Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Personal disagreement 1

Encyclopedic tone

Above, Nimur made the following comment:

Wikipedia, including the Reference Desk, is an encyclopedia. We have standards for the content we include on these pages.

*Do the contributions cite references from reliable sources?

*Are the contributions phrased in encyclopedic tone?

If not, delete them. Nimur (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, presumably you'll be deleting every "contribution" made to the Desks by Baseball Bugs. I can't remember the last time he cited a reference or used an encyclopedic tone, rather than the using the place like his own personal chat room.

The constant quotations from low-grade comedians are bad enough, but using Wikipedia as his soap box to post reactionary racism [1] [2] [3] will not stand. Please delete this bigotry. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You "can't remember the last time". First, your research is faulty. Second, you've only been on since August 4th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is "the last time" I posted a citation, but this compliment from a user is all of 2 days ago.[4] Meanwhile, the IP's grand total of 12 posts in 3 weeks are at least half pure snippiness, of no value whatsoever. When he goes to his doctor and asks why he's suffering memory loss and self-esteem issues, he could also maybe ask why he lacks a sense of humor, and whether there's any hope, or if it's terminal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we didn't turn this into another What's Opera, Doc? festival. It is not true that every contribution made by Bugs would be deleted if we followed Nimur's rules. He also provides accurate referenced answers to questions (I refuse to quantify in %). Moreover, I doubt that Nimur's rules will ever be implied rigorously. Otherwise, feel free to delete a percentage of my responses too: I don't always use encyclopedic style, and I don't reference everything I post. Right now, I can only think of two users who cite just about every single answer and never speak in a colloquial or chatty tone, and Nimur isn't one of them either. I'm not happy with Bug's response to the Romani question, among other reasons because, once again, it became a distraction to the actual question. Nevertheless, there is no point in chastizing Bugs on this page. It has been done countless times. In my opinion, his style has changed for the better, occasional (or frequent, YMMV) lapses notwithstanding. If it bothers you that much, I suggest either trying to engage him in discussion on his talk page, or, if it's really that serious, opening a request for comment. I really don't want to see another endless to and fro between Bugs and the rest of this talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(sorry for slightly over-reacting, in no ways directed personally at 87.112 who make a valid complaint at the end. I wouldn't mind seeing that subthread removed, or at the very least boxed. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

As a relative newbie here, I was quite shocked by BB's comments. In my view it demeans the whole Ref desk to have ill-considered opinions like that made by a regular participant here - and, if they are not withdrawn, the sooner they are boxed away the better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I boxed it. I felt that some of the responses and elaborations provided by others are not entirely off-topic and worth reading, so I indicated this in the box's title. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. But I am not the Wikipedia Police. There is no Wikipedia Police. I am not going to go around, vigilante-style, deleting anything and everything I believe to be beneath the standards for the encyclopedia. And nor should anybody else - (we have guidelines for clear-cut vandalism, but this is specifically about "not quite vandalism, but dubious content."). The deletionism debate will always rage, because these things are gray-areas; Bugs often makes comments that should be deleted, but he has also (occasionally) responded well to constructive criticism. We as a community have to work together to keep our standards high. In this particular instance, I think my "guidelines" are particularly applicable: were the posts encyclopedic? Did they cite references? If not, delete them. Probably the best person to make this deletion is Bugs himself. Nimur (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If Bugs has lapsed again into the habit of posting many bad, unreferenced answers, then a topic ban would be the appropriate action, rather than deleting the bad posts of his either a topic ban or the removal of bad answers are two possible remedies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking a quick spin through one of the desks, I see lots of responses from different users that lack references. To single out one user would be, like, "racist", dude. P.S. Gypsies are not a "race". The OP's original premise in that question was incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the griping IP above engages in his own "racism" with this comment:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Even CT posts editorial comments that lack references. If you're going to have a policy that every response must contain a reference, that's fine. Just apply the rule to everyone and not one particular user that you happen to think is a jerk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I struck my claim above that a topic ban would be appropriate and that comment removal would not. I'm not sure that removal of bad, unreferenced answers would be such a bad Reference Desk policy, particularly for editors whose "good referenced answer" ratio is on the wrong side of the 80-20 rule. I'm also not advocating such a policy here; I'm just retracting me advocating against it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this person really worth our time?

I have been constantly seeing his frivolous and ignorant replies for a long time in a serious resource like this desk, but this 1 2 is just too much. I'm also aware that this user is a somewhat controversial figure here. Nobody seems to care, though. --Belchman (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Beloved Bugs would not be controversial if no one cared. Frivolous sometimes, ignorant no. We have only smart people here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ironically, the very asking of this question is inimical to the idea inherent in the header. Trolls get their jollies by people reacting to what they say. Which is why I tend to stay out of discussions about trolls, because that just adds more fuel to the very fire they hope to stoke and thus shine the light of attention (positive, negative, it makes no difference) on them. I'm not saying the editor in question is a troll, but where controversial statements are made, others don't always have to give them life by commenting. Totally ignoring them might work just as well. Silence does not always denote consent. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments concerned were first discussed up above, under "Encyclopedic tone". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be that a few people are getting very upset because Bugs told them that Romani and gypsy are not races, so laws to deport Romani/gypsy people are not "racist" laws. Bugs is correct. Romani is not a race. Gypsy is not a race. Sure, it is a semantic argument, but it is correct. Instead of throwing a tantrum, accept that racism is about race and choose another word. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the semantic difference would have been better accepted if Bugs hadn't prefaced it with posts strongly implying that "they" were all pickpockets and muggers. Matt Deres (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw, if you must bring up semantics: the usage of the terms racism and racial discrimination isn't limited to race. The UN defines racial discrimination as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin." I also agree with Matt Deres. Bringing up the old stereotype in a jocular fashion was problematic, not the semantic pedantry. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know. In order to make incidents of racism increase and, in turn, increase funding to piss away with research on how to end racism, the definition of racism is continually broadened. In another 20 years, racism will be defined as the act of looking at another person so we can have reports of nearly 100% racism all around the world. I don't like redefining words in such a dishonest way, just as I still refuse to use the term "gentrification" to refer to white people moving into black neighborhoods just to perpetuate the stereotypes that all white people are rich and all black people are poor. Words have meaning. If the word you want to use doesn't have the meaning you intend, use a different word. If it means that the UN won't get as much free money to combat racism, so be it. -- kainaw™ 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That wording was drafted almost 50 years ago. See Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The most solid criticism of France is presented in the context of Human Rights, so it makes more sense to use that as reference than whatever definition and linguistic criticism you are referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know. It should be about "the elimination of discrimination", but they wanted money even back then. So, it is titled "the elimination of racial discrimination" even though the document itself states that by "racial discrimination" it means more than racial discrimination. So, the document itself states that it is using a non-standard definition of "racial discrimination". In my opinion, it would be like me stating that I like to use the word "mosquito" when I refer to "Romani" people and then discuss a French law about mosquito control. My disclaimer makes my statement valid, but it isn't correct. It is obvious that I am attempting to use a term that sways the reader's opinion (in this case, nobody cares about mosquitos enough to worry about controlling them). -- kainaw™ 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was also because they realised, as I noted in the discussion, that race was an illdefined term, which could never have a precise meaning? (As our article on racism also notes BTW "This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.") Something which is becoming even more clear now that we are starting to be able to compare genetic profiles of individuals. You Kainaw, are obvious entitled to your opinion that Romani is not a race, but not everyone agrees including it seems some Romani [6]. I would note 50 years ago, the horrific events of the holocaust were still fresher on the minds of many where various races, ethic groups or whatever you want to call them, including Jewish and Romani people along with others groups the proponents didn't like were massacred in a short time on a scale never seen before. Anti-semitism, which sometimes manifests in a form often considered racism (even if you don't think it is), i.e. Racial antisemitism was from the article one of the things on the minds of the drafters. It's clear however that they weren't considering all discrimination. There is nothing on discrimination based on age, gender, sexual orientation, income, whether you like anime or not, whether you are a wikipedia editor or not, IP or registered accounts, whether you like to make jokes on the RD, etc... Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you saying that you don't consider Romani a race or discrimination against Romani racism, what I am saying is I think it's important we recognise people are going to disagree on this, and trying to establish that one is factually right or wrong, is not going anywhere. In other words I think it is important to establish that you, BB and 84.153.253.222 (who if they are who I think they are, I don't really care about) are ultimately simply offering opinions since there is no clear cut definition of either, no matter how any of us may prefer it if there were. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are supporting my point. I stated that the source of this argument, from what I read, is that BB said Romani is not a race. From there, he was attacked. It appears that he is NOT entitled to his own judgement on what constitutes a "race". -- kainaw™ 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs' conception of race is a strawman; if he'd claimed they were a race or an ethnic group or whatever and (gasp!) posted a reference in support of it, I doubt any comments would have followed. People aren't pissed about his conception of race in some ivory-tower academic sense, but by his characterization of the Romani as thieves and pickpockets and then his hiding behind semantics to argue against being labelled a racist because they don't fit his definition of a "race". If he'd posted something about how blacks are all rapists and drug-addicts and then hidden behind his comments by saying that blacks aren't a race and therefore he wasn't a racist, would you be so quick to defend him? The fuzziness of the concept of "race" should not be seen as a carte blanche to post racist garbage. Matt Deres (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, as this is the RD, arguing over your personal definition of race is not appropriate either. BB wasn't the only one to do this, but as I've already said 84 is IMHO somewhat of a hopeless case. Personally I don't really feel that BB's behaviour here was that bad and clearly he isn't the only one at fault here BUT there's no way in hell I'm going to defend it by saying it's okay to stereotype people because they aren't a race in that person's opinion nor that it's okay to argue over your personal opinions on the RD simply because you weren't the only one to do it. You are entitled to your personal opinion over what's a race and if you really want to tell people on the RD about them, that's up to you, but you don't have to argue that your personal opinions are correct and everyone else is wrong. As I've already said, this obviously cuts both ways. Of course there is a difference between arguing of your personal opinions and demonstrating that there is clearly a large variety of opinions and even anthropologists and others considered experts can't agree which would be the better thing then arguing over your personal opinions. Tone and wording helps here too. If you state point back, A is correct as if it's some well accepted can't be refuted fact, even though in reality it's just your personal opinion you're far more likely to annoy people then if you state A is correct in my opinion which is what you're really stating. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, the majority of his contributions to the desks are good, interesting and helpful. However the (unfunny) jokes, bias against certain user groups, and heavily opinionated and often wrong comments ending with "ya dig?" can be very grating. If he cut back on that, he'd be a great contributor. As it is, he is still "worth our time" as his good to bad ratio is well above 50% 213.229.109.203 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has their problems and we need to work together to help them. Many people have bad habits; some are more noticeable on Wikipedia while others are not noticeable. A good piece of advice would be to not overdo jokes. The greater the number of jokes, the greater the number that people find "unfunny" and insulting. Baseball Bugs may be excessive sometimes; a courteous note on his talk page would do good if anyone is insulted from what he says. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The point that sometimes seems to be forgotten is that the reference desk exists primarily for the benefit of WP readers who are seeking answers to questions - it's not here for the casual amusement of editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it realy fair to the editor (BB) to criticize him so? I would think that if there was so much concern, this would have been brought up before. Everyone here acts like this is a long term problem, but has anyone ever let him know that this is not acceptable? I am sure that BB is reasonable and will quickly adjust once he realizes that his edits have crossed the line. Looking at some of the examples given above, I am sure that some users have avoided using the desk, either not wanting to be made fun of, or seeing the desk as being staffed by less than serious help. Someone should just politely let BB know this, and like any good editor he will surely see the issue and stop with the unwanted and/or out of bounds comments. Someone please show me where BB has been talked to before? If not, then now he should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.138.124.202 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncertain of how to search the archives (a search for his name will just bring up his signature...) but yes, this has been brought up many times here. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Most recently here, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs started contributing way back in May 2007 by repairing vandalism. Since then, thousands of contribution. Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

...and two blocks for harassment and personal attacks... 188.192.58.186 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(NB. Only edit from this IP 188.192.58.186, so far)

It seems some now very respected editors and Administrators have been blocked at some stage. To be fair to Bugs could '188.192..' (or others) please provide links to Bugs' blocks? (and whats with the Hamburger?) 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The hamburger was apparently added by Baseball Bugs [7] for reasons known only to himself. Note that he appears disinclined to otherwise contribute to this discussion.87.112.158.100 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop it. Is the editor in question characteristically a racist? The answer is no and that should be the end of that. Some of you should stop being so self-righteous. He is not characteristically a racist and another good quality about him is that he doesn't take himself seriously. He seems to be always ready to laugh at himself. Additionally he contributes very valuable material often. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so mysterious, IP Editor '188.192..' apparently hails from ....Hamburg! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And the boy gets a cigar! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See here. As everyone can see, both blocks are from almost three years ago. He hasn't been blocked since. Harrassment and personal attacks aren't the topic of this thread. And I agree that block logs alone don't say a lot. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree blocks don't tell very much about a user; hell even Jimbo has a few blocks. My only reason for bringing it up was that Cuddlyable3 was presenting Baseball Bugs as a some sort of saint and model editor since "May 2007", which is somewhat of a warped truth. It in fact shows a lot that those blocks are three years old and he hasn't been blocked since; he learned and modified his editing to be better, which is great, and I assume the result we're all hoping for this time as well with the issues raised in this thread 188.192.58.186 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Jimbo was blocked because he was a terrible editor who didn't really understand how the wiki works. After the horrible incident with the wholesale deleting of images from the commons, he has now been stripped of most of his powers and can go back to being the empty figurehead and source of funding he is best at being. He's not really a good example of "otherwise good editor who got blocked once". 86.161.108.172 (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making value judgements about what makes a good editor. If someone contributes in a generally good way, that is generally good enough. I don't think anyone has the expertise in the value of editors to make the sorts of fine distinctions being referenced. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW 188.192.58.186 (talk · contribs) is currently on a 2 week {{tor}} block! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Casual stereotyping on the Ref Desks

I'm actually rather surprised – and more than a little pissed off, to tell the truth – to see some people who are among our more-experienced editors engaging in casual stereotyping of races and ethnic groups on the Ref Desk.

• Baseball Bugs' comments linked above ([8], [9]) which carry the implicit assumption that Romani are thieves was one that I didn't see until it turned up on this talk page.
• Googlemeister draws the broad conclusion [10] that Chinese people's beliefs about medicine or health are "weird" and (implicitly) laughable because he knows one guy with an irrational fear of microwaves.

Were these a couple of isolated incidents, or is this sort of thing happening more often than I'd like to think? I would have thought it unnecessary to explicitly state "Don't post responses demonstrating your own ethnic/racist prejudices" as part of our guidelines, but now I'm wondering. These sorts of statements are unacceptable here, and if people are broadly unaware of that, then we need to take urgent steps to remedy the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Too bad more people aren't afraid of microwaves; they would get some good home cooking instead of a prepackaged microwave dish. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not broaden this too far. I think this discussion is about one experienced editor who sometimes shows an unwillingness to address issues that have been previously raised with him. Personally, I don't like the title of this thread ("Is this person really worth our time?"), I know he makes many very useful contributions, and I know he can be very amusing - but he needs to acknowledge and address the concerns raised and modify his approach, in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an increasing trend in any event. Whether it happens more often than you think, Ten ... well your surprise indicates that it does. There have always been insensitive remarks, idiotic opinions, misunderstood comments. Almost every Humanities desk question on Middle East politics receives its share of unnecessary provocation in a few of the replies. The United States probably get bashed more often than any other nation here ... and often some people don't see it as a stretch to extend their angry stereotyping to the American people. You'll see crass stereotyping in some of the answers to particular questions on religion. Then there are the less offensive, but nevertheless equally pointless and thus annoying snipes between soldiers of American v British (or Commonwealth) spelling. The list goes on. Overt racism towards groups of people who have suffered violent discrimination the past centuries is perhaps rarer, and the reactions are usually stronger.

I just try to ignore. I don't know what else to do. I resent removing posts by legit users. Nor do I like to feed the distraction by responding to these unreferenced off-topic stereotypes, even when they're offensive. Nope, silence does not indicate my consent. I just shy away from the hassle, I guess. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not seeing nearly as much of it because I tend to be over at Science and Misc, where there are fewer questions asked directly about cultural issues. It just sent up a red flag for me when I saw the one comment ad RD/Sci virtually simultaneously with the thread here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very early in that discussion, Sluzzelin provided a link[11] which explained the situation. What you've got here is the French government trying to fix what they see as a problem, by shipping certain Romanis "back where they came from", as apparently they are in France illegally, and the public perception of that particular subset of Romanis is that they are lowlifes, criminals, thieves, etc. I didn't invent this stereotype, it's been around for a long time, and the perception has long been that there's something to it, it didn't come from thin air. Now, are the French scapegoating them or using them as a distraction? Maybe. But when I hear someone cry "Racism!" I have to raise the question of whether that cry is itself a distraction. Are the complaints about this particular group fair, based on evidence? Or is it a case of the few tarnishing the many? And what is that group doing to try to improve its public image, beyond crying "racism"? The point of my original comment about pickpocketing is that the people of France are going to give them money to go away, which struck me as very ironic, in view of that stereotype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So we come full circle, to the first link provided at the very start of this discussion. Bugs, you typed: "So instead of picking individual pockets, they are picking the collective pockets of France, taking the money and running. What's wrong with this picture?" Whatever your intention may have been, that looks like you're saying that all Romani are pickpockets and not to be trusted. Which is classic racism in form, if not necessarily in intent. If you'd chosen your words more carefully, maybe none of this argy-bargy would ever have happened. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what is that group doing to stop people stereotyping them? Hey, why don't we just assume all Americans are stupid until someone shows us reliable sources that they aren't? Why don't we just assume that there's something to it, it didn't come from thin air? Why don't we assume that all black people are lazy, that there's something to it, it didn't come from thin air? After all, I didn't invent this stereotype. Bugs, you're not stupid. You know that, when you're in a position of relative power, it's really shitty to make mean, sniggering jokes playing on stereotypes about people with less power. The Roma, and related groups, are in a position of very little power in Europe, and have been for centuries. Details of this can be found with very little effort, and does not require someone to specifically explain it to you. We have articles. When someone points out that you're making the world a little bit worse, rather than a little bit better, the correct response is not "I dispute your terminology!" but "Sorry". 86.161.108.172 (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

86.161.108.172—you link above to a cartoon posted on Flickr entitled "A Concise History of Racism." Its fault is that it is materialistic. Absent from the cartoon is reference to any of humanity's higher capabilities. You are referring in your above post to people in positions of "very little power." But where does "power" come from? In your conception, from what I can glean from your posts, power comes from nothing more than the material. That is a negative conception of mankind. You are pointing a finger of blame at someone else. But your own conception of mankind as described above is very limiting, in my opinion. And instead of giving another editor the benefit of the doubt you are demanding that they say they are sorry. That is once again: limiting. In my opinion, there is a world of possibilities. Conversation can take you anywhere. You need not dictate to another editor what they must say. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone who's in an economically disadvantaged situation has some choices. They can try to better themselves and better their situation; or they can take no action and blame others for their failure to succeed. The former is what immigrants have done in the USA for generations, to establish themselves and move beyond stereotyping and "racism". Currently we see lots of Asians running motels and such as that. That's become somewhat of a stereotype, just as things like the Chinese laundry used to be. But they have the last laugh, because they are bettering themselves over time. So I must ask again, at the risk of IP's calling me a "racist" again, but please indulge me here, as I am obviously an ignoranimous: Are these particular Romanis doing anything to better themselves and to escape their generations-old stereotype? Or are they content to blame someone else for their failure to succeed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Or the 'disadvantaged' people can try their best, and still wind up far behind the 'advantaged' people who also tried their best and had a head start. APL (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So the stereotype continues. Maybe if their so-called supporters stopped calling them "Gypsies" it might help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment here [12] 87.112.130.90 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've known countless Europeans who think Americans are idiots. Given that we bailed them out of two wars, with no respect accorded us, maybe they're right about us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You just don't know when to stop, do you, Bugs?87.112.158.100 (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I stop when I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If that were true you'd never say a word! :-) APL (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So why is the French government doing this, and why do the majority of French citizens agree with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Things that governments do are not always right, whether or not a majority of their citizens agree with them. Perhaps you should admit your remarks were out of place, and think more carefully before you post in future.87.112.158.100 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

87.112.158.100—do you really have to dictate to another editor what they must and must not say? You say, "Perhaps you should admit your remarks were out of place and think more carefully before you post in future." Is it so important to determine what another person says and to curtail what they might say? Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If what that editor says is in breach of the guidelines, then yes. We take special care to treat potentially offensive subjects with sensitivity, diligence, and rigor. Like, for example, not suggesting that "they're all thieving bastards". 87.112.130.90 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Show us a diff of that alleged usage of that "b-word". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In order to combat the deadening effects of political correctness the occasional off-color remark is acceptable. That is my opinion. You can tell from the context of what was said, that no special point was being made about a segment of the human population that would permanently serve to disadvantage them in the eyes of the world at large. The point referenced was an extremely common stereotype associated with a people. That it was not repeated should be sufficient reason for any reasonable person to perceive it as a joke, and not particularly at anyone's expense. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Another school of thought is that the purpose of a Reference Desk is for people to post references, rather than bigoted stereotypes. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which they did. They demolished the OP's false premise, which was: "I recently read in the news that France is deporting all Roma (Gypsies). How isn't this racial discrimination a violation of French and EU law?" And by the way, how come nobody complained about the OP's usage of that term "gypsy", which by itself is a stereotyping label, or a "racist" term by that broader definition of "racism". "Romanis" is just a word. "Gypies" is a term that invokes all kinds of negative stereotypes (where do you think the word "gypped" comes from?) So if you want to yell at somebody for "racist" stereotyping, start with the guy who posted the question and opened that door. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

87.112.130.90—it seems you are endeavoring to portray the editor in question in a certain negative light. I take exception to that because I don't perceive the editor in that way. You are suggesting that they posited that "they're all thieving bastards," in reference to the Romani people, but in fact the editor did not say that. We are perpetuating something that should be considered over. A joke was made. It was off-color. Was it a joke? Did it have any implications? I think it was an observation on reality. People are perceived in a certain way. That doesn't mean you can't make references to the way they are perceived by many other people. The French government is perceived in a certain way. The people of France are perceived in a certain way. The Romani people are perceived in a certain way. We are permitted to make references even to perceptions. This is a dangerous thing to do because it involves pandering to unreferenced generalizations that are generally untrue. But to rule that area of speech off-limits is an unnatural curtailment of the very important human capacity for intellectual conceptualization. As long as a line has not been crossed then I think it is safe to say that this has been a good exercise in exploring what can and can't be said on the Reference desks. No one needs to apologize and no one needs to commit themselves to a narrower range of expression in the future. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Our records show that the choice of link by 87.112.158.100 has incurred Godwin's law," Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, it's a valid comparison that has already been made by others [13][14]87.112.158.100 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So how about answering my question, i.e. why is France doing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You are incapable of clicking any of the links given in the relevant section on the desk, incapable of finding any articles on this, and require someone to type up a special explanation just for you specifically here? You are saying you continued this discussion without following any of the links given, or doing any basic research into the topic? Okay! 86.161.108.172 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

86.161.108.172—please stop attacking people. No one said that anyone was "incapable of clicking any of the links given." What this thread is engaging in is a thing called dialogue. You are sniping. Dialogue involves contributing. Yes, it could be argued that I too am sniping. In my defense, I am responding to negativity previously in place. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It said they were there illegally and were being sent away - along with a government handout courtesy of the French citizens. They're paying people to leave who are not supposed to be there anyway. Seems like the French are being a lot nicer to them than they could be, or than the Nazis were. So what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when was Nazi treatment of anyone any kind of benchmark for anything, Bugs? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not. 86 raised the comparison, suggesting that somehow the genocide of Romanis by the Nazis and the paid deportation of Romanis from France are somehow equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Can you show me a diff? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A few paragraphs above, where he says something about "Things that governments do", suggesting comparing the French with the Nazis, and Cuddly said he was in Godwin's law territory with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the confusion. It was 87, not 86, who raised the Nazi comparison. However, 87 could be the same guy as 86. There's no way to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than assuming good faith, given that there is no reason whatsoever for you to suppose that. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, numbers don't stick with me. If you had a real ID, I would be less likely to make that mistake. Don't blame my learning disabilities for your refusal to use an ID. Also, many IP users hop from one IP to another, and many IP's are shared. It's not appropriate to make any assumptions about IP's. They might all be the same guy under many IP's, or many guys under one IP, or many guys under many IP's. Since they typically refuse to identify themselves in any way, there's no way to know. We can only tell by attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Create an ID, because no one ever used multiple IDs." Ha! 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The point being I can't tell one IP from another, especially when they adopt the same belligerent attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you can't distinguish one set of numbers from another? You mentioned having a learning disability above, I'm curious what it might be. Dyscalculia perhaps? I could probably write you a greasemonkey script that would highlight different ip addresses with different colors, would that be helpful to you? 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean I literally can't tell one string of numbers from another if I put them side by side. It's just that those numbers don't mean anything. A user ID is a unique word or phrase that distinguishes itself. Four sets of up to three digits each and separated by periods all look pretty much the same. I've seen my own IP address many times, but I couldn't tell you what it is. I don't remember sets of numbers unless I see them over and over and over again, to the point where they start to have some kind of meaning. I know folks who can remember every phone number they've ever had. I can barely remember my own current phone number. If phone numbers were words, I would have a better chance of remembering them. Do you kinda understand what I'm getting at? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. As pointed out above, IDs are easily abused too. Whether it's a string of numbers or a nickname someone came up with, there's no guarantee the person on the other end is one person, 2 people or 20 people, or that several IDs aren't being operated by one person. 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, but a meaningful ID will stand out better. Just to clarify, the "learning disability" I referenced, if it really is a disability, is that I have a very hard time remembering strings of numbers. So if an IP spouts off, and another IP spouts off, they seem to me like they're the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why having a "meaningful ID" matters. You said earlier that "It's not appropriate to make any assumptions about IP's. They might all be the same guy under many IP's, or many guys under one IP, or many guys under many IP's" Well it's not appropriate to make any assumptions about IDs either. They might all be the same guy under many ID's, or many guys under one ID, or many guys under many ID's. But to prevent confusion, I could still write you a greasemonkey script if you'd like, so that you'd have no problem distinguishing the red highlighted ip from the yellow highlighted ip etc in the middle of a discussion 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So if there were 27 IP's, there would be 27 different colors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, different shades. 96.252.161.209 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I doubt that would work. But thanks for the idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you [Baseball Bugs] are aware that you have what is an apparently serious learning disability and yet you are blaming other people for it. Interesting. --Belchman (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, help me out here... how do you tell one IP from another? Are you able to remember those numerical strings? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They might, which ironically is against the rules, but is not so for IP's. But you can usually tell if a registered ID is up to no good, and being words, they are easier to remember. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, Standing consensus is to treat IP editors like any other editor. You can feel free to formally challenge that policy, of course, but be aware that it's a Perennial Proposal. ([15])

With that established, your continued harassment, complaints and general discrimination are uncivil behavior and it exemplifies the elitist state of mind that seems to underlie all of your most problematic contributions. (ie: The casual racism, The moral lectures, etc.)

"I calls 'em like I sees 'em" is not an excuse for all uncivil behavior on all topics. Sometimes you're supposed to keep your big mouth shut. APL (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP posted the word "gypsy", which is by itself a "racial" slur. So go complain to the OP about his behavior, and spare me your own elitist lectures, harassment and complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So suddenly you object to that word, eh, Bugs? It was fine when you were posting your controversial comments, though, wasn't it? [16] [17] You're very keen on trying to get us to take our complaints elsewhere; it's a favourite rhetorical trick of yours. But our complaint is with your behaviour. So stop with the misdirection.87.112.130.90 (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me on re-reading that "Gypsy" was the trigger word. If it had said "Romani" it would not have been thus. If you're going to pretend to be politically correct, you can't make a slip like that. Meanwhile, your first edit was like 3 hours ago, so how can you pretend to know anything about my so-called "rhetorical tricks"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

87.112.130.90 = 87.112.158.100. It's called a dynamic IP, and it's something I have no control over. So your trawls through my edit history (more misdirection) prove nothing about how long I have been contributing to the Reference Desks. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But you do have control over whether you are presenting yourself as a new voice or as an established voice. Meanwhile, you still won't answer my question: Do you consider "Gypsy" to be a neutral word? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

87.112.130.90—do I understand you correctly that you feel Baseball Bugs has something against a group of people—be they called Romani or Gypsies? Do you think two diffs establish this? Aren't you making a mountain out of a molehill? Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My problem is with what APL above terms Bugs's continued harassment, complaints and general discrimination. Bugs's suddenly acquired distaste for the word "gypsies" is symptomatic of his refusal to accept that his behaviour on the Reference Desk is disruptive – he prefers to derail the argument with minor, misdirecting points. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also just noticed that your very first edit, all of 3 1/2 hours ago, was to lecture me about not showing good faith, and now you're basically calling me a liar, which in itself is a violation of AGF. AGF is a two way street. It's not a free pass for dynamic IP's to fire shots at will. If you expect to have good faith accorded to you, you have to accord it others also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Gypsy" is NOT a "racial" slur? I've heard that term countless times over the years, by Americans and Europeans both, and never in a good way. But it wasn't until I re-read and posted the OP's (bogus) premise that the light went on for me as to what the trigger was. The OP himself is guilty of what he's accusing others of. So back off from your own derailing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see it the problem wasn't with calling them Gypsys or Romani or debating whether they're a race or not. It was with implying they're all pickpockets. Sweeping, negative generalizations about an entire group of people is offensive 71.170.245.203 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How many times do various users here have to explain it to you? "Romanis" are a people. It's a neutral term, at least to the average American. "Gypsies" always has bad connotations. You hear "Gypsy", you immediately think of shady characters, criminals. That's the stereotype. It's been around for a lot longer than you and I have. And giving them money to go away struck me as highly ironic and funny. Maybe my mistake was failing to include a :) at the end of that comment, and maybe thus avoiding this ridiculous brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your mistake was implying an entire group of people are all pickpockets. Don't you see that? It's not funny in any way, and adding a smiley face at the end of it doesn't lessen the offensiveness. 71.170.245.203 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Implying an entire group of people are all pickpockets"? I wouldn't imply that. But it is part of the lore of the peoples of Europe. Are not the Germans differentiated from the French? Are not the Jews differentiated from the Christians? Are not the blacks differentiated from the whites? You make it seem like we can't reference stereotypes. If it is done in an egregious way it is offensive and unacceptable. If it is done as your two diffs suggest it is of little consequence. It is over. You've voiced your objection. Everyone got to express themselves. Now it is getting tedious. The longer you perpetuate this the more it borders on harassment. In my opinion no bright line has been crossed. Therefore demands for apologies and commitments to watch one's step with what one says in the future are counterproductive. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. I came here, despite being on vacation and trying to avoid wikipedia, because somebody whined that I wasn't participating in this food fight. So I participated, and now I'm done participating in it, because I can't think of anything else to say that I haven't already said several times already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's something you could say: "Sorry. It won't happen again." 87.112.130.90 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That has been the problem all along: you have been trying to get others to repeat after you. They need not, and they should not. Please stop trying to tell others what they must say. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an entire group, just the ones who are being sent home and being paid for it. Instead of approving of this plan, the French people ought to be raising holy hell about it. We certainly would in the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, again with blaming me for the stereotype, as if I invented it. Gypsies have a bad reputation. If you find that reputation offensive and baseless, then rather than trying to censor someone who brings it up, go to them and try and help them turn that reputation around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read this entire thread, and NO ONE has blamed you for the stereotypes existence. 71.170.245.203 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think is going anywhere. Regarding one of Bus Stop's comments, see also WP:SORRY. I don't think we can or should expect much more on this talk page than communication. Bugs has read the comments. I do hope he shows more caution in the future, as he has proved he is able to. He is also capable of listening, but don't expect an editor to perform like a circus seal. It's counterproductive. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)