains generally accepted definitions/content, and when differences of opinions arise opposing viewpoints are represented. That has not happened here--inspite of MANY editors bringing up the same concerns and many legitimate sources being ignored. The same 9-10 editors come en masse to shut down opposing views. For a controversial subject, there is no diversity of opinions or thought encompassed by this article. That's suspicious. I take no pleasure in engaging in long, drawn-out arguments like some of these editors do (as demonstrated by their pages). My only purpose is to help Wikipedia become a more objective source for information. I hope you do invite people with diverse viewpoints, but the history of this page resoundingly says otherwise. I hope you're not offended by my candor here, as my point is not to attack or offend, but these are my honest thoughts and, by the looks of past editors on this page, I'm not alone. Not by a long shot. I hope you don't take this as an opportunity to squash dissenting opinions but, rather, to listen and engage in honest, open discussion. That's what makes Wikipedia better. Best wishes. Gumbear (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gumbear hey, thanks for reminding me about this mention! I don't see anything wrong with them quoting me though. And you might think it's a good thing there are more right wingers, I don't know. What I do know is that you don't understand Wikipedia if you think we can be "objective" on subjects such as  history, politics, race, etc. Interesting example. In the 1890s newspapers, esp. the New York Times, provided purely factual descriptions of thousands of lynchings, burnings and mutilation of blacks. Even giving details of the reasons give for such horrid acts. This helped normalise these acts. Now recall the fact that the perpetrators were sure they were doing the right thing. Racists claim to be objective when they say other peoples are inferior, savages, etc. We don't try to be objective about politics etc. We do try to make sure articles have a neutral point of view which is a different thing. We try to reflect what reliably published sources say about something but also give weight to significant disagreements. We're mainstream and thus not right or left wing, although right wingers generally see the mainstream as left wing. We're clear that Creationism is wrong and evolution happens, that the world is billions of years old, that aliens didn't build the pyramids, that whites weren't in the Americas before Indians, etc.  Doug Weller  talk 12:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller I truly appreciate the response and opportunity to engage in open dialogue. I hope we can both respect each other's right to opposing viewpoints--even if we ultimately disagree with each other.
 * Objectivity: I know you don't like dictionaries, but a well-respected definition of objectivity is "the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings." Whether people are truly objective is another matter, but objectivity should be the goal. It's synonymous with "neutrality." If you're not objective (neutral), you're subjective (biased).
 * SPLC Article: I respect your right to be quoted on a partisan think tank's publications. However, this indicates you probably have connections to the thinktank and have biased opinions. The subject of the article was especially relevant to the underlying issue we're discussing. I'd say the same of someone quoted by the Pacific Legal Foundation. They probably don't have an objective viewpoint (which you seemed to confirm).
 * 1890's Newspapers: The intent of Wikipedia (as I understand it) is not to push certain viewpoints or agendas but, rather, to provide a reliable, impartial database of knowledge to people. Anecdotal examples of past injustices blamed on factual reports is no reason to mislead or avoid reporting facts or nuance. That simply leads to mistrust in that source. I am not a believer that the ends justifies an illegitimate means.
 * You also bring up knowable facts. Evolution is a knowable fact. The construction of the pyramids is a knowable fact. Indians in the Americas is a knowable fact. While the social sciences are a soft science rife with opinion, "reverse racism" is a knowable fact. Here are examples of cases published by the EEOC, decided by a government entity through an adversarial process, that found reverse discrimination in the U.S.: https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors#reverse. There are also U.S. laws and SCOTUS cases that acknowledge the concept of reverse racism. Attempts by several editors to include this information, which would completely destroy the narrative of the current article, have been repeatedly thwarted by one editor (with the support of several others). If the current article can't even entertain the idea that these laws and cases exist, there's a problem.
 * But, again, I respect your opinions. I just hope you respect mine and others whose opinions differ with yours. Wikipedia is better when different legitimate viewpoints exist. It starts dying when one viewpoint suppresses the opinions of others. I hope we don't go down that road, and I hope we can continue to engage each other to broaden each other's perspective. Sorry for the long post. Gumbear (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you actually saying it's possible to be neutral on political issues? It's not. It depends in part on your moral values for instance. Human beings can't be expected not to be subjective on these issues. It's simply impossible to be impartial about people and issues. I have no connections to the SPLC other than being interviewed and that was simply at random so far as I recall, I've never directly contacted them or been in touch with them. And see WP:BIASED. I hope you have read WP:NPOV already as if not you've no idea what we mean by neutral point of view, and also see Neutral point of view/FAQ. I'm not interested in the debate on Reverse racism. I have little time left and am working on creating articles of interest to me. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Doug, we're not going to agree on this. And that's OK--as long as we accept each other's right to disagree. I can accept I have political opinions that I assume are correct. I also accept there are other legitimate viewpoints that, albeit I disagree with, deserve to be discussed. That's how Wikipedia, in theory, is able to maintain objectivity: it acknowledges a diversity of viewpoints and does not push any one political agenda. The counter is to completely dismiss other viewpoints because someone thinks they're "right." That is NOT what Wikipedia is about. Don't underestimate the mind's ability to self-deceive. And don't feel threatened just because someone has a different opinion. Embrace it. Gumbear (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, no one feels the least bit threatened by you, Gumbear. Annoyed sometimes by the failure to WP:LISTEN, sure, but not even a little bit threatened. We're engaging with you out of respect, because we want people with different viewpoints to understand the frameworks within which they can collaborate successfully here. Doug has devoted some of his very, very valuable time to explaining how our norms and policies work. He's done that because he cares about the project and the people who contribute to it. Including you. Take it to heart please. Generalrelative (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good. No one should feel threatened by opposing viewpoints. And no one should feel compelled to spend "very, very valuable time" trying to silence opposing viewpoints by dropping passive-aggressive posts about engaging in "controversial topics." That's entirely inappropriate--not to mention hypocritical. Let's engage in the conversations civilly. If you disagree and we're not getting anywhere, don't feel compelled to respond. It's honestly that simple.
 * I'd take your concern in good faith if you'd reproached another editor in the conversation who'd cursed at Zilch. You didn't, and Zilch's offense was no more than advocating for a viewpoint that the 9-10 other like-minded editors that follow this site don't agree with. The real danger here is silencing opposing viewpoints and using the site to advance political agendas. That's not what Wikipedia is about. If it is, God help Wikipedia. I don't want to fight you or anyone here, but I won't apologize for trying to bring objectivity and neutrality to this page. Gumbear (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has tried to silence you.  If you continue to mess with the Weller, your wiki account gets the cellar. Please read wp:npa and focus on content not people, worm.
 * t~
 * Very Average Editor (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Very Average Editor this really isn't helpful. Especially mentioning NNPA and then saying "worm". Doug Weller  talk 09:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess I shouldn't expect you to assume good faith towards me. But I have no idea who you are talking about as I didn't read the discussion and don't intend to. So it's no surprise I didn't respond to whoever it was. And you still don't understand our policies and I'm not going to try to explain them again. But we do have the WP:No original research/Noticeboard where you can put forward your view if you are going to continue to pursue it. If you aren't, this is pointless. Doug Weller  talk 09:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply to VAE. He's the 2nd such editor to make such personal attacks during this discussion.
 * As for original research, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The current definition violates this standard, as it is a synthesis of a couple authors' opinions--which I've gone at length to explain in the past. The authors, who very clearly are not impartial based on their CVs, were quoted out of context. It also flies in the face of just about every serious dictionary definition of the concept (I know--You don't like dictionaries) as well as the federal government. Yes--the U.S. government recognizes a very different concept than what's defined here. It has also substantiated "reverse discrimination" cases many times over. When Wikipedia doesn't recognize either the U.S. government or federally sanctioned adversarial tribunals as "credible sources", it's time to look at Wikipedia. Or, rather, the editors making such interpretations. There should at least be a discussion of "I don't like your specific sources, but you're right. We need to figure out a way to define this that encompasses the way legitimate governments are treating the concept" instead of a flat "no."Gumbear (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, go to a noticeboard. Either the NOR one or WP:RSN. You'll get a lot more input there probably. Doug Weller  talk 13:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Before I go there, can you at least agree that the page should include language about how legitimate governments view and deal with "reverse discrimination" claims? Because if we can't agree on that preliminary issue then it's not really a "source" issue but a "content" issue. I'd rather not be led on a fool's errand. Gumbear (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards. We don't first decide what the contents of a page should be and then go looking for sources to support it. We look for the most reliable sources on a topic first, and then summarize them in our own words as much as possible. You've made this "out of context" claim several times before; in the discussion now archived at Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 6, I asked you for other reputable scholars with different views on the subject, which you have yet to provide.For someone so concerned with "objectivity", your insistence on citing a bunch of lawyers is somewhat curious. Actual reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is determined by other, independent sources, not a U.S. federal government imprimatur. If you paid any attention to WP's policies and guidelines instead of banging the same drum over and over about "legitimate" viewpoints, you'd know this already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're saying an aggregation of a couple biased academics with an opinion on this matter are more reputable than the U.S. Government? Or British Government? Or most other reputable governments? Or SCOTUS? And that their opinions are all either unreliable or irrelevant? If you want to believe that, fine, but don't stand behind your own flawed interpretation of WP's standards to argue that. Simply come out and say "it doesn't match my vision for this page," which is the real issue here. It's tantamount to flat earthers denying the world is round because they don't like the sources. Or dictionaries. Or lawyers. Or the government. It's all completely irrelevant or unreliable or something.
 * Try reading Thurgood Marshall's opinion in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transport Co.￼ You won't, but if you did you'd find your page is completely at odds with his opinion. In fact, this page should probably start with his opinion, as it was the first U.S. case that recognized reverse racism as a violation of Title VII. But, I get it. He's a lawyer. Or it's "original research." Or Thurgood Marshall isn't a reputable source on reverse racism. You'll come up with something, I'm sure. These dang WP rules keep getting in the way of including extremely relevant topics in these articles. Gumbear (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct. Wikipedia isn't a place for people to interpret primary sources, it is a place for people to summarize secondary sources. Please read WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. If this sort of activity seems like the wrong approach, you may want to try another wiki instance with different rules on how content is generated. Very Average Editor (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. It's why I've brought issue with the aggregation of academic sources to form a definition of the subject. The current definition is a unicorn. Gumbear (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, several people who were not invited to the discussion are now commenting on my personal page. If you'd like to continue a conversation about Reverse Racism please do so on the Reverse Racism talk page. You can even signal me. My page is not about to become a surrogate for the Reverse Racism talk page. Gumbear (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're saying an aggregation of a couple biased academics with an opinion on this matter are more reputable than the U.S. Government? Or British Government? Or most other reputable governments? Or SCOTUS? And that their opinions are all either unreliable or irrelevant? Yes, and WP's verifiability policy backs me up. Your personal opinion on what is extremely relevant matters not at all. You continue to beat the same dead horse at Talk:Reverse racism about dictionary definitions even after users have calmly and patiently explained Wikipedia's approach to reliable sources. Please drop the stick already or expect that patience to run out very soon. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I responded to another editor's comment that I happen to agree with. Kindly stop messaging me. Thank you. Gumbear (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)