You and I haven't always seen eye to eye about things, but I wanted to tell you that I was impressed by your post on the ArbCom case. It was measured, well-worded, and respectful of both parties, even when you disagreed with their actions. I really respect that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were you under a voluntary self-TBAN or something? I was monitoring ANI on-and-off during my own voluntary self-PBAN, and I recall you saying something to the effect As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Your recent comments on the Chang AFD (not just your responses to me; your first comment as well) suggest that maybe your self-imposed exile ended slightly before you "had a clue" regarding our deletion policy: have you considered maybe reinstating it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was voluntary, and I have returned to AfD (but generally not MfD) discussions since. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things make a bit more sense now after the CU blocks. I have to admit that even though I have experience with the master I didn't see that one coming. Meters (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I have made a couple of edits to the lede, taking on the two rational points in the sock's ranting, and also reorged the last section of the article so that it reads chronologically, which makes sense to me in that location. The article as a whole is still a many-headed mess, but I'd say the lede now tells the story fairly accurately and succintly. Any pruning you wanted to do, though, would probably help, especially in the messy parts of the article below the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely unacceptable to go to the page of someone you despise and add 'notability' in the lead for something that you don't like them doing.

Read WP:BLP.

--Nanite (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nanite, I have, in fact, read BLP. The BLP in question mostly read as a non-notable resume, with the subject's notable acts - the ones that actually might merit a WP page - left out or buried at the end. I was adding appropriate material to the lead, as already called for in templates placed by others on the article. This has nothing to do with what I "like". Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just want to apologise for the tone above -- I saw the inserted self-published youtube citation in the lead and figured it was just a drive-by WP:UNDUE attack. However as you say it is also mentioned in the body, so it's arguably notable. Sorry for assuming bad faith! --Nanite (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; your tone above was a bit off, but I did understand that your heart was in the right place, as your subsequent edits to the page showed. It is just funny to me to look back on my edit you quasi-reverted, which I made before the subject was fired from The Rebel. At the time the "White Genocide" video was arguably the most notable thing she had done, but she is now clearly more famous for being fired after Charlotteville (and arguably for live-streaming the alleged vehicular homicide that took place). There was quite the edit war over my use of the (sourced) term "sympathetic", although the recent semi-protection should inhibit any more of that.

Anyway, I did get around to removing her rowing captaincy and undergraduate scholarship from the article, at least. Perhaps ironically, it read more like a CV before she was fired ....

As I say, no worries. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got that confused with a fringe site. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to join the discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you think this fringe viewpoint needs to be featured so prominently. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is, because it isn't fringe. A very casual search on my part turns up at least half a dozen recent, scholarly sources making this point. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you were working on a draft for Suite Antique. As I've always liked this work, I've decided to write a quick article on it and it's live now. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to look at it or had any things you wanted to add. I'm planning to add a bit more description when I next get time though. Blythwood (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts were entirely unnecessary and imprudent. The term "politician" is an inarguably WP:POV term to describe someone involved with politics, which is exactly why respected politicians that are still alive such as Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are described as such instead of "stateswoman" and "statesman" respectively. However, as WP:BLPSTYLE does not apply to politicians who are long gone, the term is fine insofar as the term has been used by historians to describe said politician. Basically, the term "statesman" is something that is only used to refer to deceased politicians of significant importance, not for contemporary politicians still living. I hope you will understand this and reconsider your edits.--Nevé–selbert 20:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the Colin Powell talk page; I would also question whether you understand the policies you are citing, since there is nothing in BLPSTYLE counterindicating the use of the term "statesman" or "stateswoman" when reliable sources describe a person's role as such, and there is very good indication NOT to make up a description for a person based on an ideosyncratic point of view, such as referring to people who, in electoral democracies, have never sought electoral office as "politicians" because you read in Harry Truman that statesmen are dead people. I suggest you not magnify your mistakes using automated tools, in future...Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and the message at the top of every talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have, and I did again before reverting your revert. We are having a disagreement about the application of that policy, you and I: I am not acting in ignorance of it.Newimpartial (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's help you with your reading comprehension:

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references [emphasis mine] are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material.

Please note that adding reliable sources [emphasis mine] is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article. For help on inserting references, see referencing for beginners or ask at the help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source [emphasis original], you may remove this tag [emphasis mine].

This is not even slightly difficult. So don't edit war over things you're wrong about. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton You might wanna back off the hounding with this. BLPPROD specifically states To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag. There were sources originally (reliability is definitely debatable) and have been throughout every revision, therefor BLPPROD doesn't apply in this case. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, as it was my fault, as the script penetrated my Wikipedia editing. I've reverted myself and have fixed the problem. I am notifying The Gnome of this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'm just giving you this notice as I've seen that, while the editor you're in a dispute in has received this notice, you yourself have not. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor is clearly afoul of 4.1.7 of the final decision. Do you really think that "chromosome supremacist" puts me afoul of 4.1.8? I have since explain that what I literally meant was more "chromosome reductionist" but I was trying to be clever. I can absolutely strikethrough if you are offended. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I figured I'd talk to you first before risking creating a new trash fire on the American Renaissance Talk Page. Thus, I'm here to ask you, what makes you think that Am Ren should be labeled "White Supremacist" instead of "White Nationalist"?

Personally, my reasoning for having it labeled as "White Nationalist" instead of "White Supremacist" is as follows (I admit, copied right from my own user page): When writing or editing articles on political figures, I am very picky (and somewhat strange, I admit) in what sources I'll cite. This is because the vast majority of reputable sources, whether they be big mainstream publications, or smaller publications, are still over saturated by their bias. Thus, I've found it best to cite directly from the political figures themselves when defining their political views. After all, who can better assess what a person's views and beliefs are than the person themselves? Outside forces can interpret and judge something all they want. But none can ever really know if their assessments are true unless directly confirmed or rejected by the thing being judged.

I don't know what your political views are. Nor do I know if they influence you when labeling it as "white supremacist". But hopefully we can be civil and come to a mutual agreement here. And not have to create more drama on the talk page if necessary.

Cheers, Da secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)da_secret_agentDa secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Da secret agent. As you might have guessed, I have been busy off-wiki.

Basically, my answer is that the reliable sources regard "White nationalist" as a euphemism for "White supremacist", AFAICT, so WP should do likewise. And WP does not privilege what sources say about themselves over what reliable sources say about them; quite the opposite.

Also, the only way to get the kind of terminology changed as you want for this article is to produce a new consensus, either on the article page alone or in a wider RfC or similar process. There really is no short cut. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my error and doing so calmly. That was a mistake on my part and deserves a WP:TROUT. Please accept my sincere apologies.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to how discussions of "transracial" people are used in discussion of transgender rights, you're completely right. I think it's important though to keep hammering home the irrelevance of that comparison to the topic at hand. It really doesn't matter how Wikipedia handles "transracial" people when we have explicit style guide instructions for how to handle transgendered people. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling User:Chetsford a "clueless editor" who "believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are 'designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego' [1]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion."

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "clueless editor" comment was unnecessary, and would be happy to strike it on each occasion if you would prefer. The remainder of my comment, however, seems to me to be perfectly germane for each occasion I included it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that maybe best. Chetsford? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re this edit please give Jbhunley/Essays/ANI advice a read and consider its advice. That edit very likely has changed the character of the ANI discussion from a topic ban limited in both time and scope to the possibility of a long term block or, should you continue to make attacks, an indefinite community ban. I think that would be a shame. Jbh ^Talk 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lest I forget. [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]

Also NB [11]Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this and also this. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Newimpartial", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could be interpeted as a misleading username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. I know you've been here for a while, but I just wanted to let you know that your username could be interpreted as one violating username policy as a misleading username. No risk of UAA from me, just letting you know others might not be so generous. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any username with "new" in it could be seen as misleading after ten years, but I don't think that should raise any questions of policy compliance so, no, I don't think it is an"misleading username" in the sense of the policy Newimpartial (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... there's no violation here. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Newimpartial, I have just closed your request because the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that the edit you reported was not a violation. Userwoman is topic banned from "gender issues" and, while Kavanaugh is currently embroiled in what could be described as a "gender-related controversy" under the GamerGate decision, the article itself is not about gender issues and the edit in question is not about that either. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Salvio. I appreciate the close.

My own interpretation of that polling is, perhaps needless to say, somewhat different, based on my own reading on the topic. However, I value the work of administrators in adjudicating what must be a very unruly body of sanctions and requests for action. You're doing an important (and thankless) job. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said on her talk page, her edit skirted close to the line, although it did not cross it. Probably her topic ban was not formulated in the most accurate way in the first place, since, under the GamerGate sanctions, people can also be topic banned from "people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy", but we have to enforce the topic ban as it has been written

Hello, I'm wondering specifically how my comment violated the NOTFORUM rule. I provided a brief comment in an ongoing thread, directly on-point, with a specific editing suggestion, backed up with a source. What more do I need to do, exactly, to have my comments NOT deleted? It seems to me that I am simply not allowed to participate, as editors are deleting every single one of my comments, even when I follow what they say. I see comments all over these talk pages that are forum-esque discussion without sources (for example, I saw a very long rant on the trans woman talk page, about 5 paragraphs, that was all just POV without a single source cited; I deleted it, and an editor reverted it, but did not revert my comment, which was also very brief, specifically about a point of editing, with a source). Why am I being singled out? And again, what exactly do I need to do to not have my comments deleted? Thank you very much. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have a magic formula for relevant comments, but here are some pointers:

DONT use the Talk page to object to the premise of a sourced article, EVEN IF you have one or two sources yourself. If you want to propose changes to an article in that situation, propose specific changes on the basis of BALANCE instead.

DO use Talk pages to propose specific changes to the article in draft form, not to debate the article's underlying assumptions (which is perhaps the main kind of NOTFORUM violation I run into).

DONT append new comments to old topics that are several months stale, ESPECIALLY to launch into new tangents on those topics. It is better to add new sections in this situation.

DO review the Talk page and its archives to see whether issues like yours have been raised before; in your particular case (people who think that science has produced one definitive definition of "biological sex" which should then also be used in place of, or to define, gender) that position has been discussed to death, on article Talk pages and in community discussions (NPOV noticeboard) and has not met with much support; it is essentially regarded as a FRINGE position. In particular,

DONT make an argument about an article's content that is based in a personal conviction where many other editors have already made similar arguments based on the same personal conviction, or at least recognize in your framing of your intervention that you are raising one more time a point that has previously been made - the onus for quality sources is especially important in this situation.

I really do hope this helps! Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to me. It's much appreciated, even though we disagree on the topic at issue. I take your points, but still wonder about the appropriateness of simply deleting comments like mine outright, rather than either ignoring them or responding to them on the talk page with something like what you just wrote. Obviously it makes sense to be strict about actual pages, since that's what people are reading, the finished product. But talk pages are for, well, talking, and while I don't think it should be a total free-for-all, I don't really see why the guidelines shouldn't be pretty liberally applied, since there isn't a limit on real estate and few people (compared to Wikipedia readership) looks at them anyway. It really seems like the general guidelines cited as the basis for deleting them can easily be weaponized by editors with status in the community to censor comments they disagree with--not actually based on the egregiousness of the violation of Wikipedia guidelines, but based on a strong dislike of the view expressed. This is demonstrated by the existence of comments like the one I cited--if it were really just about the guidelines, that rant would have been deleted. The fact that my deletion of it was reverted, on the grounds that my motivation of 'making a point' was improper, is just astounding. It is of course true that I wanted to see whether this would happen, but it's also true that the comment was plainly in violation of NOTAFORUM--so regardless of my motivation, shouldn't it be deleted? Isn't it making a point to me to revert it? I've been using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, and I always had a good opinion of it, but this experience of seeing what actually happens behind the scenes, at least on controversial topics, has left me really doubting the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a truly reliable 'neutral' source (if such a thing is even possible). Of course I recognize that you don't represent Wikipedia as a whole, but since you seem to be a regular editor, I don't know of anyone better to express this to than you. I'm new here on the editing side, but it really would not occur to me to simply delete a comment on a talk page outright just because I strongly disagree with the view expressed, unless it was egregiously in violation of the rules. To do so just smacks of censorship and political revenge, and most of all, pettiness. Do you get where I'm coming from? --45.48.238.252 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not really. I mean, editors do not delete comments on Talk pages that they disagree with - that is quite strictly frowned upon - but they do delete comments that are not useful, including POINTey edits and NOTFORUM violations. Article talk pages are in fact not intended to be a free-for-all, and they work best when the discussion is quite tightly tied to specific proposals to amend the article.

And BTW, your tit for tat deletion of what you called a "rant" is an absolutely textbook example of POINTey behaviour, so it was procedurally correct to revert your deletion even if the content you deleted was a NOTFORUM violation. But in fact, looking back on the intervention you deleted, I don't think it is such a violation. It is long and rambly and argumentative, and it doesn't give its sources, but it is eminently source-able (without relying on FRINGE figures) and offers a clear logical structure that advances a particular discussion. This is as opposed to your original Trans-woman Talk comment, for example, which used a stale discussion, COATRACK-sryle, to talk about something that was bothering you without offering any particular contribution to the article.

I would also point out that editors watching the articles on gender identities tend (understandably) to become irritated when people that know little or nothing about the field of gender identity arrive to edit these articles or their talk pages, just as I imagine that editors that watch biology or physics articles would be annoyed when people who know little about their subject matter arrive to edit them, or arrive on Talk to clumsily re-open topics that have been done to death in the recent past. So if you want to make a constructive contribution, don't regard Talk pages as "free-for-all" and try to come up with specific, sourced, non-FRINGE proposals that would improve the content of articles, and be prepared to discuss these proposals in a non-confrontational way, preferably with some humility. And if you care too much about a particular topic to observe the expectations of the WP environment, move to a topic you care less about and contribute there. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just want to address one more thing. I'm still mystified by the procedural correctness of reverting that edit. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was a NOTAFORUM violation that I'd deleted - wouldn't reverting it, based solely on my improper motive, be an example of the reverting editor simply making a point (to me) as well? It seems very weird that a comment violating NOTAFORUM policy (again, assuming this for the sake of argument) would be allowed to stand just to privately punish an editor for his motive in deleting it. Isn't this just making the community suffer, or lowering the quality of the talk page, to sanction an individual editor? I would think that a sanction directed solely at the editor (me), while still deleting the NOTAFORUM comment simply because it's in violation of the guidelines, would make more sense. Is my understanding of this correct, that a comment in violation of the rules can be immunized against deletion if an editor has deleted it because of some improper motive? Thanks. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT, as it describes this situation almost exactly. And while you're at it, read WP:COATRACK and try to think laterally about how it might apply to talk pages (since that discussion is framed for articles).

Wikipedia is governed largely by procedural rules - deleting or restoring a page against a consensus ruling is always wrong, even if that ruling was itself incorrect. Exceeding a revert limit is always wrong (except for COPYVIO or BLP violations) even if the article version an editor reverts to is manifestly better than the one reverted from. Without procedure, there would be chaos and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you could contribute usefully to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It took some time and work, but Geoffrey C. Grabowski has passed AFC and is in article space again. :) BOZ (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that, and some of the other orphan children back as well. You do good work. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I also spend lots of time on projects like this one! BOZ (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my clarification of "Hebrew Bible", citing "unsourced POV". I'm afraid I don't follow, as my edit is less of a Point of View change, and more of recognising the theological differences between and making the article more theologically neutral instead of the previous Christian-centric terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also refer you to the opening paragraph of this well-written article: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merger of the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh articles was discussed extensively before consensus was reached. Please read those discussions and start a new Talk page discussion before essaying the change again. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have read The Misunderstood Jew, so I am quite familiar with Levine's argument. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I briefly skimmed over that discussion earlier and I've just had a full-read of it now, and I'm still in support of renaming the page. It looks as though no real consensus was reached to me, not to mention that very few actual references were included in this discussion in relation to WP:COMMONNAME; every reference that I've ever seen to the Tanakh has referenced exactly that, the "Tanakh" (or variations) not the "Hebrew Bible". I've expanded on this under my note here - I'd appreciate your thoughts over there :) 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent revert on the Carl Benjamin article is a 3RR violation. You might want to revert your revert so as not to run afoul of WP rules.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, LedRush, but my first revert and my fourth revert were nearly 48 hours apart. The relevant period for 3RR, as I understand it, is 24 hours. Please advise. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. It’s been a long time since I’ve edited on an article this contentious and I thought the rule was more strict than it was. I’m sorry I took up your time.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for you to chime in: Talk:Andrew_Scheer#Definition of Henry Morgentaler Shemtovca (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm waiting for a consensus to develop. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not that "one can only misgender people with masculine or feminine identities" it was that you can only do it if you call some one by a gender descriptor that is substantively different from the gender identity you have asked to be used. Hence why I asked how are guys descriptors different from Fae's. Fae's choice (as far as I can tell) in gender neutral, if Guys ones are also gender neutral he is not misgenderimng them, as they are still being referred to as gender neutral. he is (as I said more then once) being rude and inconsiderate, but that is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what I referred to as a "sophomoric analytical philosophy argument". In lay terms, you are allowing three values for gender: masculine, feminine, and "gender neutral", and you are saying that no values in the latter category are "substantively different" from one another. This argument is simply bollocks and, followed to its logical conclusion, would posit that editors using "it" for other editors who prefer "they" are not misgendering the latter.

In real life, people whose gender identity is "genderqueer" hold a different gender identity than those whose identity is "neuter", just as those whose identity is "genderfluid" have a different gender identity from those who identify as "nonbinary" or "third gender". If you impose a linear, three-value scale on other people's gender identities you are misgendering them, which is why the contemporary turn has been to allow people to choose their own pronouns rather than dragging, say, zie out of the rhetorical attic as a "gender neutral" third person singular. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if it was clear which of those "they" referred to you might have a point. The problem is it is not clear, in fact it is not even (as far as I know) yet really recognized as even a gender pronoun, and when it is used it is a gender neutral, I.E. not referring to a specific gender.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we are having a terminological misunderstanding with respect to "misgender". From a grammatical standpoint, we might understand English as having three genders, in which case using "they" for "it" or "zie" is not "misgendering". But the current ethics around pronoun choice is not about grammatical gender - if you were to refer as a trans woman as "he", nobody would be offended on the assumption that you made a grammatical mistake. The point is social msigendering - refusal to accept a person's gender identity. And substituting one non-masculine, non-feminine pronoun for a person's chosen one is every bit as much an act of social misgendering as substituting "he" for "she". Gender identities are simply not indifferent and interchangeable in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No we are having a policy one. We are not here to enforce any social polices from off wiki, we are here (well at ANI) to enforce only Wikipedias polices.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA includes gender identity in the list of attributes that Wikipedians are not to attack each other over, just as it is protected in human rights law where I live. In all of the discussions I have seen on Wikipedia since the large MOS:GENDERID RfC, respect for the gender identity of editors has been understood to be covered by CIVIL and other related policies and norms. Treating other editors with respect is a WP principle, not a "social policy from off-site", and respect for gender identity is an inherent aspect of 21st-century respect. If we can see this clearly for content policies, I don't see why it is occasionally difficult for contributors to see it for conduct policies as well. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How was this an attack on their gender ID? Unless it was deliberating mocking the fact they have asked to be regarded as gender...well what gender? It may be the case, or it may not be, it is down to you to show it was used mockingly (rather then just childishly). Maybe it cannot be clearly seen, because it is not really there (well was not meant to be applied in this way) to (paraphrase?) quote another users if you think this should be in policy make the suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is obvious that, if an editor refuses to use another editor's preferred pronouns because the latter editor has asked for certain pronouns to be used, as is Guy's account of his own actions[12] then this is a clear violation of CIVIL, NPA and possibly HARASS. "Childishness of intent" is not really a defense for such behavior - we are all responsible for what we actually do, not simply for what we intend. And I do not find Guy's retrenchment and BATTLEGROUNDiness on this matter at all reassuring.

I do agree that, after the dust has settled from this and from SMcCandlish's previous contretemps, it might be best to further clarify that gender ID is not an allowable pretext to mess with other editors, any more than using the noun "bitch" or casting antisemitic aspersions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of use do use a rather formal register of English in many discussions here, most especially at noticeboards. If you can't tell that Guy Macon was using one (note, for example, the almost total lack of contractions), then nothing I can say will be very instructive for you, since I lack any magical ability to increase your observational acuity. It was not a non sequitur, and you were not in a position to try to police him for this imaginary fault.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I was commenting, not policing.

Second, while contractions are a personal choice, the Chicago Manual is clearly not intending for its recommendations about "formal" register to be applied in the context of wiki talk pages; its recommendations about formal usage are simply not relevant, regardless of individual picadillos.

Third, the matter under discussion was whether there are contemporary authorities (not op-eds or curmudgeons) that hold that the singular "they" is incorrect grammar or usage. There simply aren't, and the CMOS preference re: formal usage is not a relevant exception.

Finally, as much as I respect people's willingness to defend the rights of others to say things that one would not, oneself, say, I think Floq's close was correct and your own defense of Macron's choices - at odds as it was with his own self-explanation - was ill-advised if, from a certain perspective, valiant. Newimpartial (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was interesting [[13]]. Checkuser blocked. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove comments simply because you don't agree with them. This was an improper removal. The comment contained no slurs or personal attacks, was not made by an SPA, and is focused on the state of the Wikipedia article rather than the subject itself. It doesn't violate any talk page guidelines. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree, User:Bilorv. I actually reread the article and guidelines before reverting the comment, and the comment did not in any way relate to the article I read. I was reverting for non-compliance, not agreement or disagreement - please AGF for my stated edit summary, at least.

Specifically concerning the talk page guidelines, the comment did not follow - in fact, it ran directly counter to - the key bullets in WP:TALK#USE, q.v.:

Be positive

Stay objective

Deal with facts

Share material

Discuss edits

I will not re-revert this, but I have spent a fair amount of time on the Trans-related pages, and the wasted time, energy, and likely trolling and brigading that will follow any discussion consequent to the post in question will be your responsibility, not mine. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I seem to have encountered an issue on the Meghan Murphy artcile wherein someone has been adding POV language with no justification given in their edit messages. This has happened several times now and as a new editor I'm wondering what recourse I have besides waiting this out if they decide to violate 3RR? LittleFrozenRoses (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the options in a case like this are limited when dealing with an IP editor. Note that is not always necessary to wait until 3RR is violated to make a report, especially when an account has a history of gaming 3RR as part of an EW.

Aside from account-level sanctions, Admins (which I am not) have the ability to impose page protection (usually of the extended-confirmed variety), which at least prevents IPs and brand-new accounts from

unconstructive edits, at least temporarily.

It is worth bearing in mind that others are watching the Meghan Murphy page, beside yourself, so no single editor's POV crusade is likely to do lasting damage to the page.

Happy editing! Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this edit by him.[14]. WP:NONAZIS applied. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you reinserted the text about a brief and inconsequential offshoot of MSNBC. You cited wp:NOTTEMPORARY, but that refers to notability, i.e. whether there should be a Wikipedia article about a subject. The applicable guideline for content within an article is WP:WEIGHT. The MSNBC2 product was one of countless initiatives that were tried and rejected when they did not meet expectations. Any business has loads of those. It is of no enduring significance to the topic of the article nor has it had a significant impact on present-day MSNBC. As such, it's UNDUE and should be removed. Please consider and undo your reinsertion. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you thoughtfully considered why I cited NOTTEMPORARY. Notability is not temporary and, indeed, MSNBC2 has its own article. As a reader and knowledge practictioner, I really prefer when these notable topics (especially past failures) are integrated into and linked from the parent articles. Excessive presentism in determining what is DUE is a bane. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of your recent edits has been started at WP:AN#User:Newimpartial. You are invited to comment there. Fram (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand Wikipedia policy about how the original names of trans people are handled. It does not – as you seem to believe – state that those names should be censored completely from the article if the person was not notable under their birth name. The policy says that those names are not included in the lede under those circumstances. Removing their original name altogether from the article makes it look as if the subject was given the name they later chose at birth, by their parents, which is untrue. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a basis for this assertion in policy or RfC (aside from NOTCENSORED, which has been amply contextualized against no-harm principles in the many RfCs on the subject)? Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any basis for yours? MOS:GENDERID says that when they were notable we should, but doesn't say (as you seem to believe) that when they were not that we shouldn't. In fact, the very next sentence if official hands-off on the subject: "MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names". Furthermore, WP:DEADNAME clarifies that the guideline about notability is specifically about the lede, not the entirety of the article.

An article about a trans person that does not acknowledge anywhere in any way that they were given a different name at birth, and lived with it for however long they did, is presenting a misleading picture of their life. Someone reading this new version of Candis Cayne, for example, might get the impression that she was named Candis by her parents, and infer that this is why she identifies as female. Knowing that she was instead given a boy's name is important to understanding her choice to transition, and its importance to her life story. Wikipedia's first duty is to our readers, to inform them and help them understand the subjects they're reading about. Telling them that is a woman who lived with the name Brendan for her entire childhood and adolescence serves that purpose. An Orwellian article that suggests that she has never had any name but Candis does not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been discussed at length in the repeated RfCs that gave rise to MOS:GGENDERID, and the consensus is most definitely not "birth names are not censored". The principal of not doing harm to living people has been specifically recognized in this context, and the harm that can result from provision of dead names has been recognized. The argument you are making, that non-notable deadnames are nevertheless needed to inform WP readers, has been acknowledged and set aside. So do I have to do the necessary searches to point you to those RfCs, or are you able to do it yourself? Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random RfCs are not conclusive, and MOS:GENDERID is just a style guide. I would love to see a policy that addressed this, so we wouldn't have to deal with this kind round-and-round nonsense every time another drive-by editor gets people wound up about it one way or the other. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about "random RfCs"; I am talking about widely-participated discussions on the issue of deadnaming on WP in general. And this is primarily a matter of how articles are written, so it seems to me that the MOS was precisely the place to document the main findings of those discussions. OTOH, there have been some issues raised about deadnaming and pronoun choice outside the MOS context, such as CIVILity issues, so I wouldn't object to a wider policy as well, to complement the MOS guidance about deadnames and pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I had a better feeling for which of the "proud member of" were inside quotations. :( Thank you for the catch.Naraht (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the catch Naraht (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(I am not singling anyone out. I am notifying any of the last three editors on that talk page if they have not been notified in the past year.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now you appear to be chasing my edits... and reverting "textual errors" that don't exist? There were no textual edits made in Olmecs, what on earth are you talking about? I *fixed* textual errors and you *reverted* the textual errors. What are you doing? Ogress 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are under the impression that ritually deposited at the shrine at shrine El Manatí is somehow not an error? Or that Nile, Indus, and Yellow river valleys is an improvement on Nile, Indus, and Yellow River valleys. And AFAICT, one of the main reasons 'contribs' links exist is so when someone has made an edit against policy or common sense, other editors can check their work elsewhere to see whether they have done the same - as, indeed, you had. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You felt that you should roll back a large edit instead of just telling me there's an error? It feels hostile. I do make mistakes, I won't lie. Just tell me so I can fix them instead of rolling back all the work, I don't know what the heck you are talking about when you hit ROLLBACK, now do I, and it's frustrating. Now I can fix that problem. I'm American and being forced to move tomorrow during a pandemic and I'll be the first to admit I'm liable to make errors, but mashing "NO" isn't helpful on someone who is legitimately trying to edit an article rather than being a troll. You can just tell someone they made a mistake (assuming you don't want to correct it, which is 100% valid). It's not good faith, I've been an editor forever and I have bad days like everyone else. Ogress 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, you need to be more careful. I still see no advantage in your changes to the Anthropocene article, and in Olmecs I see a lot of inexplicable overlinking of dates and "stylistic" changes that don't result in clear improvements to the text, and then I see edit summaries like "grammar". I am aware that there are different approaches to editing, but my approach is that every change to an article in main space should reflect WP's consensus on the article's topic and should represent a clear improvement, rather than just an alternative or one person's stylistic preference (and also that the area of improvement should be clearly indicated in the edit summary). What I saw in those two edits (not talking about your edits in general) did not meet one or the other of those criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Newimpartial. Thanks for your comment at Talk:LGBT ideology#Proposed new title: LGBT ideology in Poland. Would you mind tweaking the style (referring to the bottom-half one, here, in the "poll" part) to make its contextual relationship with the rest of that discussion clear? What I mean, is:

• if it's intended as a reply to my 00:17 21 Aug comment, then prefix it by *:;
• if it's a new comment at the same level as mine and the 16:37, 20 Aug. post, then prefix it with * '''Comment''' or similar
• if it's kind of a general point of discussion about the proposed new title that conceivably could generate some back-and-forth, and it's more of a discussion-opener than a "poll"-type brief response, in that case, precede it by ===Discussion=== or an H3 subsection header of your choice.

All of these are just suggestions, because I have to admit I couldn't tell how you meant that comment, but it's up to you what, if anything, you wish to do there. (If no one else has responded yet, you don't have to follow WP:REDACT; you can alter it as desired; it's yours.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is fixed now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not follow me around to articles you have never edited before in subject areas you do not edit just to contradict me, as you did here. Continued behavior like this will result in me seeking a one-way WP:IBAN for you towards me. I have plenty of evidence of your problematic behavior towards me, e.g. here. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing behaviour to me that I have not in fact performed. I have been watching the Black Book of Communism discussion for some time, and joined it to comment on Puedo's comment, not to yours (although I recognize I indented it as a response to yours since you had replied before I did and I believe continuing an indent chain is generally less confusing than creating parallel subthreads).

Are you also going to accuse me of HOUNDING here, where my vote came after yours but I (1) agreed with you and (2) have been following the discussion since well before you added your contribution?

As far as your "evidence" is concerned, that didn't get you anywhere last time you were at AfD and I don't see why anything would have changed since. The fact is that our editing interests overlap on LGBT issues and certain other Culture wars topics, and you do not OWN any of those articles just because I haven't edited one of them before. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in that move discussion right after me is in fact further evidence you follow me around, even if not technically hounding in itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, you are simply wrong about that. I started following that article because I searched the topic on google, then followed the article - at that point I hadn't even looked at the Talk page or nor did I know about the move discussion. Then later I read the Move discussion but wasn't sure how to make my !Vote effective/relevant. Then I read the ANI discussions on the topic, and then - only then - I saw your !Vote (not from your contributions but from my watch list), saw that it might be effective to make a similar !vote but with a different rationale, and so I did. There wasn't even a hint of HOUNDING on my part with respect to that page, not at all. The fact is that the total impact of a "one way iBan" with respect to that page and the Black Book is that, to observe a potential iBan, I would have had to put one fewer colons in front of my Black Book comment (since the comment itself wasn't directed at you).

My sense is that you might be better off taking my Talk page comments at face value rather than assuming that they are somehow about you. They aren't. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely you are not arguing that Braune is a veritable "Cultural Marxist"?

Veritable? The word you wanted was "card-carrying"!  ;-^ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(You are correct that strictly speaking, I violated the rules. I'm probably doing so again here. I should have been more meticulous in my edit. But my suggestion for an improvement to the article was obviously implicit in my complaint.)

GreenWeasel11 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That had better been a mistake. I'm allowed to go to an admin's talk page about it. Not everything needs to go to WP:Requests for page protection. Funnily enough, I was in the process of reverting myself because I realized that Girth may not get to it on time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here it was a mistake, and you have my apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you read the first paragraph of WP:NORG as it completely contradicts the WP:NSCHOOL section, also there is consensus for this change at the RFC for the change to WP:CORPDEPTH, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a CORPDEPTH RfC. Care to point me in the right direction? Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its on section 5 of the archive page here where the close says it does not apply to schools. There is also continued discussion on the following archive page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was the big NORG rewrite of 2018. I don't see anything there that would suggest that schools that meet NORG would not be notable. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself says this notion started in the 17th and not 19th century, from what I can tell. Is there an issue I'm missing?Mcc1789 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "pseudo-scientific". Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Contrary to your edit summary, the announcement of Page's transition as a transgender male is widely reported. Please self-revert. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the citations of the WP article and much additional coverage, and none of it used the terms "male" or "transgender male". Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot very specifically did not specify binary or non-binary transgender, this is why different articles are making it up as they go along. For the best accuracy, sticking with only identity terms he has specifically used is the most respectful. -- spazure (contribs) 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that principle, but on Wikipedia ABOUTSELF claims do not trump reliably sourced claims. We have no reason to think NBC or CNN are making "making up" the nonbinary identity - which AFAICT comes from the GLAAD press release that I assume Elliot saw before it went out. If we find out that he does not identify as nonbinary, then we clarify the article, but so far no RS (even an ABOUTSELF one) has said this. Newimpartial (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. He also retweeted GLAAD's article, which is good enough for me. Common sense says he could have corrected right then, if it were wrong. -- spazure (contribs) 13:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your corpses comment just made me laugh my ass off, NGL. After the day I've had, it was a much needed moment of levity. -- spazure (contribs) 08:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting referenced quotes, please take a look at the discussion page. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ONUS concerning the addition of contested material, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY about additions to the lede. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start the edit wars, the edit war was started because of the word "somewhat", which I corrected. The quote does not need approval, as there is nothing controversial about it, it simply states a fact not picking any sides.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are misreading the article history, but anyway the place for that discussion is the article talk page. Also, if you've read WP:EW you know that "they started it!" isn't a policy-compliant justification for edit warring. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had been looking at an older version of the page. My mistake. I've self-reverted my comment. Thank you for being good about it.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if this is weird I'm not too sure on what wikipedia policy is on these sorts of messages as I've not used the site in ages - just wanted to thank you for all of the work you've been doing on the Elliot Page article! Some of the blatant and wilful misunderstandings of trans people on that talk page and how they understand themselves and want to be viewed by the world makes for grim reading, so I appreciated seeing your name continuously pop up as someone who was calling that out and giving trans people's identities the respect they deserve. Thanks! -- Yrissea (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And there is no reason not to leave encouraging messages. :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [15] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been noticing you reverting my edits at Intersex can you please go into the talk page and explain more in detail why you removed the survey I added.CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of that source has already been reverted by other editors, so the ONUS is on you to reach consensus for inclusion on the article's Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I observed that Leej12255 did not have a talk page and has never been welcomed. I have done so now. I'm not sufficiently exercised by the topic to pursue the issue but its absence does seem surprising for someone you say has been editing since 2009. It certainly came across as a wp:please don't bite the newbies but I'll take your word for it.

I still don't see it as a wp:NOTFORUM violation but it certainly does read like an unfocused blog post (no bets being taken that it won't appear verbatim on his blog). Even though the talk page has a {{Round in circles}} tag, perhaps it would be friendly to point out the RFC to him since archive searches are only as good as the words chosen for the search. Your time, your call. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming him, and if he turns out to be HERE, I will try to encourage a more constructive approach. My tolerance for people who regard Jordan Peterson as a productive colleague is perhaps thinner than it ought to be online, where "nobody knows you're a dog". Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read this [[16]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. As it happens, I did so just before I received your message, but redundancy is helpful at times. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BRD & WP:EDITCONCENSUS, please refrain from removing the birth name from the Billy Tipton article without first reaching consensus at Talk:Billy Tipton. There is already a discussion there about this very issue. Peaceray (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't invoke BRD (or CONSENSUS) as support for your edit war to maintain a BOLD addition to an article. WP:ONUS specifies that the burden is placed on those adding contested material to obtain consensus before doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS does not trump WP:EDITCONSENSUS; both are English Wikipedia Policies. I would argue in fact that EDITCONSENSUS is at the heart of the Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility pillar.

WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages. It is true that it is neither a policy or a guideline, & there are alternatives. It does seem to me that changes around the birth name do require consensus.

Since the birth name has been part of the article since its creation on 2003-01-15, I think that makes a strong case for EDITCONSENSUS rather than your claim of ONUS, which dates from today, 2021-01-28.

As noted there is an ongoing discussion. Peaceray (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is nothing in EDITCONSENSUS that conflicts with the provision in ONUS that contested material be removed until consensus is reached to include it. This provision therefore applies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Such an interpretation would allow the removal of substantial amount of existing material from an article because one to a few bold editors choose to contest it. In fact, ONUS is heavily weighted towards consensus. Even a bold ONUS does not trump previous consensus. ONUS speaks to inclusion, which by definition refers to newer material. No, there is nothing in ONUS that implies that it overrides consensus. Peaceray (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a previous consensus for inclusion of the DEADNAME at Billy Tipton? I haven't seen one. Silence is not consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has used consensus decades before Wikipedia came to be, I suspect that you do not have a complete understanding about what constitutes consensus. Please read the Consensus decision-making article to gain some insight.

You state Silence is not consensus. On the contrary, in the Quaker & other traditions, silence does produce consensus.

Since the EDITCONSENSUS has included the birth name since the creation of the article, the onus is on you to produce reasons for excluding it. For that, I will turn the question on its head: Can you point to a previous consensus for exclusion of the birth name in any article about a historical transgendered person? Peaceray (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you are the one who is misconstruing what is meant by consensus on Wikipedia - although it does not require unanimity, it is an active, verbalized consensus only that is policy-relevant. And in the absence of a prior consensus based on discussion, ONUS applies and contested material is to be excluded unless consensus is formed to include it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you & I have very different interpretations of consensus on Wikipedia & ONUS. I believe that anything that is put into the article within policy & guidelines & has met EDITCONSENSUS requires consensus to remove. No ONUS required. If I understand you correctly, you believe anything in an article is fair game for removal & requires ONUS to keep it in. Both of us are experienced Wikipedians, with you having registered a few years before me & with me having considerably more edits than you. Both of us are familiar with policies & guidelines, albeit with opposing interpretations. I think that continued discussion here is likely to prove unfruitful. Therefore, it is probably best to leave the discussion here & take it to article or WikiProject talk pages where others can offer their input. Peaceray (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is as may be, but the second sentence of WP:EDITCONSENSUS reads, Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus (emphasis added). For edits that are disputed - and in this case, disputed by multiple editors - the provision from WP:ONUS applies, specifying that contentious material be removed until consensus is reached. This doesn't seem to me like a noticeboard-worthy or complex case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with that. Contentious information is a different ball game than merely information people want to remove. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to cooperate with you on one, as a sign of no hard feelings. Your choice of which? Or I can choose if you prefer. --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose anything that isn't related to Dungeons & Dragons :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I went to WP:RPG, saw they have a list of requested articles, and am going to do an initial source search for each, and put the results at User:GRuban/RPG cooperation. You can help, or just wait for me to gather the info, and we can pick one. So far, I have almost certainly found enough reliable sources for Cthulhu for President, but it's only tangentially going to be an article about the roleplaying game. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I see no problem reaching out to authors so long as you don't get to the point of COI. And I support the line-based approach, grouping information about a few books together, compared to a narrow single book-based approach. So in the case of GURPS:STEAMPUNK there would be at least, what?, four printed volumes plus additional e-publications? Mind you, 2000-01 was close to a nadir of independent, RS RPG reviews, but I will see what I can find. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy to chip in at the margins of Cthulhu for President, since I found it quite amusing back in the day. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related: User_talk:BOZ#Review_sources? I don't suppose you have access to the relevant issue of Alarms and Excursions?

Sadly, no. And as I say, my access to non-SJG sources for that period is quite poor. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One user who might have it is Guinness323? BOZ (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent mail to Guinness323. William Stoddard wrote back, and is interested in helping, but doesn't seem to have any print sources other than what is on the web. I started to gather those into User talk:Newimpartial/GURPS Steampunk - I'm guessing it's all right to use the user page you earlier created for this purpose? --GRuban (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; that is perfect. I have made a couple of (unsigned) comments in reply, but feel free to use that space however you like in this process. Treat it as though it were a Draft page, if you like, or move the content elsewhere once content there is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of sources, and can create an interesting GURPS Steampunk article but I'm worried that it won't meet Wikipedia:Notability. We've got one Origins Award, but other than that it's mostly primary sources, and a bunch of self-published blogs. https://www.rpg-collecting.com/gurps/ says it won 3 awards, but that was news to Bill Stoddard, so is likely in error. I also got in touch with Phil Masters, who also didn't know any published reviews (though he was able to release an image for our article about him, so not a total loss). It may well be deleted at WP:AFD. If that doesn't bother you, we can start writing it anyway, and just take our chances. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: There's a chance! I found this site: https://annarchive.com/ which seems to have full scans of many, many old gaming magazines! We won't be able to link to it, as I doubt they have the actual rights to host them, but we can read them. The https://annarchive.com/dragon.html Dragon index page seems to be broken, but the links exist, for example https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg126.pdf. I don't think it's searchable, so it'll have to be searched the old fashioned way, by looking roughly around the time the thing was released and lots of clicking and reading. Pinging BOZ, who makes more articles about old games in a week than most people do in a lifetime, so this site might be most useful to him. --GRuban (talk)

Thanks for the ping! :) Yep, that is definitely an excellent resource which I have used over and over again, that and the many more scans on archive.org.  :) BOZ (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu for President

However, I've started Draft:Cthulhu for President. That has sources like The Guardian and L'Obs, so should survive AFD. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please go ahead with Cthulhu for President. I was disappointed not to find any GURPS Steampunk references in Designers & Dragons Vol. 2, and I would also rather not go without a second unimpeachable RS besides the award, so I'll keep looking. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went on a roll and put in everything I could think of. Please improve how you can. I'll also send an email to Chaosium and/or Cthulhu For America to see if they would release an image of one of their posters or stickers for the main article image, or if they have any suggested revisions. (Honestly, 75% chance they won't even write back - but that's not 100%, and it would be nice if they do!) When you're happy, and when we're done waiting for Chaosium, we can inflict it on an unexpecting main space! Mwuahahahah.... --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosium (Michael O'Brien (game designer) in fact!) wrote back; not going to release any bumper sticker image. But did ask for correction of the Cthulhu rights (they believe Cthulhu the character is public domain, but the status of the Mythos in general is confusing; I'm just going to remove that rights text from the draft), and confirmed that Chaosium has nothing to do with either cthulhuforamerica.com or cthulhu.org (that was before his time, but not as far as he could figure out). --16:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Now "Samir Al'Azrad" (of CthulhuForAmerica.com) wrote back! (I think I know his real name, but if he wants to be Samir Al'Azrad, so mote it be.) He confirmed he's not connected with Chaosium, but pointed out that Cthulhu for President predated the Chaosium accessories bundle, by pointing to this image of Steven King wearing a Cthulhu for President t-shirt in 1983: https://www.tor.com/2018/08/10/forbidden-planet-40th-birthday-mark-hamill-neil-gaiman-stephen-king-pics/ (about halfway down the page). Unfortunately I don't think we can cite that as a source. He also confirmed that they didn't get much press for the 2020 campaign. He did write an associated book Your Stars are Wrong in 2018, but it didn't get any real reviews. However! He agreed to release two Cthulhu political images! See the bottom of https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/

• It would be good if we could find a source for Cthulhu for President before the Chaosium accessories bundle
• Do we want to add more political slogans? "Give fear a chance"; “Equality through insanity”; “Legalize human sacrifice”; “Keep climate changing”; "I want you to get a head and consume it for nourishment.” "Answer the call"; "Are you ready for a real change?" "Make R'lyeh great again" - I think there are others we can find out there if we look at the archived web sites we write about.
• We should pick an image for the main article image; I think I like the left hand one on https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/, but the other one isn't terrible. Or we could make one, after all, there should be plenty of Richard Nixon federal government images in the public domain, and the Cthulhu character is public domain (not immediately obvious, but Chaosium says it is, and they should know), so we can grab the head from one and paste it on the the other, and make something like https://www.pinterest.com/pin/24418022951030606/... but that would take work. Which would you prefer?
  • When we do, we could remove the current Cthulhu sloshing through R'lyeh image, or keep it, what do you think?

I'll wait for your feedback, but other than that, I think we're ready to go live! --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to consult User:Sciencefish as I believe he has a connection to Chaosium. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just to give a couple of quick, knee-jerk responses, I prefer the existing left-hand image of over a newly created one, but I'm fine to have multiple images. Also, I do favor the inclusion of multiple slogans; my favorites include "Give fear a chance" and "Keep climate changing", though I have a soft spot for "Are you ready for a real change?" as well.

I was looking for some pre-Chaosium connection between Cthulhu for President and Campus Crusade for Cthulhu: the latter is pretty clearly the older of the two, but I haven't found any RS documenting a relationship, or even any good anecdotes. Perhaps others could take a look? Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, we don't have a Campus Crusade for Cthulhu article. Maybe we can make one later; though that's even farther from role-playing games. I'd be very happy if you were to add in a section of cited (and funny!) campaign slogans to Draft:Cthulhu for President, that would make it a real collaboration. I'll put up the image. I tried to find an appropriate article infobox for it, but couldn't - you'd think there'd be one for a perennial candidate, but there isn't. Even Vermin Supreme actually has something like a real office! There is Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign, but it doesn't have a space for a candidate image, just a logo, which we don't have. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll push it live for now, but if you can add a slogans section, it'll be great! --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the RS for slogans on the weekend and was not inspired, but I will take another look if nobody else shows up to do better. :) Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Want to help with a WP:DYK blurb? I think this article is thoroughly DYK worthy, especially with the image, but the blurb is troubling me. I was thinking of Did you know "... that cosmic horror Cthulhu has run for President of the United States in every election since 1996?" but there isn't a specific source that says that. The Wall Street Journal says the campaign has gone on for multiple election cycles, and we have a source for every election cycle since the Chaosium campaign materials in 1996, but not a single source that says "every Presidential election". Do you think that's all right, or do you have a better idea? --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't actually see this last post, so this isn't timely. I think "every election" is fine. I'm afraid I have had other things on my mind this month, so I haven't been able to help with the new article, but I'm glad to see you got it off the ground. Fun! Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not dead, which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons, even a third party candidate can be elected. Seems to have passed DYK review. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow!!!!! --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#April_1_stats: The totals are in, and Cthulhu for President, submitted by User:GRuban, was the big winner with 24,992 views. The complete totals can be seen at April 2021 DYKSTATS. Cbl62 (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Woo! --GRuban (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newimpartial/GURPS Steampunk

OK, I think I'm basically played out, have put in all I can immediately think of. I'll email Stoddard and Masters, have them take a look at it, see if they have any comments or suggestions. If I had your email address I'd add it, so they could copy you directly, but I don't, so at best will be able to forward you their response via Wikipedia mail form. Also you wanted to add something about Castle Falkenstein and/or GURPS Castle Falkenstein? I'm still only 50% sure it would pass WP:AFD - it does have lots of references, but the respectable ones are few and short, while the longer and more detailed ones are not that reliable. Maybe it just won't get nominated - I don't think I've annoyed anyone ... recently ... By the way, I have noticed, and appreciated, both you and User:BOZ regularly sending me thank-you messages as I hack away at it, and admit they have been regular incentives to keep working! No, I can't guarantee that would work for GURPS WW2, I might just be role-playing exhausted for a short bit. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK cool, if you like, I will move the page to article space either later today or tomorrow. :) BOZ (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you could hold off until I leave another message here, I'd appreciate it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also wait for Masters and Stoddard to respond, last time I wrote they responded in a few days. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your work, GRuban. I think I have one or two sources to add outside of the GURPS:Castle Falkenstein material, and then I'll have some editing I want to do as well - nothing against what you've done: I just have an inchoate mental model of how I like to see these articles written, and I'd like to see that reflected before it is moved to article space, if possible. And then we can ask BOZ to move it. :)

On Notability, I may well be wrong, but my sense is that the most vulnerable articles are the ones that seem poorly sourced - where they use a lot of non-independent sources or use the "real" sources badly - rather than ones where there are potential issues of SIGCOV within a source that is a valid, independent RS. In other words, RS (such as independent notices of awards) that back up a claim to notability based on NBOOK will tend to overcome people's desire to wikilawyer how many sentences are required to meet SIGCOV.

Now I've lost more battles than I'd like on AfD (formerly to deletion, recently more often to redirection), but that's what I feel that I've learned. So I'm not that worried about this one, compared to most of the list on my project page - some of the company pages, in particular, are highly vulnerable as well as being terribly confusing articles in their own right. Another thing I've learned but only once put into practice (Marcus Rowland (author)) is that well-written articles usually survive AfD. I just hate to reward AfDsters by fixing the problems they see, but at a time like now where deletion isn't very active, there would be time to do some preventative work. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! A real collaboration was the goal all along. Please hack away ruthlessly, at worst it will all be in the edit history, we can always argue about any issues after we see how it looks. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all I'm going to for today (User:BOZ). I've added the Falkenstein bits, realigned the Difference Engine material so that the main book's publication moves towards the top of the article and the licensed material is kept together; this also keeps the sausage-making "inside RPG" anecdotes in one (licenses) section, which I think will suit most readers. I revised the lede to strengthen the claim to significance and reflect the scope of the article.

I still have a couple sources for actual GURPS Steampunk I want to work in on another day; I am also really hoping that somebody other than me knows how to bring in cover images, at least for the main book and the four others I've inserted templates for. Is that possible? Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One note on page numbers, you might want to see template:rp. BOZ (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BOZ. So the current status is: I've proposed on the article's talk page that we should use GURPS Book templates in the 4e section, but I'm waiting to hear back from you two before I go ahead with that. Also, I still have a couple of sources to add and some tweaking to do to the main GURPS Steampunk entry; I suppose that could be done in article space, but if GRuban is waiting to hear from the authors then I'd rather make changes while the article is still in draft. Overall, it looks pretty good to me for a draft article - almost Origins Award worthy. :)

But will anyone be able to track down the five cover images? (GURPS Steampunk, SteamTech, Screampunk, Castle Falkenstein, and Castle Falkenstein: Ottoman Empire? Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, this is a real collaboration! Thank you both! I can find cover images, I didn't think of them at first. I'm worried they're going to be a bit much for the smaller works that don't have that much text for them, maybe we just want steampunk and falkenstein? Anyway, I can put them in and we can see how they look. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather include the five covers, and make the first one big and the rest small. We can do that, can't we? The SteamTech cover isn't much, as I recall, but I like the Steampunk and the Ottoman Empire ones. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the files, but, technically, we're not allowed to use fair use images in user space. (WP:NFCCP#9). I can add them when we go to main space. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell me what they're called, maybe I could preview them without saving them to the draft in any diffs? I'd just like to see what it looks like at different sizes on different screens before trying to convince you two to include them. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-E9tA0R70c9on-X9MHM1jZWoBHUv7_KjLVMZTMceK1o/edit?usp=sharing --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I've done a full sample version here using "dummy" pictures of Basic Set covers. (I think that's allowed, and if not then just revert and look at the old diff.) I chose the image I did because the 1e cover is 279x356, and the 3e cover is 150x199, and I wanted to test the difference in sizes but I don't know how to resize within the template.

So my take is that this version looks good on desktop (and desktop mode on my phone), and OK in mobile mode on my phone (the ability to open and close sections is a saving grace). The difference in image sizes helps emphasize the main GURPS Steampunk book.

On the other hand, I don't like the G:F:OE cover or the Screampunk cover as much as I remember, while actually I like the SteamTech cover more than I remember. So maybe a compromise would be to include the Steampunk, Castle Falkenstein, and SteamTech covers - one per section - and keep boxes without covers for Ottoman Empire and Screampunk. How would you feel about that?

Either way, I feel like I need to add a bit of text to the SteamTech and Screampunk entries, but I was planning to drop sources on the main Steampunk section anyway so I should be able to do it then. Thanks again for getting the ball rolling on this! Perhaps the Hellboy Sourcebook and Rollplaying Game can be next! :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The version with all the images looks good to me. I think there's an image_size= parameter in Template:Infobox RPG that you can play with, try |image_size=300px, |image_size=150px, they should do something. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks for the vote of confidence. I still have a day or so while you wait on Masters and Stoddard? You know the Hellboy game is his also, yes? Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did not. Have read the comic and seen the movie, but don't think I've ever played any GURPS, though did a fair number of rounds of Melee and Wizard in my day. Maybe one day. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masters, I mean, not Stoddard. The Hellboy and Discworld games are his masterworks, really. And I don't know anyone who plays GURPS any more, but I did have a good run back in the day. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ and Newimpartial: Masters wrote back, had a few suggested tweaks that I made, Stoddard didn't write back, but it's been a number of days. I think we can push it live and add cover images. Any suggestions for DYK blurb? --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good by me then, I'm going to go ahead and publish it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I've finished my first pass of edits in article space. Thanks, both of you! Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/GURPS Steampunk --GRuban (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, GRuban, apart from the articles I've mentioned before (or added to the box myself), one I might also be motivated to help with is Countdown (Delta Green). Just an FYI. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion here. Surely you know better than to do this. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mangoe. @Newimpartial: What was your reason for reverting my vote? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I am so sorry. I have no idea how that happened. You have my sincere apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These things can happen. Apology accepted. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Someone appears to have removed the discussion (assuming it ever was on the corresponding talk page) regarding the edit you just reverted. Failing (1) the discussion's re-emergence, (2) a lack of dissent on the talk page thread I created, or (3) direction to where that discussion is now occurring, I may restore the edit at some future point. To the merits and notwithstanding protocols, the current lead paragraph hardly qualifies as a definition that unequivocally relates to the article itself. I hardly agree that the edit's substance was "bold," but I won't deny how intrepidness applies to my m.o. in posting the edit on short notice. And I hardly agree that anything in the edit fails to represent an encyclopaedic practice. Need evidence? Refer to wording in the article on gender. Not convinced? Please quarrel with Waite Stevensen (whom I quoted from the given cite still in the article), not with me. I can't say I'm pleased with the cited definition, but that's what it is. If we quibble with Stevensen's wording. I'd be happier with, "Sex refers to the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, male and female organisms within a species, including humans." IMHO, it's a better definition (and mirrors what's in the gender article). Yet it's assailable as original research.

For what it's worth, I'm not set on changing the definition here one way or the other. My main concern is providing my own readers with a sensible definition of life expectancy. I had opted to link my own lexicon's mention of that phrase to Wikipedia rather than define it myself. Yet, Wiktionary's definition had one item in need of emending, hence my change from its mention of "gender" to "sex." (See here.) Assuming that edit stands, the correlation between the life expectancy definition and the non-definition in the sex article, as currently published, makes for a ridiculous nexus. I'd be just as happy to wash my hands of the rigamarole that often encumbers getting a consensus around here and simply add a sensible definition for "(biological) sex" to the 500,000+ words I've already defined in my lexicon. Whatever, but I'd be remiss to let Wiki's current "sex" definition remain without saying I gave it a shot.

Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened the discussion here, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again FWIW, "Gender" currently opens with Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Although I had not looked at that lede recently, "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to..." is more logically similar to my "Sex is a category in which some organisms are classified into..." than your, ahem, more robust proposal "Sex is either of two main categories...". I hope this is apparent. Yours defines the domain as the categories, while mine (and "gender") define the domain in relation to the categories. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before knee-jerking to the "undo" tab re. my latest edit, I urge you to instead consider your own substitution of any definition that starts with "Sex is ..." or "Sex refers/relates to ..." In sum, the gist of my beef with the article's lead is that it opens with circumlocution about organisms. It sounds like grandpa trying to explain the birds and bees to an 11-yar-old. I'd further urge you to just leave the edit as is to test your theory about how many others (if any) will quarrel with the change. To date, the discussion page has generated nary a comment on the matter. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; my objections to your previous proposal don't apply to this one in the same way. We'll see what other editors think. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	LGBTQ+ Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts to explain things at Talk:Irreversible Damage; I think you're doing a better job than I am GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I am doing a better job, but I am doing a different job. Sometimes that helps. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a couple cricketer AfDs kept recently even though they fail WP:GNG and I feel like I'm losing my mind - per the WP:SNG discussion, am I under the correct impression that WP:NSPORTS requires the GNG to be met? SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are losing your mind :), but the 2017 RfC established that the NSPORTS SNGs for each sport are only presumptive of GNG Notability - that is, the GNG must be shown to be met as well. The language currently in NSPORTS is pretty clear on this also. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a very new editor and I’ve been reading a lot of talk pages to get the hang of policy, guidelines, mores, best practices, and the general editing culture here. You and I seem to have a lot of the same academic interests and professional expertise (and probably know some of the same real-world people!). Paying attention to how you edit and how you interact with others has been invaluable to me. Your work keeping Critical Theory- and philosophy-related articles accessible, accurate, and (what’s maybe of most importance for this project) free of simpleminded reductionist conspiratorial bullshit has been amazing. So thank you. I hope to one day be able to contribute at even one-tenth your level. Thanksforhelping (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Thanksforhelping (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. One thing about this place that I have learned the hard way, and with difficulty, is to avoid personalizing disputes. I don't entirely manage this even now, but the low points arising from on-wiki drama in the past were very low. My advice (do what I say, not what I do) would be to try to catch yourself before righteous anger starts to cloud your judgement. ;) I suspect that you are doing fine, so far. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You worked a minor miracle on Ken Cliffe; do you see anything more that can help build up David O. Miller? BOZ (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything for that one, sorry. I do hope to add to Draft:Dean Shomshak, however. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about Draft:Richard Halliwell (game designer) who just died? I am looking for a reliable source for his death, but have not seen one yet. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ambitious project that I've barely started and it's already huge, but if you spot anything that stands out as potentially salvageable at User:BOZ/Games deletions, just let me know and I will draft it. :) BOZ (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BOZ. I appreciate the work you've put into this already, and the taxonomy of the deleted pages is a real value-add, I think. You don't need to draft a dX RPG page because I have that one on the go already; if I see any others that I'd like help relaunching, I'll let you know. Guardians of Order and Tri-stat dX have been my "current project" for a while now, but I just haven't found much time for wiki recently, I hope that will change - I actually like to add to the stock of wiki knowedge more than defending what's already there, in spite of all appearance to the contrary. :P Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of the Retronyms. It is especially not needed in a short description which should be concise. I have seen you add tabletop to a few recently. Is there some consensus I am unaware of? —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there has been a formal RfC or project-based discussion, but the term "tabletop" has been used fairly consistently and unontroversially in WP articles for a decade or more - including in lede sentences and short descriptions - to exclude LARP and computer games. Since the consensus isn't formally documented that I know of, it would not be inappropriate for you to launch an RfC or similar, but there is quite clearly a de facto consensus at present. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FTR: You appear to be the most common source of the tabletop retronym based on the short description changes I see. Many of the wikidata imports I have done recently did not have the 'tabletop'. I have no problem with your adding it. I just find it hard to call what I see consensus. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed added the term in question to short descriptions - particularly, but not exclusively, in cases where you overrode the wikidata. However, I am seldom the editor who added the term to the lede (which populates the wikidata in the first place, AFAIK). My statement that the term "tabletop" has been used fairly consistently and unontroversially in WP articles for a decade or more - including in lede sentences and short descriptions - to exclude LARP and computer games is beyond dispute, really, but WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and once again feel free to launch an RfC or similar if you believe that it has. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been learning from you following me and correcting. I will be updating my internal algorithm soon. It is I who will change. Soon I expect you won't have to "fix" my incomplete short descriptions. I am nearly through all the unrated/prioritized articles.

BTW: I do see a difference between the lede and the short description but that is a topic for another day.

Happy editing to you. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, on Newhoo, aka the Open Directory Project, I waged a war not to have RPGs shunted into the "Tabletop" Roleplaying ghetto. "We dice players came first!", I cried. "Let the electronic Johnny-come-latelies have the Video Game subcategories, leave the main Roleplaying Game category to us!" Alas, we've been way, way outnumbered since. The battle is lost. The sub-category is ours. Let us swig a tall mug of mead together, and sing sad elven songs. --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to re-edit is the same as reverting a revert. you should have opened a conversation on the talk page. at this point i expect you to revert your own edit and do that. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spione:_Story_Now_in_Cold_War_Berlin&curid=44480720&diff=1032296066&oldid=1031348416&diffmode=source —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Philoserf. WP:BRD is a best practice, but it isn't a requirement. I responded to the (valid) reason for your revert - the contrast with the lede - by fixing the lede, and then re-instituting the shortdesc. In terms of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you will see that there are many shortdescs out in the wild that include the author's name, and for indie or auteur RPGs this is equally valid. If you disagree; fine, disagree, in whatever forum you think appropriate, just don't expect me to self-revert when I haven't done anything against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. I see you are establishing a pattern across a few short descriptions. I will keep that in mind. I hadn't seen that pattern often in my travels. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As a point of reference, when I started editing on WP, there were many, many lede sentences of RPG articles that included publisher information but not author information, even in cases where both were equally verifiable (that is, setting aside publishers like White Wolf and Dream Pod 9 who tended to obscure the author credits by listing a long list of contributors equally).

It is simply wrong to credit publishers rather than authors/designers, in cases where clear author credits exist, and is especially egregious with non-notable publishers and auteur/indie designers. Therefore I have gradually been improving those ledes, but haven't ever gone systematically through them.

So this doesn't mean that I think all games should have author credit in the shortdesc, but for indie/auteur games this is in fact the defining characteristic. I did insert some small number of these before, but as you have cleaned up more RPG articles (which I appreciate) I have gone ahead and added authors to shortdescs where they are clearly significant, as well as (I'm sure you've noticed) adding genre to games where this characteristic is not subject to dispute and defines the game.

I hope this helps clarify my thinking. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup as I processed all the unrated/unprioritized articles in WP:WikiProject Role-playing games. That should be most of the ones that needed attention. My next pass will be over all articles in priority/rating order from the top. Should be fewer this pass. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are his exact words FFS :-) Shall I put it in quotes? Tewdar (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His 1994 retrospective paper - which I checked before editing - attributes "gender role" to 1955 and "gender identity" to 1966. Please stop being exasperated with me when I am demonstrably right. :P Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the 1955 paper? Tewdar (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look for it; I was content with his statement in 1994. Was he wrong about he term "gender identity"?

The citation is the 1955 paper for the distinction. Tewdar (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a quote, nor any other evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation. Quote. You are being silly, and you are wrong. Tewdar (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Often sentences work better than single words and name calling. Also, perhaps if Money in 1994 credited himself with the introduction of "gender role" in 1955 but attributed "gender identity" to the Hopkins clinic, it is because he did not in fact introduce the term "gender identity" in 1955? Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your inclusion of the term to be appropriate, Money would have to have (1) introduced the term in his 1955 article and (2) have meant gender identity to mean what we now mean by the term. The second of these is demonstrably false, so I don't really care about the first. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's one you can access (1985): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926238508406072

Tewdar (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you sending me a 1985 citation? Nobody is disputing that Money referred to "gender roles and gender identity" in roughly their contemporary sense in 1985. Did you misread what he said in '85 as a paraphrase of his '55 paper? Because that isn't what he is saying. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I admit it. I was wrong. My hair stood up when I saw that "Newimpartial" had shown up to the article and my adrenaline took over. Fearing universal undos of all my hard work, I made a mistake. Oops.

Also,"is distinct" cannot possibly be justified now. According to the article, it may not be. Tewdar (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I apologise for the lack of indentation, I am editing on a phone. Tewdar (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fearing universal undos of all my hard work..."

Hmm. I see that this fear was entirely rational. Tewdar (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't do any blanket reverting whatsoever. I reverted your error, and an UNDUE addition (from a poor source, I might add) and your removal of "is distinct". So there was no reason for you to text back so emotionally.

On the one hand, yes, adding material to the body should eventually determine the tone of the lede, so I agree that adding good material to the body is the way to go. On the other hand, the current version of the body does not at all reflect the current balance of high-quality sources on the sex and gender distinction - the minority view, that the distinction is in some way or other problematic, is massively overrepresented. I would like to fix that by adding high-quality sources explaining and interpreting the distinction, but that will take time, so I'd appreciate your holding off on further drama with the lead and giving me a chance to do that.

By the way, I removed your silliest comments from my personal Talk page in the interests of civility, but I'd advise you to show more restraint in future. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An entry on "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is WP:UNDUE? This is a lie. Tewdar (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, "high-quality sources" are the ones you like. Tewdar (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is one-half step better than a WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's self published? Philosophia? Or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Tewdar (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or something else? Tewdar (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the Stanford Encyclopedia. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. The Stanford Encyclopedia citation can be removed, leaving the Philosophia reference, which cites the Stanford Encyclopedia. But now it fails WP:DUE, apparently, because you have decided that 99% of the article must be about how the distinction is totally unproblematic. Tewdar (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my view at all. Judith Butler's work problematizing the distinction, for example, is self-evidently DUE. But Butler is a competent philosopher and does not rely on user-generated academic content when defining terms. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Hopefully I have added something to the article over the last couple of days that is useful and won't be removed. Bye. Tewdar (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to distinguish in your own mind between improving articles and changing their POV. Please note that I went to the trouble of not rolling back your edits wholesale; rather I took a more surgical approach (which is more work) to respect the fact that some of your edits actually did improve the article. This edit, for example, added good content to the article with an appropriate source, so I didn't want to mess with it. Simply put, I am not taking any of this nearly as personally as you think I am, or as you demonstrably are. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening me with shitty messages on my talk page. Just leave me alone, I won't ever edit any gender-related pages again, I swear, I've learned my lesson... Tewdar (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are standard templates. I couldn't tell whether or not you were aware of 3RR, so I placed that template. I didn't see any evidence that you were aware of the Gender and Sexuality discretionary sanctions, so I also placed that template. Arbcom doesn't authorize shitty messages; they created a system of administrative enforcement to limit problematic behaviour in areas where feelings tend to run high. I wasn't threatening you: I was making sure you were informed before you could get yourself in trouble.

I think you could contribute meaningfully in this area and would encourage you to come back once you are somewhat less in your feelz. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on the Sex and gender distinction, please don't handwave that "sources exist" to demonstrate your point without actually providing them. It is a violation of Wikipedia norms and tends to undermine civility. Stick to what you are actually prepared to give sources for. So if you want to say, "people often use sex and gender indiscriminately in everyday life" please offer sources to support that; don't just claim "nobody in my social circle knows the difference between sex and gender". I once had to produce a list of dozens of CBC references to show that it really does use "assigned sex" in its routine coverage, but I did so when Crossroads insisted. My advice is not to put yourself in that situation, by leading with the evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself, with source, already supports the claim that "people often use sex and gender indiscriminately in everyday life". It says "In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably". Today I will try and collect evidence for these terms being conflated, reversed, and misused, if you really think it necessary. And, what's a social circle? Sounds fun! Tewdar (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Sky Compendium is now available on the article talk page for your perusal. There are probably thousands of other sources, that say exactly the same thing - "gender" and "sex" are terms that are often used interchangeably. Tewdar (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't actually disputing that some people use sex and gender indiscriminately in everyday life, though. That was what is known in the biz as an example. The thing you have actually been asserting on that Talk page, without giving relevant evidence, is that reliable sources (other than your handy minority of dissident philosophers) dispute the existence of the distinction. Your "blue sky" list offers no sightings of that, I'm afraid. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as I said a while ago now on said Talk page You would need to find actual, non-esoteric sources that don't make the distinction at all, or insist that sex and gender are the same thing, and I haven't seen any such sources. So far, what you have produced are sources saying the equivalent of "some people don't understand the speed of light". Well, duh. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever do you mean? And, did you just agree with me about something? :-O

Think I'll go and lie down... Tewdar (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your second question is, yes. The answer to your first question is that, in my experience, we have a number of quasi-single-purpose editors in this domain who have various axes to grind about chromosomal and/or anatomical and/or "biological" or evolutionary conceptions of sex. Moving the text of any article - no matter what its focus - away from some such owner's favored emphasis is likely to be, well, harder than it should be. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The biological definition of sex has only minimal relevance to that article. It needs to be reduced, and replaced with what is actually intended. I am delighted to have found something we agree on. Tewdar (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no one "biological definition of sex", in my view, but otherwise we indeed agree on this one thing. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most biologists think that gamete size is the essence of biological sex. What I'm saying is, for the purposes of this article, it's not very important. Tewdar (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[17] [18] [19] Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Newimpartial! I'm assuming that this comment was intended to say something along the lines of "there is absolutely nothing wrong with referring to a term as a transphobic dog whistle". If so, you might want to tweak it to make that meaning clear. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right; fixed. I'd guess I catch almost 90% of those before posting. :P. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, adding here because it's semi-relevant and I don't want to swamp your talk page in new sections. When this discussion is finally over, would you be interested or able to help me open a discussion at the relevant location as I'm not sure where is the right place to do it, so that we don't need to repeat this sort of endless circular conversation again? As I said in the diff, it seems like this is maybe something that should be resolved with policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, Sideswipe9th, just as an example (and I recognise this wasn't your work), this section is an example of what I regard as a premature filing. Evidently I have objected to Talk page interventions by the editor in question, and I sympathize with the frustration of the filer with that editor. However, it seems to me that AE deals best with either clear infractions of bright-line rules or very clear (and easily documented) patterns of disruptive behaviour; I don't think the editor in question registered highly enough on either scale. (It might also be best to file when the infringing editor is tending towards more disruption, rather than less...just a thought.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean. I know the folks at ANI said to open it at AE, but it does seem premature. Hopefully though something good comes of this if that user does follow through on their word to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was especially premature at AMI, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the filer, this is interesting food for thought. I don't have much experience at all with AE, and it might have been a good idea to look into it more before posting there. Still, I stand by my decision to take the issue to a noticeboard in the first place, because repeated attempts to intervene in some other way were ineffective and the editor's conduct did not seem to have changed. While I agree that it seems like the editor in question hasn't been disruptive in a way that those at AE consider actionable, the editor has now stated at that venue that I pledge a high standard of conduct where I will stick to facts and logic and not sarcastic quips and the like. Hopefully that'll be the end of things – my goal isn't to trigger a block or restriction of that editor, it's to create a constructive and collaborative editing environment – and if it isn't the end of the issue, surely it'll help and not hinder any future filing that becomes necessary? (And as an aside, I like to be pinged when I'm being discussed, especially when it's feedback like this that might help me improve. Not upset that it didn't happen here, just figure it's worth mentioning.) ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you linked the wrong diff in your recent comment on the LGB Alliance talk page. The first diff specifically. The conversation that the bot archived there was from last month. Did you perhaps mean this diff? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Thx; fixed. That was a weird one. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: your email query, the answer to your question is essentially, no. When an editor manages to color between the lines enough of the time, there isn't any policy-compliant way to remove them from a subject matter area. That will only happen when an editor starts to color outside the lines, and it is best to wait for a track record of this to develop rather than launching an AN action over the least infraction. Also, WP:AE is typically the least noisy venue for such discussions, though it can only be used when the problems are found mostly within a DS topic. Makes sense? Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an announcement to the lurkers that there have been repeated attempts to hack this account in the last few minutes. I suspect a sock farmer at work. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait someone is trying to hack you?CycoMa (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Dozens of attempts, from I know not how many devices. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it is the CatCafe sock that keeps doing this - they seem motivated enough. Newimpartial (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this whan you posted it, but it looks like both Jytdog and I had similar experiences in regard to earlier CatCafe socks. We also both had fake Twitter accounts created in our names, so you may want to keep your eye out for that. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. I really don't get why it's still open, given the serious flaws in how it's been conducted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I know some other editors feel the same. But given that it is now open, and does offer a choice, I think the least disruptive thing to do now is to make sure the lead doesn't shift from A to B, and to confine the discussion to those opening sentences of the lead without digressing into other issues (as much as possible).

I think the next RfC should deal with the issue of "accusations of transphobia", in the body and the (latter part of) the lede, but we all have to get through this one first. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified by bot about the misinformed rfc. I havent read much of the debate, but would the questions below work as the start of an RfC?

How prominent should J.K. Rowling's anti-trans views take in the lead? Namely:

a) Should the first sentence mention them? If so,

i) Should she be called an "anti-trans activist"?

ii) Should it be worded in some other way?

b) If you replied no to (a), should the first paragraph mention them? If so,

i) Where?

c) If no to (b), should the paragraph in the lead mentioning her anti-trans views be expanded?Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're asking my advice, I would just ask about the lead sentence. So something like:
• "Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues" (Or "issues of gender identity") "and if so, how should they be included?"
  • Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence.
  • Option B: Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., referring to "her transphobic tweets" or "her anti-transgender activism".
  • Option C: Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "her statements that have widely been considered transphobic".
• I am not saying that all my verbiage needs to be included, but this is the RfC structure that I think would be appropriate to resolve the issues under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Fair, i like the more concise questions. Will make one now.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me at the section of MOS:DEADNAME that you mention in Special:Permalink/1057096374 that enshrines censoring the full birth name even in the case that the abridged birth name is notable. I fail to find it.

Further, my understanding is that censoring the birth name is supposed to protect the person from discrimination. This argument does not hold water for the case of the full birth name, if a shortened birth name is already included.

If this censorship is indeed policy, I *would* like to change it, like you suggest. But I am unfamiliar with the Wikipedia community process. Could you point me where to start? Do I just add a section to the "Manual of Style" / "What Wikipedia is not" talk pages and hope for the best, or is there some more formal approach? Dufaer (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe carefully the examples given in MOS:DEADNAME - one is an example where the birth name is deemed to be the same as the notable name, while the other (Elliot Page, as it happens), is an example where it is not. In the latter case, the birth name is not given. The language of the policy - A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it - resulted from two widely participated RfCs and the subsequent implementation discussion; to change it would require a clearly-formulated WP:RFC that receives similarly broad participation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)" - I don't understand the problem... Tewdar (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're saying that the notable previous name was "Bradley Edward Manning" and not just "Bradley Manning"? Tewdar (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar, are you literally not able to read *both* examples at DEADNAME? They differ - they do not offer the reasoning for the difference (which I sketched above), but they quite clearly differ.

And yes, I think it is safe to say that "Bradley Edward Manning" is found in more reliable, independent, secondary sources than a single Argentine local newspaper, so it does in fact meet Notability standards although it may be less common than "Bradley" or "Brad". Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, Manning's deadname was frequently the full three. Maybe it's because of her involvement in the army and then the court system? Firefangledfeathers 22:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fucking Christ on a bike, is that a lot of stuff! Thank you!

Dufaer (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the space of a couple of hours, you have accused me of foruming, sock-puppetry, pov-pushing, original research, and incompetence, all for one talk page thread. I'm happy to explore your objections to my line of reasoning, but please stop fishing for ad-hominems. Sennalen (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussions I have already linked for you on Talk, you will understand why I find the repetition of these arguments tiresome and unproductive. I do think any argument becomes FORUM sometime before the tenth time it is made, and your quote that I cited definitely represented a FRINGE POV (that "Cultural Marxism, the object of the conspiracy theory, cannot be distinguished easily from Marxist theories of culture"). Arguments for that POV have always, and still do, rely either on non-reliable sources or on tendentious and selective readings of reliable sources. Dealing with the WP:SEALIONs, when they periodically return to these beaches, is tedious at best. If you haven't edited these articles before then that isn't your fault, but it also isn't any less true. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the discussions in more detail. It does not appear that the discussion reached any resolution. Instead, by your efforts your interlocutor Swood100 got a topic ban. There was maybe enough bludgeoning of the process by him to warrant that, but I don't think you acquitted yourself well either. Swood100 pointed out, like I have done, that Jamin was being used to say things in the article that were nearly opposite of what was actually in the source. There is no conduct by other users that can absolve that content problem. If you think the situation is fine, you need to come to the article talk page to discuss content rather than conduct. It's fine if you don't have a desire to do that or the stamina; Wikipedia is not compulsory. Just don't approach it with an attitude of ownership either in that case. Sennalen (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, I have already added to the discussion on Talk and observe that you seem to have missed at least one key loint of the previous discussions (Braune). I agree with you if you are suggesting that a source other than Jamin should be used to characterize the relationship between Marxist cultural analysis and the object of the conspiracy theory. However, your apparent desire to rely on Jamin and then to construe him as saying that the two are related - in some way other than distortion and caricature - is a bad reading of Jamin, a bad reading of Marxist cultural analysis, and beneath the dignity of WP in general. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued to accuse me of violating content guidelines without specifying any particular clauses violated or diffs where violation took place. If it proves necessary, I will provide diffs of your edits and the particular clauses they violate at ANI.

I have asked you to justify your positions× on the article talk page. Take the time you need to collate this information. I will not respond further for a few days. If the only response continues to be aspersions and direct refusals to justify your position, I will make no further attempts to elicit justifications from you one-on-one. Sennalen (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this recent edit I made, in particular, is quite specific about the phrases within this proposal that violate WP:OR/SYNTH, and how they do so. I also believe that said Talk contribution, and those that preceded it, have provided quite adequate, policy-based reasoning; your requirement that I justify my positions beyond what I have already done seems like a classic WP:SEALION strategy. Also note my response (also included in the diff provided above) to your accusation of WP:ASPERSIONS - making note of SEALION behaviour is not an ASPERSION, but the quote I linked in the diff is quite clearly ASPERSION-casting on your part. If you would like clarification at AN or AE, I am sure you would receive the message that your behaviour at Marxist cultural analysis represents the same kind of disruption that Swood100 was previously making at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this comment, primarily.

IP, you are attracted to those to whom you are attracted. As long as they are adult and human, I don't care what subset they are. Please do me the same courtesy. I am attracted to some AMAB people and some AFAB people; I am attracted to many people who identify as queer but a few who don't identify as queer. I am attracted to some nonbinary people, some trans people, and some cis people; some men and some women. I am pansexual, but the reality of my attraction is much more fundamental to me than that label, and "queer" is still the sexual identity that fits me most powerfully.

In any event, the categories "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" don't work for me, and two years ago I vented about it when others were insisting on those labels - not for themselves, essentially, but as a way of "winning" arguments against queer-identified people. I am not venting now, and don't feel as threatened as I might one have when editors insist on using two (or three) boxes to define sexuality, as part of some Talk page dispute. When they do that, it is still nonsense to me, but that nonsense doesn't bother me the way it used to.

You are right about one thing: I was wrong to give even the impression that my opinion about how other people choose to identify should be relevant to their lives or lived experience. I don't like "homosexual", I feel that it the label/identity has done more harm than good in general, not just to me, and I am most certainly not attracted to anyone who identifies as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" (but why would anyone care about that). But I would no longer waste my breath trying to make an argument relating to anyone else's identity, unless they were creating a zero-sum situation in which their strategy to make spaces safer for themselves were performed at the expense of making spaces less safe for me and those I love. And I hope I would set out the limits of my argument more clearly even then.

I have not waged war against homosexuality itself, on WP or off, and that is a ridiculous and slanderous charge. You cannot assume that people who accept the mainstream LGBTQ position that gender identity is real, that nonbinary and trans rights matter, that trans and nonbinary youth face challenges as serious as those facing lesbian and gay youth - and that in fact these populations overlap - in other words, people who take "queer" positions against the hard, seemingly antiquated, ontology that "biological sex" and "homosexuality" are the only realities worth talking about - you can't reasonably construe this fairly well-established position in justice-seeking communities as "a war against homosexuality itself".

Also, you have misconstrued completely the context of that statement of mine that you keep misquoting and distorting. I was responding to Pyxis' disparagement of queer theory and mainstream LGBT trans-acceptance and she in turn was defending the late Flyer22, who was arguing that "trans women who identify as lesbians" was a less POV phrase than "trans lesbians". I don't know what you thought was at stake in that discussion, but it was Pyxis who decided to base an argument on dictionaries and common sense against "queer theory" and actual reliable sources, and it was me who overreacted. But your conclusion that you want all of us wiped off the face of the earth is unsubstantiated nonsense, and a deep violation of WP:CIVIL for which you only escape the logical consequences by this absurd hit-and-run anonymous editing. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments aren't to me, but you did point them out to me in another comment elsewhere, and the IP hasn't yet chosen to respond, so I guess I'll comment a bit. Yes, there are some things in there that I do agree with. I'm a "live and let live" individualist libertarian, so your right to live your own life and be attracted to whoever you're attracted to, without regard to whether any of it makes sense to me or anybody else, is paramount. I have no business butting into it. By the same token you have no business butting into anybody else's life or attractions, so if somebody else calls themself "homosexual" (or "gay" or "lesbian" or any other label) and has their own set of attractions (which might map to biological sex) you shouldn't demand they change, and hopefully that is in fact your position. There are other activists who do demand such things as lesbians accepting transwomen as partners, and your commentary including things like wanting "homosexual" identity to die out give some impression of putting you on the same side as them, so it's understandable that some will object. I actually have "no dog in that fight" myself, not being either gay, lesbian, trans, nonbinary, or a woman, so "gay rights" or "women's rights" or "trans rights" are not things that directly affect me. I can, however, see how people on multiple sides do feel there are conflicts in the rights being asserted by various groups, and that it is not helpful to insist that only one side matters and the rest are bigots. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that the IP editor who made those comments is a WP:LOUTSOCK of a short list of only two or three editors. The purpose of which is patently obvious, as it's allowing another editor to use those comments as a thought-terminating cliché to dismiss any and all you have to say. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:D What follows is my much longer version of the conspiracy theorists just picked Adorno et al and tried to pin a bunch of crap on them. this gave me a good chuckle Mvbaron (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. :) Some editors seem to think that the conspiracy theorists performed a deep dive of reading in Western Marxism, applied some kind of critical Straussian hermeneutic magic and figured out what Adorno was really up to. There is no evidence that anything remotely similar actually occurred - "engagement" my sweet ass. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha that's an amazing picture. I'm imagining a bunch of alt righters in post-structuralist garb meeting weekly for "Capital" reading groups, trying to decipher the dialectic of enlightenment and hotly discussing Verdinglichung in Lukacz. :D Mvbaron (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that their refusal to wear appropriate eyewear would have been fatal to that project. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is specifically about "the ‘gender-critical’ movement". The current main article on that movement is Feminist views on transgender topics where it has its own section and where gender-critical redirects. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't legitimately use the existence of a redirect as a justification to expand the scope of the target article. Feminist views on transgender topics may or may not be the most appropriate redirect target for "gender critical" (gender critical what?), but that doesn't make content that isn't about feminism relevant for an article on feminism. Maybe try building an appropriate redirect target elsewhere, such as Anti-transgender prejudice and discrimination. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not just the redirect but a whole section. This is part of the broader problem that I've addressed several times, i.e. that we don't currently have an article that is primarily about what is referred to as "the ‘gender-critical’ movement" in the quote. AFAIK, the term gender-critical always refers to the topic of the section where the term redirects. I'm not aware of any non-feminism-related use of the term. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda, the source you added to the article (and which I reverted) makes no reference to feminism. You and I have previously disagreed about such figures as Graham Linehan and J. K. Rowling, who are not feminists but have also been referred to as "gender critical". Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote specifically addresses "the ‘gender-critical’ movement" and the article in question is currently the article that is supposed to cover "the ‘gender-critical’ movement". There is no other article here on that movement, and gender-critical redirects there. As I said, I'm not aware of the term gender-critical referring to anything else than the movement covered in the section. Which exact term the source uses is not the issue, the issue is whether the source discusses the topic covered in the section and known by various names (even the heading includes two alternative names). I've also said many times that I believe the topic should primarily be covered in a different article, but currently that is not the case here (if it were, gender-critical would/should redirect there). I have no recollection of disagreeing with you over "such figures as Graham Linehan and J. K. Rowling". Until now I've never in all my life uttered the name Linehan and I don't really care about him and until I read about him on Wikipedia recently didn't even know who he was, and as I remember I just agreed in principle with another editor on a talk page that Rowling should somehow be mentioned in a lengthy article on TERF ideology, and that it would be odd if such an article didn't mention her at all. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You replied here to the comment I made about Linehan and Rowling; whether you disagree with me about them (or about placing them in the same category) or not, you should be aware of them after reading the comment to which you replied.

As far as your not being aware of the term gender-critical referring to anything else than the movement covered in the section, the locus of our apparent disagreement is that I believe the sources support me in distinguishing "gender critical feminism" as a specific and fairly clearly delineated topic, one which does not include non-feminists. You apparently regard the "gender critical movement" as something amorphous that includes feminists and non-feminists alike. And my point is that, if this latter thing exists according to RS, the place to document it is not in an article that is clearly limited to feminism, regardless of whether not another article addressing that broader (non-feminist or indifferent to feminism) topic currently exists or where any redirects currently point. I am not sure how I can express myself any more clearly about this.

I would also point out that I did not intend the draft article on gender-critical feminism to be a COATRACK on "TERF ideology" - I do not regard it as helpful ever to caricature one's opponents as "ideologists", and I do not believe that the highest-quality critical sources on gender-critical feminism treat it as an "ideology". Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about Linehan in that discussion. The comment you are referring to was in response to an earlier comment of mine where I also didn't mention Linehan. I never voiced any opinion on Linehan at all in the discussion and didn't mention him in my reply because I didn't regard him as particularly relevant; he seems more of an "anti-woke troll" than a feminist to me, and I don't believe that he should be mentioned in the draft article. No, I don't regard the "gender critical movement" as "something amorphous that includes feminists and non-feminists alike". Like many others, I view the "gender-critical movement" or "gender-critical feminism" as the same as "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", a movement and ideology that evidently views itself as feminist and uses feminist language to justify trans exclusion, and that has its ideological origins in (a branch of) radical feminism (although new recruits to this now largely Internet-based movement that is primarily concerned with trans exclusion often don't have an established background in radical feminism, or even any kind of feminism). Not all people involved in anti-transgender politics are TERFs, obviously; right-wing Christians for example have their own ideological reasons. I view TERF as a particular phenomenon, a particular branch of self-identified "feminism" and a particular form of transphobia that uses what has been referred to as "a particular 'TERF logic'" to justify their anti-transgender politics, where the "protection of women" against "men" (i.e. trans women) and based on the ideas of radical feminists like Janice Raymond and others is front and centre.

I used "TERF ideology" here on this talk page as informal shorthand for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" which takes an awful amount of time just to type; incidentally the term "TERF ideology" is used in a number of scholarly sources, including the edited volume published by The Sociological Review last year (one of the key works in this field), e.g. here[20]. Nevertheless, I've never used that term in an article, only in a talk page context to avoid unnecessary typing. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry (and somewhat frustrated) that you seem unable to accept that figures like Graham Linehan, J. K. Rowling, and renegade psychaiatrist David Bell (and for that matter other "trans critical professionals") are not notably part of a movement and ideology that evidently views itself as feminist and uses feminist language to justify trans exclusion, and that has its ideological origins in (a branch of) radical feminism. That claim has not been established by any RS that I know of - you yourself concede that participants in this now largely Internet-based movement ... primarily concerned with trans exclusion often don't have an established background in radical feminism, or even any kind of feminism, so why should their activity be WP:COATRACKed into articles on feminism? This makes no sense to me - David Bell, for example, has no relationship to feminism at all, as far as I can discern, but his role in the UK's "gender critical movement" looms rather large. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again you bring up this Linehan figure, a person I've never shown any interest in or even mentioned, and after I specifically said above that I don't regard him as even relevant to the topic of trans-exclusionary radical feminism and that I don't regard him as a feminist at all. I have no idea of who David Bell is, nor have I said anywhere that I think he has anything to do with trans-exclusionary radical feminism. I've also not said anywhere that all "trans critical" people are trans-exclusionary radical feminists, on the contrary I specifically said that I (like most others) view TERF as a specific phenomenon, both in the context of feminism and the broader transphobic field. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you think that references to the "gender critical movement" really mean gender critical feminism, rather than those described as "gender critical" figures in general, such as Bell and Linehan? Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any sources that use the term gender-critical for anything else than the topic covered in the section where the term gender-critical redirects. Gender-critical is not the same as anti-transgender, or what you called "trans-critical". Gender-critical is, as far as I'm aware, a specific term used by the movement that is more often referred to as trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs. Gender-critical or TERF is not the same as transphobic, anti-trans or even anti-gender, it's more of a subset or an overlapping or related concept.

It doesn't really matter whether participants in the trans-exclusionary radical feminist movement were involved with radical feminism before they became TERFs, what matters is whether they are involved now (or at some point) with trans-exclusionary radical feminism (that now prefers to call itself "gender-critical") as a specific phenomenon (in the same way that you can become an adherent of a fundamentalist Christian belief system without being any other kind of Christian, or even a Jew, first). And again: Not all transphobes or anti-transgender people are trans-exclusionary radical feminists, and I've never said they were. I've pointed out specifically that I don't view Linehan as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (aka "gender-critical") or any kind of feminist, for example. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a reliable source discussing David Bell as a "gender critical" figure. Fundamentally, I just disagree that those labelled "TERF" by others are necessarily feminists - I agree that "gender critical" or TERF is a subset of "anti-trans" activists, but I don't see sources insisting that all those reliably sourced as "gender critical" are also sourced to be "feminist", and since the label "TERF" is applied externally to feminists and non-feminists alike, I find its ambiguity unhelpful. Sources referring to trans-exclusionary radical feminism ... as a specific phenomenon are sometimes referring to feminists, and sometimes not, and when they are using TERF in that more amorphous sense (and even more so when they reference the "gender critical movement" rather than "gender critical feminism"), I do not believe it is anything but a COATRACK to discuss this material in articles concerning "feminism". The genealogy of the term "TERF" out of radical feminism simply does not turn everyone influenced by radical feminist exclusionary thinking into a radical feminist, and in come cases (Bell, Linehan, and many others) I see no feminist influence whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't know anything about Bell, so whether he is "gender-critical" is something I can't speak to. I certainly don't regard all anti-trans people as part of a gender-critical or TERF movement, that would depend on whether their thinking regarding trans people and women's rights is primarily based on the ideas articulated by Raymond and later trans-exclusionary radical feminists. (Also: Sometimes a source may be plain wrong, or perhaps more relevant here, use a term in a non-standard way; for Wikipedia's purposes the term gender-critical may be seen as predominantly referring to the topic covered in the section where the term redirects, even if some people who aren't really gender-critical feminists may occasionally have been referred to as gender-critical, which doesn't automatically mean that they are relevant to an article on the gender-critical [feminist] movement). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to read the links I provide for you (e.g. David Bell), I don't see a reason to continue.

Also, I don't understand why you would interpret sources such as the one used for this edit as referring to groups primarily based on the ideas articulated by Raymond and later trans-exclusionary radical feminists. That seems like an unmerited assumption, given the context. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 29

The source specifically discusses "the ‘gender-critical’ movement" and from the context it's pretty clear that the movement that is meant is the one covered in the only article (with a section) on a gender-critical movement here on Wikipedia. I've had a look at the article mentioning Bell and others, and it may perhaps use gender-critical in a somewhat non-standard or loose way. Even if anti-trans people who aren't really TERFs (aka "gender-critical feminists", "gender-criticals", often just "GCs") may occasionally also be called gender-critical by some sources, they don't constitute an organised gender-critical movement in the same way that the movement that is discussed in the section where gender-critical redirects. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about the source you introduced, that from the context it's pretty clear that the movement that is meant is the one covered in Feminist views on transgender topics, while the article I cited may perhaps use gender-critical in a somewhat non-standard or loose way is not, as far as I can tell, based in any differences between the sources themselves but only the assumptions you bring to them. As far as I can tell, the organized gender-critical movement you described is simply no longer located within feminism (if it ever was). It certainly includes self-avowed feminists, like Kathleen Stock and WoLF, but also non-feminists like Bell and Linehan and groups that are at most partly feminist (but entirely "gender critical") like the LGB Alliance. I simply do not see the point in taking the whole movement and inserting reactions to it (that do not address feminists in particular) into Wikipedia's articles about feminism. There must be a better place for this sourced content - the argument that "these positions used to be feminist" doesn't make any more sense than inserting intersectional (non-Marxist) content into articles about Western Marxism because the origins of intersectionality theory are (arguably) in socialist feminism. That just isn't the way Wikipedia works; WP:COATRACK exists for a reason. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I've voiced my opinion that another article for this movement/material should exist many times, after I became aware that some editors insisted that the currently existing TERF article should have an oddly narrow focus on just the terminology with no discussion or analysis of the actual movement or ideology. Instead the TERF article points to Feminist views on transgender topics for that kind of discussion. It's not important to me to insist that gender-critical or TERF ideology is "feminism", I view it as a specific phenomenon, one that may have historical roots in radical feminism, but that is now distinct and mainly concerned with anti-trans politics, albeit from a particular perspective with a particular logic/justifications/language. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have suggested at least one place it could go - it just shouldn't be a feminism topic. Newimpartial (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way it looks to me, some editors have agreed on a de facto fixed "solution" where the article TERF covers the term only while the section "Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism" in Feminist views on transgender topics covers the related views/ideology/movement/anything else than terminology, with the article/section pointing to each other, and gender-critical and related terms redirecting to the section. It doesn't seem like an ideal situation at all, but it looks difficult to change that without consensus, and past efforts haven't been particularly successful.

What I'm looking for is primarily the article that covers TERF/gender-criticals as a movement, i.e. the movement that is described in the report by the Council of Europe as "the ‘gender-critical’ movement, which wrongly portrays trans rights as posing a particular threat to cisgender women and girls, [and that] has played a significant role in this process" of "extensive and often virulent attacks on the rights of LGBTI people for several years". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And basically what I'm saying is that that article shouldn't be TERF (the article about the term) nor should it be any article about feminism, because feminism isn't more than an occasional co-indicator with that movement (as I believe the LGB Alliance, which is tangential to feminism, illustrates clearly). Perhaps the term "Trans critical" will catch on and provide a clear COMMONNAME for that movement eventually. In the mean time, there is some scholarship tying it together with the anti-gender movement as a parallel anti-trans phenomenon, so it might be necessary to start within something more generic. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sennalen/sandbox/Marxism&action=history --124.170.170.79 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see now related topics are being edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs&action=history --115.64.191.199 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Sennalen made some useful suggestions for how to improve the article! How about restoring it without the WP:THIS_THAT_AND_THE_OTHER or the apparently archdemonic suggestion that we include some description of what I'd still be calling 'cultural Marxism' if I didn't spend so much time on Wikipedia these days? Finally, I've always wondered how you decided on your username. I'm sure there's a marvellous explanation! 😁👍  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't, really; it is an oblique (second-generation, I suppose) Douglas Adams reference. A reference to a more direct reference.

And as far as Sennalen's section is concerned, either she will come up with specific changes, some of which are productive and some are not (as happened at Marxist cultural analysis), or she will dig in for a rehash of the whole "real Cultural Marxism" ontoclysm that happens once or twice a year. At the moment, I don't know which is more likely to happen, but editors engaging with the new section as presented would encourage the latter, whereas I would rather see the former. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well that's disappointing. I was hoping for a sort of, "orange is the new black" kind of backstory.

Sennalen makes some valid criticisms of what is, let's be honest, a pretty crappy article. Nobody has even fixed the "etymology is derived from" mindbender after three days.

Did you take a look at the new "cultural Marxism" sources in my sandbox? I left a link for talk page stalkers on my userpage somewhere...  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here 'tis...  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors heretofore have only interpreted the sourcing in various ways; the point is to change it. :) Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was that Trump or GW Bush who said that?  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy shit dude did you just thank me for an edit I did on a DS topic OMFG tell me you clicked the button by mistake or something I need to lie down...  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previously mentioned on Talk, I support accurate article text on this matter (as well as improved sourcing). :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In all seriousness though, I am not entirely convinced about the chronology, taxonomy, or development of the conspiracy theory in general or the term 'Cultural Marxism' in particular. The sources are vague, the links to the Nazi Kulturbolschewismus unclear and distant. No one has really presented anything that really settles this definitively for me. If anything, the conspiracy theory looks like good ol' homegrown American anti-Communism to me, with a pinch of Neo-Nazism and a dash of pseudo-scholarship. Perhaps you can provide some sources to settle my qualms?  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, I am not any more of an expert in the pre (pre-1990) history of the conspiracy theory than anyone else - I'd probably acknowledge the backlash against Marcuse (and against earlier humanists like Fromm) more than you have just now, but the thumbnail sketch would be similar. And I would emphasize that a lot of the pseudo-scholarship falls more in the category of retcon than "influence" or "origin" - but those are nuances, essentially. I don't have a better origin story. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as best I can tell, the actual term "Cultural Marxism" shows up, once, in 1938 in a BUF journal, only to be resurrected many years later in Lind's dodgy article speech. Obviously, the idea that "the Commies are takin' over" has a long and continuous heritage over the pond. In general, I am not a big fan of the original research and synthesis that appears to be going on in that article right now.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you think something a bit like this (very early prototype) would be a useful addition to the conspiracy theory article? I was thinking of giving the broad outlines of the (4-ish) main versions of the CT, besides just Minnicino's version. What do you think? 🤔  Tewdar  (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but I'd need to see sentences before forming an opinion. Certainly additional precision about who claimed what would be welcomed in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget the actual sentences; do you think the idea, briefly summarizing the main aspects of the conspiracy theory(s), is worthwhile?  Tewdar  (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. BTW, I don't seem to have access to the Andrew Woods piece, but I don't doubt that it can be usefully paraphrased in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try and find you one you can access. (I'm summarizing it in that sandbox right now). Do you use Wikilibrary (if not, why not?😁)  Tewdar  (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC) - I mean... here's the doi if you, ahem, know what to, cough cough, do with it... 10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3 🤐  Tewdar  (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so there's this: In the essay "New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'" (1992), Michael Minnicino explains the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on behalf of the Schiller Institute, a political organization affiliated with conspiracy theorist and perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Minnicino said that the Jewish intellectuals of the Frankfurt School promoted modern art in order to make cultural pessimism the spirit of the counterculture of the 1960s, which was based upon the counter-culture Wandervogel, the cultural liberal German youth movement whose Swiss Monte Verità commune was the 19th-century predecessor of Western counter-culture in the 1960s. The historian Martin Jay pointed out that Daniel Estulin's book cites Minnicino's essay as political inspiration for the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. Almost entirely based on primary sources, with a splash of synth, and telling us almost nothing about Minnicino's version of the conspiracy theory. I'm not sure what to do with this, because if I replace it with a summary of Minnicino, it will lose all the precious synth that people are so attached to and make people accuse poor Tewdar of nefarious motives or something. Perhaps we could use the synth, as a sort of introduction to the summary? 🤔  Tewdar  (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe try to pick at the worst bits? I mean, the second sentence is just terrible, but the first and third are less bad, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't fancy my chances... 😂  Tewdar  (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seriously, what do you think Feldman is "arguing" here? You can read it on Google books from the citation...  Tewdar  (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you and Mvbaron are headed towards an appropriate compromise. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not wanting to be horrible or anything, but... is English Mvbaron's first language, do you know? Perhaps I need to make more allowances...  Tewdar  (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought they spoke American. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's terrible news then. I can understand American perfectly well. Must be Mvbaron's accent, or something...  Tewdar  (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I dunno, something like this for Minnicino's "theory"? 🤔  Tewdar  (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does look like an improvemnt; yeah. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I need to work out how to fit "Jewish intellectuals", Lyndon LaRouche, Wandervogel, the Monte Verità commune, and Martin Jay into the grand scheme... 😡  Tewdar  (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current structure is absolutely appalling.  Tewdar  (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just made a new section for Minnicino and shoved it in underneath. I have popcorn at the ready...  Tewdar  (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from some paragraphing, I think this one is alright. Whaddoooeeethinkuvun? (that's actually what I sound like, btw)  Tewdar  (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure the second paragraph is really doing anything important there, and, more generally, I think putting "according to Lind" for things Western Marxist actually said and thought weirdly concedes too much to the conspiracy theory. The appropriate next move, I think, is to pare down (and remove in-text attribution from) actual history, to throw Lind's "original" insights into clearer relief. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I'll get my hatchet...  Tewdar  (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • How's that? Still don't want the second paragraph? I think we need to mention eg authoritarian personality, etc, for the nefarious motives that Lind ascribes to them, no?  Tewdar  (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "four strategies" are fine; it's the part before that that still reads to me as clunky. Want me to have a go? Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • By all means, come and play in the sand! 😁  Tewdar  (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Compliments do not come easily for me, but... (bah) I suppose you did a... (mumble grumble) reasonable job tidying up the Lind summary, for a beginner that is... 😁👍  Tewdar  (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The article looks a bit better now, imo. What do you think?  Tewdar  (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is improving, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any sources to improve the Josh Mosqueira article? BOZ (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying this here in case it's more efficient. No obligation to reply, obviously.

In typical court cases, at least one side's expert witness reports are artfully constructed fiction. In the case at hand there is an entertaining item by item deconstruction arguing much more specifically that the source in question persistently conceals true facts, asserts false ones, and stretches the first into the second [21]. Both on general principles and in this exact instance, even as a simple matter of RSOPINION on what the author thinks, every word in an expert report is inherently suspect, much as FRINGE or NAZI websites are verboten for talk page inferences, for many reasons, even if they don't make it into the article directly as sources. The general principle could be a case for RSN but I suspect the preceding would be the conclusion.

Your arguments for adding "fringe" (the word) keep revolving around the expert report but anything reliant on that seems dead on arrival. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this is just your own unsourced opinion. The idea that an expert witness would be expected to make statements (in a brief within their area of expertise) that are not only false but which they do not themselves believe (which is the only question at stake in the Talk discussion) is EXTRAORDINARY, and you have produced no evidence for it. If you would like to take that question to RSN, fine, but I have no doubt of the outcome (the relevant question being, is a legal brief a RS for its author's opinion). Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's expected (as in likely, and in this case documented at the above link) is that an expert witness filing a brief for a litigant would overstate what they believe, and suppress other inconvienient things that they also know or believe, compared to communication in other channels. Nobody has claimed the expert in this case is lying about his belief, but he is being cited for a specific word choice, and that is likely to be influenced by its appearance in litigation.

To Sideswipe9th's comment just now: in addition to general expectations in the abstract, we have the very detailed analysis (URL above) of this expert's report suggesting that it fits that pattern throughout, and the expert's characterizations of ROGD cited on the talk page are also, shall we say, at variance with the facts. I'm avoiding names and particulars here to stay clear of BLP and search engine association, but he's clearly an activist in the trans space going beyond what mere expertise could support. Sesquivalent (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is all just your opinion and that of a blogger. Even if the blogger were entirely right (which is complete codswallop, btw), that still wouldn't be evidence that Turban doesn't believe ROGD to be "fringe", the position you have (against all odds or evidence) been maintaining. The belief and the word choice are not separate issues; they are the same issue, and the brief clarifies both. You are well off in marine mammal territory now, and I suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like there was efficiency to be had, so this and any further comment from me will only be to correct misstatements. Sorry to have intruded onto your user talk if that was unwelcome.

At no point have I argued that the doctor doesn't believe (or might not believe) ROGD to be fringe. On the talk page I wrote the opposite: that he might very well use stronger language privately. What I have been maintaining is that his personal beliefs don't matter to the discussion, that you are appealing to those beliefs as part of a convoluted justification for a textbook case of SYNTH of two weak sources, and that one of those source is unusable for any purpose because it's an expert witness report. Sesquivalent (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching that talk page discussion unfold, and I agree with what Newimpartial is saying. When an expert witness provides evidence and/or testimony at a trial, they are staking their professional reputation on the line. If they are discovered to be making an artfully construction fiction it would generally be devastating to their reputation at a minimum, if not open themselves up to further legal proceedings in the future (eg, contempt of court). In the case of Turban, if there is proof that his testimony is a fiction, then the burden is on you to prove it @Sesquivalent: and not on Newimpartial to disprove. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The location of the burden is on anyone wanting to use a source for article content to demonstrate that it meets the relevant standard such as RS, RS/AC (for assertions about fringe or consensus), MEDRS. Newimpartial is trying to admit this one under RS as a "self published expert source", but expert witness reports are not self published. They are published by the litigant and their counsel, who closely review the report, can influence it in many ways, and always have the power to censor it if they don't like the contents. Expert briefs also fail to be independent in the sense of "reliable, independent, secondary". Sesquivalent (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not wanting to use a source for article content. The question answered in the brief concerns Turban's review (which noone has objected to using in the article), and is "does Turban believe that only the backers of ROGD are 'fringe', or ROGD itself?" The reason this question came up is because you and Crossroads (as I recall) argued that Turban applies the term only to the backers. This interpretation of Turban's position is false, as the brief shows. Please stop lying about purposely misconstruing my edits, Sesquivalent. Thanks.

Oh, and sources about the speaker/writer's own views are never independent, anyway, but thanks for the tasty peppered herring. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether only the backers of ROGD are 'fringe', or ROGD itself wasn't the distinction being raised by me, nor by Crossroads as far as I can tell. The issue was your assumption that the words used in the source, "fringe organizations", meant "organizations that are fringe because they back ROGD", when ROGD was not mentioned in connection with the organizations and a different reason was given for calling them fringe. Which is classic SYNTH guesswork. You might very well be right that this is what the author meant, and if he didn't mean it he might very well agree with your version as another statement he supports, but making the inference requires SYNTH and speculation which is precisely what is impermissible when writing the article. Sesquivalent (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "Jack Turban believes ROGD to be a 'fringe' perspective" cannot possibly be SYNTH: he himself says as much, in his brief. There might be other interpretations of "fringe organizations" as it appears in his review, but the brief (fortunately) clarifies this matter nicely. Your attempt to split the hair separating "fringe organizations" in the review and fringe theory in the brief was always doomed to fail - it was also always a mere distraction from the more fundamental issue on that Talk page: your conviction (unsupported by any evidence) that there is any such phenomenon as ROGD. ROGD is a fringe perspective because it has essentially no evidence supporting it as a research problem, much less an hypothesis. Your denial of consensus reality on this matter does you no credit, frankly, and your attempts to throw red herrings and split hairs about have not done much to disguise your POV crusade. 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Newimpartial, I see you reverted my removal of Feldman. Could you please check out the discussion about that particular passage at WP:OR/N and give your opinion? --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I don't see any consensus for removal in that noticeboard discussion, and the passage in question has strong IMPLICITCONSENSUS, until there is explicit consensus for removal. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The removed passage is SYNTH, and completely false, not to mention unnecessary.  Tewdar  (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will let someone else argue about it. What we need is material from the recent Jay collection, anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If even you(!!!) aren't going to argue for it, it must be almost indefensible! I'll put Jay in, once this fictional summary is removed... how about that?  Tewdar  (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing it...you need consensus lol. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?! No wonder these articles are in such a state! Editing the articles I've created myself is a lot more fun - nobody seems to have anything to add, remove, or modify, so I guess they must be perfect! 😂  Tewdar  (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any further warring over the lede, I've started a new section on Talk:Billy Tipton. O.N.R. ^(talk) 22:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like it? Hate it? Totally indifferent?  Tewdar  (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed up. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred it before actually, but I am not greatly opposed to your reordering. I'm thinking more of Mvbaron, who seemed to think it best that we start with 'Frankfurt School != Satanic Conspiracy'... maybe he won't like it? Anyway, it's a lot better now imo. We need to rename the History section now though if the changes stick, as it's not really focused on history anymore.  Tewdar  (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we could probably do away with the top-level (1) Aspects of the conspiracy theory and (2) History sections entirely at this point... what do you think?  Tewdar  (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would give people time to react before doing away with the top-level structure...but yes, if these changes stick, more will be required. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I am a bit worried about the low-levels of reversion of my edits from you so far this year. Perhaps one of us is unwell...  Tewdar  (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since people have had plenty of time to react, I have done away with the top level structure. Do you think we should merge "Fomentation" into "Entering the mainstream discourse"?  Tewdar  (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for referring to you as "he." I had misgivings about doing that before I posted it, but I was relying on my memory of someone else doing the same thing previously without your taking exception or offering a rebuttal.

So, now, here's what's what: I don't presume to tell people what to think or how to identify themselves, I welcome notice of one's identity preferences, and I shun prescriptive language no matter the circumstances. Along those lines, I don't tell anyone to fix a sentence such as "Someone told me they like pizza" so that it fits my own grammatical idiolect. In short, I'll respect how you identify as nonbinary and how you prefer not to be associated with gender specific pronouns. Likewise, please respect how I never use a plural pronoun for a singular third person and how I rebuff efforts to tell me I should think or speak otherwise. However, if you, Newimmpartial, represent more than one third-person editor, please let me know and I'll factor that into the equation when referring to you in a mutually agreeable way. Deal?

P.S. If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me. Otherwise, innovator that I claim to be, I'd be happy to work on it. The "shim," "shis", and "sher" from the mid 1980s never really gained traction, and "s/he" seems to be in a free-falling state of decline. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kent Dominic: to your "P.S.": it's called the singular they and it's quite popular. ––FormalDude talk 04:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The singular they has been around as long as I can remember, it doesn't pain me to hear it, but it's never been my style. My continued shunning of it is unrelated for the reasons behind its recent gain in popular usage. I acknowledge how, re semantics, there's no supreme arbiter of meaning whether "they" must be singular, plural, or indeterminate (a la the singular, plural and occasionally indeterminate meanings of "you" or "any" in the contextual absence of a corresponding verb). My aversion is based more in syntax. Absolutely nothing to do with gender politics. Luckily for us, English doesn't have 1000s of gender case specific nouns (like in Latinate languages), nor do we have 1000s of gender case specific verb suffixes (like in the Thai language). I've read forums in both languages where people fret about whether and how to create a nonbinary solution that pleases the majority. You can guess how those efforts are going. They don't pity us in English, where only six binary pronouns (albeit eight cases) are implicated. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They" in English is not, and has not been for hundreds of years, strictly a "singular" pronoun. But if you prefer to torture your writing by avoiding the singular they when it is required, you won't get any trouble from me aboit that- unless you misgender someone by avoiding the correct pronoun. Newimpartial (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I predated contemporary gender-versus-binary-sex distinctions not by intention but via Catholic schools that, by canon law parochial rule, used "gender" strictly to distinguish male from female (i.e., on a binary basis regardless of preference), and "sex" as a reference to why we'd go to hell if we sinned against corresponding canon law. The discrete concept of "sex" was limited to biology classes and school-kid puns to pester the nuns and priests. In that milieu, a singular "they" tended toward proscription since it broke the binary ID protocols. Usage otherwise was deemed lazy, ignorant, and substandard. Those traditional binary gender distinctions, however, were not categorically applied. E.g., a so-called "tomboy" was often ridiculed with male-related pronouns; a contrapositive similarly teased with female-related pronouns.

Before I had developed a conceptual framework for distinguishing biological sex from gender, my cousin Lester embraced the female-related pronouns that had been hurled at him as intended insults. Consequently, bullies reverted to male-related pronouns to offend Lester's gender ID as female. On rare occasion, those same bullies referred to Lester as "they," contrary to Lester's preference, to assail her binary M to F crossdressing and eventual transitioning.

At the time, my take on all of that, in the vacuum of the gender ID politics we know today, was that the concept of gender seemed to be fluid, not binary. Saying something like that out loud was heretical at the time, and still is today in some quarters.

As of now, I have no qualms about using a plural "they" in reference to anyone who embraces a plurality of gender ID. In so doing, that plurality seems a self-contradiction for someone who also embraces the term, "nonbinary." I might well change my thinking along those lines, but that's how I currently conceptualize the nexus between numerical references to gender versus numerical references to a grammatical person.

By contrast, my aversion to using a singular "they" is based solely on semantic practicality and absolutely nothing at all to do with gender ID. When I say, "I spoke with Newimpartial, and Newimpartial said the idea is okay with Newimpartial," there's no question that Newimpartial is the same referent in each instance. Similarly, if I say, "I spoke with "Newimpartial, and he said the idea is fine with him," there's unquestionably a singular referent involved despite how I misgendered Newimpartial (vis-a-vis Newimpartial's gender identity preference) in subsequent references to the same individual. However, if I say, "I spoke with Newimpartial, and they say the idea is fine with them," the pronouns entail ambiguity whether I switched referents from NewImpartial to some other plural referents notwithstanding how some people might immediately construe "they" in a singular and concurrent sense. I prefer to avoid such ambiguity.

IMHO, there's less ambiguity in heretofore instances of a plural "they" corresponding to an antecedent singular referent, typically regarding a speaker's lack of binary info rather than a principled aversion to binary characterization. E.g., "Somone stole my car. They did it in broad daylight." Alternatives to "they" include:

• He (binary singular pronoun heretofore construed as singular neuter despite ostensibly male characterization)
• He or she (binary singular pronouns in the alternative)
• S/he (binary singular characterization that lost favor as quickly as it emerged since it applies only to text and has no analogy, except "he or she," in prosody)
• Whoever it was (nonbinary singular pronoun)
• The culprit, jerk, asshole, etc. (nonbinary singular nouns)

--Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to point out that your example using "he" for me does in fact misgender me; on Wikipedia this is understood as a WP:CIVIL violation - so don't do thwt, even in a hypothetical example.

Second, your practical aversion to the singular they does not reflect general English usage, almost beyond the point of personal idiosyncrasy and verging on private language. The idea that such sentences as, "The intruder left their fingerprints all over the crime scene", are somehow ambiguous (beyond the ambiguity inherent in language in general) seems ludicrous, and certainly does not reflect mainstream English usage. "Kent hit Crossroads and hurt his fist" is equally ambiguous, in spite of the use of a gendered pronoun, as "The editors ganged up on Newimpartual but their convoluted arguments failed to gain traction" - pronoun ambiguity is not introduced by the singular they and is not notably increased thereby. (In the case of "Crossroads disagrees with Newimparial - I accept his argumemt", ambiguity is eliminated if the reader knows my pronoun preference and that the writer is respecting it.)

Finally, I find your desire to distinguish nonbinary identity from gender fluidity (and what about genderqueer identities?), and only to use "they" for genderfluid people, to be forcing exactly the rigid binary you claim does not apply to gender. "Nonbinary" represents a range of identities outside of strict male/female dualism (as I have had occasion to point out from time in relation to nonbinary trans, nonbinary butch, and nonbinary lesbian identities), and your desire to honor the pronoun preferences only of people who declare themselves "fluid" implies that otherwise they have a rigid identity that you refuse therefore to recognize. This seems to me to be a difficult position to rationalize - the only nonbinary identities you recognize are "fluid" ones, but what kind of ethics can justify non-recognition of those other nonbinary identities - are you denying them because you don't understand them, or are you insisting on a metaphysic that doesn't allow them to be "real", or what? But anyway, I'm not bothered by whatever tortured writing might result in Talk space, for you, as long as you don't misgender anyone. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

__________

I acknowledge how co-referencing “he” (as well as “him”) in the hypothetical example from above misgenders you from your perspective. Are you able to acknowledge a contrary perspective, based solely on linguistics, in which a a Generic Masculine (GM) pronoun can be used without any presumption of gender? Regardless, let’s agree to disagree re the WP:CIVIL implications. The hypothetical instance isn’t in any way ad hominem. Similarly, my co-referencing “he” and “Newimpartial” on the MOS page has no WP:CIVIL relevance. My mistake there was due to a faulty memory. Even now I can’t perfectly recall which editor (maybe Crossroads or CycoMa?) corrected a third-person reference from “she” to “he,” or perhaps it was vice versa.

On the whole, the genders or lack thereof or plurality thereof is never important to me regarding the editors here. Accordingly, try not to assume that the gender-laden sense that YOU might impute to a certain word is the sense that OTHERS intend when using the same word. I likewise caution you to avoid feeling misgendered if you’re in the audience of someone who says, e.g., “Listen up, guys” i.e. “guys: PERSON — used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex” per Merriam-Webster. An argument that “guys” is masculine per se falls on deaf ears and as it ignores relevant contexts. Merriam-Webster indeed indicates how "guys" has a masculine sense under Sense #1 but a generic sense under the just-quoted Sense #2.

An admission on my part: it’s hard for me to make complete sense of your points because you regularly fuse quasi-linguistic terminology to create unconventional correlations. E.g., by “personal idiosyncrasy” my guess is that you mean “idiolect.” I’m afraid I have no idea what “private language” is supposed to mean. Anyway…

As for your point about the intruder, I consider it a naïve example of post hoc logic. Coincidentally, I once wrote a treatment re a psychopath who created high-tech gloves with fingerprints replicated from various third parties. Afterward, the psychopath left their fingerprints all over the crime scene. Ambiguity prevails if a singular “their” is implicated rather than plural.

Sorry again, but I can’t make heads or tails of your sentence that includes “nominary identity.” Googling the term offered no help. In my best effort to address the matter, I'll reiterate that I have no qualms about using a plural "they" in reference to anyone who embraces a plurality of gender ID, i.e., anyone who doesn’t identify as nonbinary but as multigendered; “they” reflects concurrent identification as both male and female contrary to a rejection of such characterizations.

My nephew is one such person. He AND she prefers “they” in acknowledgement of his AND her gender plurality. So, as I indicated earlier, that plurality seems a self-contradiction for someone who also embraces the term, "nonbinary." My nephew fully recognizes how “nonbinary” might apply to others, and they (I leave it to you to construe whether this instance of “they” corresponds to "my nephew" or to “others”) deem it non-relevant regarding him AND her, as my nephew so sees himself AND herself.

As for your final question re metaphysics, I’m sorry yet again for having no idea what you’re getting at. To address you point as best I can, I’m not denying anything or anyone; I’m not insisting anything except the prerogative to use terms in the sense that I intend them despite how those very terms might be construed in a way that contravenes my intent. Suffice it to say that I don’t see myself as the arbiter of anyone’s reality other than my own.

Some unsolicited advice: Enjoy a less stressful existence by removing any chips on your shoulder. Avoid seeking conceptual areas of conflict and imputing dissension. Charitably assume that everyone, like you, does the best that he (oops, please don’t mistake me as having misgendered you as included among those to whom the GM “he” applies) they (sorry, forgive that lapse in traditional number disagreement that you seem to tolerate nonetheless) … that one can. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered resistance from people who don't recognize ", man" as a self-consciously dated Generically Masculine reference, so I know of what you are speaking. Where WP:CIVIL does clearly come in, though, is if an editor persists in using gendered terms that another editor has made it clear they regard as misgendering - I trust that we can either agree on that, or you will not act on your disagreement in light of the operative community norms. This isn't a matter of ad hominem, but it is a matter of treating other editors with the respect that WP:CIVIL requires.

As far as your claim that the genders or lack thereof or plurality thereof is never important to me regarding the editors here, that seems to be at some tension with your apparent refusal to use "they" pronouns for other editors when asked. If it were "never important", then presumably it would be less important than communicating accurately and respecting your interlocutors - unless those also lack importance for you.

For the record, "personal idiosyncracy" as I understand it is more specific than ideolect - which everyone has - and reflects situations where the speaker has consciously chosen usages different from those of the broader speech community. "Private language" represents the extreme end of that spectrum, where the idiosyncrasies are so particular that only the speaker themself is assured of understanding their utterances. As far as your intruder example is concerned, your response is entirely tangential to my prior example, which you seem to have misconstrued.

"Nonbinary identity" doesn't seem like a difficult or confusing concept for me, but that may be because I have one. What I would like to clarify for you is that first, some people identify as both nonbinary and genderfluid, which is the form of "multigendered" identity that comes up most often as far as I know. Also, some people identify simultaneously as nonbinary and some other gender-related label, such as nonbinary butches or nonbinary trans men - out of these folks, some prefer gendered pronouns, some prefer they/them, and some use multiple pronouns: usually he/they or she/they.

So what I am asking you to interrogate in yourself is why you are willing to use they/them pronouns for one subset of people who ask you to do so (the genderfluid or multigendered), but not for other nonbinary people, whether they express a simple or a complex (but not "fluid") gender identity. Is it because you can't parse those identities, and you feel you have to understand them before deciding what the right language is for you to use? Or is it because you are convinced at some level that these identities are not real, or true or authentic, so that you would somehow be compromising your integrity by addressing people as they ask you to? Or something else? I'm not implying that there is a right reason for taking your stance (I honestly don't think there is), but if you know why you're doing it at least it might inflect your explanation the next time someone is offended by your idiosyncratic language choices.

Finally, as far as I’m not insisting anything except the prerogative to use terms in the sense that I intend them despite how those very terms might be construed in a way that contravenes my intent - I'm afraid that isn't a prerogative that exists on Wikipedia (or in most workplaces, for that matter). Workplace harassment policies, for example, normally stipulate that when a person has made it clear to you that your communication to them is inappropriate (within parameters that are specified in law or policy), you are then obliged to stop even if the person's understanding of what you said contravenes your intent and if you continue, you are engaged in harassment. Wikipedia uses a more specific version of this principle (reflecting the article space principle MOS:GENDERID) for how we interact with other editors, in terms of gender. Everyone makes mistakes (I inadvertently misgendered an editor not long ago), but none of us have the "prerogative" to continue using terms in the sense they intend them - when it comes to gender, at least - after they've been told to stop. That to me is the most practical question about language, whether it it is used in ways that allow people to work together. And that is that WP's community norms are for. Newimpartial (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you persist in associating me with rationale that's not part of my thinking. It boils down to this: You apparently identify as nonbinary. I've tried as best I can to acknowledge your particular understanding of what that term means since not everyone is unanimous in its meaning. Like, if someone presumed to apply that term to my nephew in the way he AND she prefers the "they" pronoun, that presumption would contravene (a) my nephew's embrace of male AND female attributes, and (b) my nephew's insistence that "they," as applied to him AND her, should be construed as plural rather than singular to be conceptually accurate.

Let me be clear in my consistency on the matter of "interrogate in yourself ... why you are willing to use they/them pronouns for one subset of people who ask you to do so (the genderfluid or multigendered), but not for other nonbinary people, whether they express a simple or a complex (but not "fluid") gender identity: my use of "they" and "them" is absolutely non-relevant to any concept of gender. I repeat: Zero. Nothing. Nada. My use of "they" and "them" is based strictly on grammatical number agreement. You and some hypothetical nonbinary friend needn't ask me to use plural pronouns since my default pronouns for plural items - whether people or things - are "they" and "them."

You, on the other hand, identify as both nonbinary and as being averse to a co-referent such as "he." I can respect that 100%. But, as you've (a) asked me to refer to you as "they," and you've additionally (b) identified your sense of "they" to be singular, that's where I draw the line. The pronoun doesn't satisfy my linguistic sense of number agreement.

Unlike whomever might argue otherwise, I believe a gender-specific pronoun versus a singular "they" poses a false dilemma. As I mentioned earlier, there are numerous ways to placate your aversion to "he" or "she" co-references while keeping my affinity for number agreement intact. (FYI, my undergraduate major was journalism. The instructors approached their discussion of gender neutrality as if it were something new. For me, my prior 12 years of primary and secondary education in Catholic specialty schools for language arts and English composition made the gender-neutral pedagogical stuff a matter of rote.)

You might think that my using "they" to refer to you constitutes a matter of courtesy and that anything otherwise is disrespectful. Again, I see that as fallacious reasoning. Instead, I'd say not referring to you in binary gender terms accords with my sense of what nonbinary entails as a concept that - again - is nowhere near as monolithic as you or anyone else might want others to believe. Conversely, if it unnerves you to hear someone insist on being co-referenced as "he" or she" when you prefer "to use "they," I'd back you up on that social prerogative despite how I'd maintain the "they" grammar is number-deficient.

Semantic strategies abound concerning nonbinary linguistics. Indeed, my avocation as a writer requires that I continually invent and re-invent nonbinary characterizations in order to play on readers' biases re character identity, only to narratively contravene those readers' false conclusions upon subsequent revelations (esp. vis-a-vis unmasking unreliable characters who are excoriated for mis-identifying other characters, to the readers' chagrin).

Finally, let's keep apply a proper context and common sense to my statement that I’m not insisting anything except the prerogative to use terms in the sense that I intend them despite how those very terms might be construed in a way that contravenes my intent. Meaning, if I talk about my brothers and sisters instead of "siblings," or about my mother and father instead of "parents," I can empathize with one who might feel unnerved by those gender-specific terms while also expecting to get banned from Wikipedia if the powers-that-be deem those terms to be harassment under a nonbinary adherence.

If you're moved to reply, before you do, please give further consideration to what grammatical number agreement entails. Please note how that concept in no way implicates gender or sexual orientation. The fact that you might shun personal co-references to gender, and that you prefer a gender-neutral reference, is purely coincidental to the gender neutrality of "they" and "them," whose usage I habitually reserve for people and things that evince a plurality.

As a codicil to all this, I challenge you to shore up your linguistic chops before any reply. Ask me any question along those lines and I'll be pleased to respond. E.g., when do I allow for "it" rather than "they" in reference to a singular person? Namely, when the person is referenced impersonally a la Q: "Who is that in the picture? A: "It's my sister." I wouldn't reply, "She's my sister" and I scorn "They're my sister." Even the question, "Who is she in the picture?" sounds weird to me since the picture is an object representing the image of person, not a person. Same as introducing you to a friend: My habitual phrasing would be, "Shirley, this is Newimpartial; Newimpartial, this is my friend Shirley." If one of you then comments, "Oh, you're so pretty," I'd be less eager to initiate future intros despite how "pretty" isn't, per se, a gender specific characterization. Neither is "handsome." Yet, you catch my drift. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where I think your argument here goes off the rails is with You might think that my using "they" to refer to you constitutes a matter of courtesy and that anything otherwise is disrespectful. Again, I see that as fallacious reasoning. That just isn't the way civility works - you don't have the prerogative to decide for others what is or isn't disrespectful. Now I'm not saying you have to use "they" - if you want to torture your language to avoid (non-demonstrative) pronouns, you can do that. But using the "Generic Masculine" after being told it is misgendering is a form of harassment like any other pronoun use that your interlocutor finds misgendering. English has used "they" for singular referents for hundreds of years, and your refusal of this simple expedient doesn't give you the prerogative to harass others. English used to distinguish singular referents in the second person too, until the polite plural form gradually took over from the informal singular form for all singular referents - but I don't see you thou/thee-ing people, or refusing to use our (grammatically plural) second-person verb forms. The singular "they" is no more confusing than the singular "you", IMO. I don't think I can be any more clear about this - and your opinion about what is or isn't fallacious is entirely irrelevant to such questions of civility and harassment.

Finally, I doubt anyone at Wikipedia particularly cares what pronouns you use for your relatives or others in off-wiki life. What we do care about is how you treat other editors - in this case, don't just misgender them (not even under the umbrella of that's not what I meant, which is no longer relevant once you've been told). Your personal language conviction that number agreement (but only in the third person) is more important than respecting the identities of others need not be fatal to you on social situations, if you can learn to be a bit more circumspect on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Kent Dominic I really don't see what the point is in your continued discussion here. Newimpartial is being extremely nice to you and challeng[ing] [them] to shore up [their] linguistic chops is enough for me to see that you're not really looking for guidance or clarification as much as a piss-fight. Misgendering other editors is uncivil, whatever your personal understanding of gender is. Stop looking for a conversation that will go nowhere. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

__________

@Newimpartial: I'm good with all that, but let's not conflate circumspection (re gender identity) with faulty memory. Meaning, what started this wasn’t a proclivity to mischaracterize or purport a particular gender identity; it was a simple case of mistaken personal identity as I misremembered you as Crossroads, CycoMa, or some other editor who had previously been misgendered as “she” and corrected to “he,” if not vice versa.

On the topic of conflation, I hasten to add that you might want to consider the distinctions between “misgender” and “genderize.” You asserted that I misgendered you with a “he” coreference. In my experience, and as attested by numerous dictionaries, “misgender” means to impute a mistaken gender. So, if I misgendered you per “he,” that implies you identify as “she.” Yet, you prefer “they” (i.e., gender-neutral) and identify as nonbinary (also gender-neutral). In the future, if someone makes a similar error in referring to you as “he” or “she” when you prefer none of the above, you might consider protesting being genderized rather than misgendered. Otherwise, you risk having people resort to the opposite gender reference upon hearing they’ve misgendered you esp. if they abhor the singular “they” as much as I do.

One last thing: I have plenty of cites that comport with both the vocabulary I’ve used and the concepts I’ve expressed in this thread. Whether you and I have conflicting or concurring opinions regarding the material in those cites isn’t relevant. E.g., let’s not argue whether and how the singular “they” has evolved, usage-wise, from (a) what heretofore typically involved a singular "they" as an apologetic default per a contextualized lack of info for a speaker otherwise intending to genderize a given referent versus (b) the growing trend away from genderizing a referent even when a speech participant has the relevant gender info. My only point being that nothing I’ve said here (i.e., in your “private language” rumbling) hasn’t been said before by scholars in countless forums. If only I were so inventive. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: Consider substituting “neologism” for “private language.” On the other hand, what might be unfamiliar terminology vis-à-vis your vocabulary indeed might be a protologism. Case in point: I’d never before encountered the word “genderize” at Wikipedia, so I wondered if the word might strike you as something of my own invention despite how I counted on its lexical sense being fairly conspicuous in the sense I used it above. In fact, I can’t say I originated the term.) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A.C. Santacruz: I really don't see what the point is in your continued discussion here.
Kent Dominic: What a pity.
A.C. Santacruz: Newimpartial is being extremely nice to you.
Kent Dominic: Agreed.
A.C. Santacruz: Challeng[ing] [them] to shore up [their] linguistic chops is enough for me to see that you're not really looking for guidance or clarification as much as a piss-fight.
Kent Dominic: I didn’t challenge Newimpartial to undertake anything that I myself don't routinely undertake. See and assume what you want about how careless, insensitive, and apathetic I must be to have started this thread and titled it as I did. (And, FRWI, I’m not disparaging your own idiolect but it’s not my style. Instead, I’d say “Your ‘linguistic chops’ challenge is enough for me to see…” Semantically equivalent; 4 fewer words; wholly nonbinary.)
A.C. Santacruz: Misgendering other editors is uncivil, whatever your personal understanding of gender is.
Kent Dominic: Misgendering other editors is definitely uncivil upon a second or subsequent instance, especially when intransigence is involved. The first instance typically deserves a friendly correction. The same applies to an instance of genderizing as opposed to "misgendering." Specifically, contrary to Newimpartial’s unintended equivocation comment (re misgender versus genderize), what initiated this thread was my brain-farted instance of genderizing an editor that I’d misremembered as male. I didn't misgender a male who might otherwise identify as female. Newimpartial, as nonbinary, prefers neither a male neither a female characterization. The only issue, after my apology, is whether a singular “they” is a gender-neutral pronoun to which Newimpartial and I might mutually agree. Failing that agreement, we’ve agreed there are other options that respect nonbinary preferences.
A.C. Santacruz: Stop looking for a conversation that will go nowhere.
Kent Dominic: Whatever. Back atcha. Accordingly, I challenge you to shore up your linguistic, analytic, and rhetorical chops before any reply. Fair warning: I’m indisposed to reading anything more that you have to say. I nevertheless thank you for reading any large part of this prolix thread. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Amended by Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC), as proposed below.[reply]

And one thing for you to consider: many (of course not all) nonbinary people experience nonbinary gender as a gender (or genders, of course). For those of us to whom nonbinary gender is a gender, being referred to with "he" or "she" is misgendering (being referred to with an incorrect gender), and is not "genderizing" (being referred to with a gender when we have none). Your interpretation seems based on the assumption that gender (while complex) is built out of essentially binary underlying material, but many of us simply do not experience gender in that way - and those whose problem is being "genderized" typically identify as agender rather than nonbinary. Also, having read this, I hope you will strike your reference to equivocation in your reply to A.C. Santacruz, as I did not in fact equivocate but rather you misunderstood my position.

Finally, your (a) vs. (b) example above seems again to have suppressed the most plausible scenario, which is neither (a) nor (b). In the cases we are ultimately concerned with here, about nonbinary people whose chosen pronouns are they/them, we are not taking about using these pronouns consequent to either a contextualized lack of info OR when a speech participant has the relevant gender info but is choosing not to genderize the referent. Rather, we are (or at least I am) taking about cases where the correct gender is not reflected by he or she, but rather by they, and where speech participants are choosing to accept that gender info when presented to them. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re what you’ve just asked me to consider, please disabuse yourself of the notion that I assume gender is built out of binary material. O that note, I’ll save you the trouble of rereading my prior posts from above: I'd say not referring to you in binary gender terms accords with my sense of what nonbinary entails as a concept that - again - is nowhere near as monolithic as you or anyone else might want others to believe. Admittedly, I have no more evidence of that than you have in saying, “many (of course not all) nonbinary people experience nonbinary gender as a gender (or genders, of course).” There’s no disagreement there.

Re my use of “equivocation,” consider how I qualified it as “unintended equivocation” as an alert that I didn’t intend “equivocation” in the sense of “subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse” but in the sense of “of uncertain nature or classification” (Merriam-Webster). I stand by my characterization that you were equivocal in saying “you won't get any trouble from me [about] that- unless you misgender someone by avoiding the correct pronoun.” That statement is faulty for two reasons:

• I expect to likewise get into trouble from you (and others) if I genderize someone by avoiding not "the correct pronoun" but "a suitable form of address."
• I expect to get into deeper trouble from you (and others) if I genderize someone by using the correct pronoun in an instance that the person, regardless of gender identity, doesn’t want any mention of it at all.
  

Now, don’t take my calling out your equivocation personally. I could be wrong, but I’m fairly confident that if you had been previously familiar with “genderize,” this part of our discussion would be moot. Yes, I’m concluding that MOST people are quite unfamiliar with that term and how it varies from “misgender,” if the Google Books Ngram Viewer data is to be believed and if its prior absence on your talk page affords proper evidence.

Be that as it may, let’s agree to disagree about whether I misunderstood your position. If “equivocation” rubs you the wrong way, feel free to strike it on your own and substitute a word you think fits better. So doing is covered in the WP:SOMETHING-OR-OTHER rules that proscribe editing a talk page posting unless first getting permission. (That same set of rules would allow me to revert any such edit and prevail in any needed arbitration to avoid who-said-what issues upon subsequent copying and pasting, which bears on the contextual indication of authorship and disagreement.)

Next, if you have any published source with data to attest that “those whose problem is being "genderized" typically identify as agender rather than nonbinary,” please post it. That statement sounds reasonable enough, but I've never seen any data that supports my gut feeling on the matter.

Penultimately, your comment about “nonbinary people … choosing not to genderize the referent” is almost the same iteration as what I said about “the growing trend away from genderizing a referent even when a speech participant has the relevant gender info.” In particular, the trend isn’t limited to nonbinary people. Not to sound like a broken record, but I’ve repeatedly said there are boatloads of linguistic strategies to accomplish that without using a singular “they” pronoun. Yes, I have read publications that identify that very trend. Ask me and I’ll post the cites. Their examples include analysis like:

*"The intruder left his fingerprints all over the crime scene" [Generic Masculine (GM) determiner.]
*"The intruder left their fingerprints all over the crime scene" [Generic and nonbinary determiner.]
*"The intruder left fingerprints all over the crime scene" [Null pronoun; generic and nonbinary noun.]

Lastly, you hadn't overtly said, until your most recent post, that you think the word “they,” whether construed as singular or plural, somehow corresponds to "correct gender". Please make no mistake: No linguist (i.e., those who are properly construed as WP:RELIABLE sources) deems “they” or “their” or “theirs” or “them” to have any nexus whatsoever to gender. Those pronouns refer solely to grammatical number. The strategy of employing generic and nonbinary pronouns to avoid misgendering or genderizing a referent in no way implies gender whether binary, nonbinary, agender, multigendered, etc. To argue in the contrary, I see the very ominous potential for people who are binary prescriptive/nonbinary-phobic to dog-whistle amongst themselves: Do you know (John Doe)? They're an editor at Wikipedia. Laughter ensues.

Consider this: Kelly and I are dining together in a restaurant. Neither of us has any intention to disclose Kelly’s gender identity as binary, nonbinary, or otherwise. How should I respond when, soon after Kelly takes a toilet break, a server comes to our table with our orders and asks, “Has your dinner partner left?”

*”No, he’s in the toilet.”[The Generic Masculine (GM) pronoun is archaic, ambiguous, and perhaps just plain stupid nowadays.]
*”No, he’s in the toilet.” [The binary pronoun is disrespectful and equivocal though perhaps accurate, depending on Kelly’s self-identity on that particular day, since ALL forms of self-identity cover a range from static to dynamic.]
*”No, she’s in the toilet.” [Ditto.]
*”No, they’re in the toilet.” [The nonbinary pronoun is numerically equivocal despite its recent gain in popularity. In my view, it needlessly calls unwanted attention to an identity that’s none of the server’s business and pegs me as using substandard English by grammarians but not semanticists who duly note its colloquial currency.]
*”No, my dinner partner is just in the toilet.” [Just sounds weird to repeat more info than needed yet the reply is contextually unequivocal.]
*”No, just in the toilet.” [ Answer ellipsis with null subject, as well documented everywhere in linguistic circles.]
*”Nope. Coming right back.” [An interjection/answer ellipsis combo that suffices re the given question.]

As for what happened in the MOS thread, if you had replied, e.g., "Neither 'he' nor 'she', but otherwise carry on," I would have clicked the "Thank" icon re your edit and never given it a second thought except perhaps to post, "My bad. Won't happen again" at the top of this thread. All of this ensuing back-and-forth, from my angle, relates to my attempt to demonstrate how varying senses of the singular "they" often accounts for more equivocation and misinterpretation that alternative strategies more readily avoid. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Kent. I have lost patience with you now: please do not visit my Talk page again (except to place a notice that WP policy requires). No, I do not agree to disagree about whether I misunderstood your position - you did, and now you are trying to equivocate about it, which is just rude under the circumstances.

One thing I hope you will retain from this discussion is that you will not get into trouble with an editor to a greater or lesser extent depending on whether they (or you) see your writing as misgendering them or "genderizing" them - just don't do either, once a problem is drawn to your attention, and you will do fine.

There is something troubling about your scenario, if I genderize someone by using the correct pronoun in an instance that the person, regardless of gender identity, doesn’t want any mention of it at all. Of course this statement is true, but it is also irrelevant. In my case, the, correct pronoun is "they" - if you use "they" you will not generate trouble for yourself, and if you use a personal pronoun (or posessive) other than "they", etc., you will. It is precisely that simple, and the scenario you set out has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

If you live in (or adjacent to) a speech community where people would use singular they pronouns as a dogwhistle, that signals your questionable taste in geography (or sociology) rather than anything else. The nearest city to my location has a nonbinary city counselor with they/them pronouns who is consistently re-elected and who, if they are ever subject to controversy, it has nothing to do with their gender. This "dog whistle" scenario just doesn't exist in my world, and while I certainly don't insist that other nonbinary people also use they/them pronouns, it is certainly the typical practice in the speech communities within which I am situated.

Finally, I will point out that your attempt to demonstrate how varying senses of the singular "they" often accounts for more equivocation and misinterpretation that alternative strategies more readily avoid has ended in failure. You have not done this at all; what you have actually demonstrated is that in your stubborn failure to recognize an emergent feature of 21st-century English (the appropriation of the "singular they", which has long existed for cases where gender is unknown, as a preferred pronoun for those whose gender identity is not reflected in masculine or feminine pronouns but can be represented by "they"), you are able to employ misinterpretation and equivocation as strategies in service of your desire not to adopt the emerging norms of the language. This you have demonstrated quite conclusively, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WTF did I just readskim? And why did it include the statement ""he" ... misgenders you from your perspective"? The amount of time some people will take to tell you you're "wrong" instead of just saying "oops, sorry, thanks for letting me know" is astounding. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding refactoring

I noticed this as your talk page hasn't yet fallen off my watchlist after our last discussion. Refactoring the title as you did implies that User:Kent Dominic is saying "Sorry, not sorry", and while you may choose to interpret the broader conversation as meaning that, it is improper to imply that he said it. Further, I note this ghost edit, which I find particularly problematic as you reply to his confusion as if the typo had never existed.

I have no comment on the broader discussion, except to note that I see no issue with the singular they - indeed, if you ask which gender you should use for me here, I would say "they", though I don't mind if other standard genders are used - although I understand that others see it as incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the talk page stalkers, I have replied to the ghost edit issue here.

Also I have now clarified the refactored heading - I trust that it no longer carries any improper implications.Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you have recently reverted the definitions of gender identity I provided with ample citations with mainstream psychology books. I did not publish my own research,nor coined any new term myself neither did I start an unrelated conversation on the topic. Im still new to wikipedia so any help will be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPixel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you make a personal attack again, I'm going to take you up to the admin noticeboard and try and get you blocked. I plan to check your contributions, to determine if you have a history of this. For your information, the reference on Ian Marsh (writer) stated p.48 only. scope_creep^Talk 01:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can, of course, do whatever you like, but maybe watch your own WP:ASPERSIONS (and amateur psychoanalysis of other editors) before you start throwing stones on dramaboards. I trust that you will not be reverting my revised comment - in fact, you presumably know already that the best practice is not to revert the comments of other editors because you feel personally attacked by them, and also not to redact your own comments after others have replied to them - even when your own comments contain an unsubstantiated personal attack (which is what an admin who doesn't care about quality references indisputably is). Newimpartial (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, User:scope_creep, this is quite clearly an AGF fail and a personal attack. Don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stating an opinion is not a personal attack. I checked those reference based on what was in the article. That reference is only for page 28. Nothing else. scope_creep^Talk 10:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to trying to spin it up to something it not, is disingenuous, which is not a comment about a reference: it is a personal attack and AGF fail. I repeat: don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! :) I hope you are doing well. I have some tabletop designer bios that I am trying to get (re)published as articles; if you have the time would you like to try your hand at one or two? BOZ (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If interested, Draft:Don Bassingthwaite has had some work done on it already, and Draft:Charles Alexander Moffat, Draft:Claude J. Pelletier, Draft:Julie Ann Dawson may have some potential. Some game designers worth working on would be Draft:Bruce Harlick, Draft:Chris S. Sims (game designer), Draft:Dean Shomshak, Draft:Ken Whitman, Draft:Scott Bennie, Draft:Scott Fitzgerald Gray. If you can do anything on even one or two of those, that would be awesome. :) There are a bunch more, but these stood out to me the most. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything that could help with Ethan Skemp which is at PROD? BOZ (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ENnie Awards was just PRODded and unPRODded - I will see what else I can find for that one. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Detransition § Regarding the James Shupe Entry Of This Page:. I think your advice here may be beneficial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything more for Super Genius Games? BOZ (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just in case you're wondering why there's been a slight uptake in activity at Linehan's page, he was on a talk show last night on BBC One, and clips from it have been trending on UK social medial all day. I'd add this to the talk page, but it's kinda FORUMy information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newimpartial. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Chambers".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Newimpartial, As you know I created a section on the talk page for Woman. I didn't present myself in a good manner initially, but I believe we (I don't know the word) smoothed things out. And I realized my mistake. Which is nice. Now, given I first engaged in a partial edit war, I believe in order for me to make another edit on the page, those who engaged in the dispute would need to reach a consensus. A handful of people have contributed to the discussion, but not you. I assume it might be due to my words, and I apologize again. It could also have to do with the fact you may not be engaged. Either way, I ask and invite you to add to the discussion by providing your thoughts/insight- on that talk page, or on this one. I made some changes, and proposed to add a new statement to the header. This is found at the very bottom of the discussion. I ask you review it, and give your thoughts. It seems some people have come to agree as I changed the statement and explained my logic more. They haven't completely agreed with wording, but have seemed to start to agree with the base text. I would say its far more inclusive, but objective enough to give some insight into genetics and the sex determination of a female. I wish you a good day, Sedeanimu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find that chucking three references at the end of a sentence as example usages of a term, then performing a home-brewed frequency analysis and concluding that such usage is therefore 'occasional' definitely qualifies as original research. Anyway, I used a citation from that dreadful Joan Braune article now which actually uses the word "occasional". Hmm. perhaps someone "forgot" to cite Braune?  Tewdar  12:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the edit history, I suspect that the times the text was edited, the times people looked at the sources, and the times the sources themselves were added/edited were not perfectly in alignment. Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But we certainly need a citation here for 'occasionally' because this is a claim about usage frequency and just putting a few sources that merely use the term fails to cut the mustard.  Tewdar  13:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just in case you weren't aware, you're right at the 3RR limit at Women's Declaration International. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive edits count as one revert, so I think I'm good, thanks. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial's got it right. It's mentioned at WP:3RR: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. " Sideswipe9th, for what it's worth, I get my reversion count wrong about 40% of the time. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until my one EW block years ago, I got it wrong 100% of the time, FWIW. :)

Even last year I got it wrong some of the time, because I couldn't internalize that if you remove the same word in two different edits, the second one is a revert even if the proposed replacement text is completely different. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! That'll teach me! Thanks for the clarification you two! If only that policy could be clearer ey? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For real. Revert math is the second hardest kind of math, after toilet paper math of course. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for both of you @Firefangledfeathers:, the 3RR limit, how is that counted when two people make the same revert at the same time? Both 0xF8E8 and I made made the same revert, at more or less the same time. They hit the submit button first. Have I now done two reverts in the article? Or only one? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: if I were you, I'd self-rv the meaningless change with an edit summary indicating that 0x beat you to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... why don't they just use their user account? Even I can work out who they are, and I've not even been here that long! They aren't even attempting to disguise their style! 😂  Tewdar  15:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls be trolling. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty doubtful that they are arguing in good faith. In fact, I think they are on some sort of post-"retirement" trollfest tour. Have you thought they might be connected to a previously used account too? (don't tell me who!)  Tewdar  15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do, but I make a point of having no opinion concerning how many trolls are out there and how many accounts or addresses each of them is using. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you must have a very good hunch who it is, right? Or, you must have Zen-meditation capabilities to block out external stimuli that I would pay good money for...  Tewdar  16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these can be true at the same time. :p Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🧘  Tewdar  17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you must know who it is, because you had their user page a subpage from their sandbox on their userpage on your watchlist even after they retired, right? 🧐  Tewdar  19:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. :p Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you are most certainly not known for, is reticence. So this lack of comment most certainly raises the alarm for me... pretty sure that user account is not their first, either...  Tewdar  19:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a good checkuser, wouldn't I? Except nobody would be crazy enough to give Tewdar the toolz (I hope!)  Tewdar  19:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You thank me for that edit? What about the others? 😂  Tewdar  18:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I was expressing my appreciation for the edit summary. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summaries are often more popular than the actual edits...  Tewdar  18:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 3 § Transgender and transsexual categories. I wasn't sure if you were aware of this discussion or not, and thought you might be interested. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed much of the off-wiki canvassing and harassment associated with that discussion. Are you better-informed? Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was at least one editor, now banned, who tried to organise a number of "big name" transmedicalists to get involved because of "gender ideology" or some such. That Twitter thread is linked in a comment by Funcrunch, and amusingly tried to get Buck Angel to intervene.

That same editor whose Twitter thread is linked also wrote a couple of blogs on their websites harassing Roxy Saunders and TheTranarchist. I think the later one is still linked in the discussion somewhere.

Still reading through it all though. But I didn't see your name in the ping list, nor in the contributions so I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter canvassing is the worst canvassing. Sigh. I was vaguely aware of the thread - which struck me as mostly trolling - and my opinion about it has not really changed. I try to stay away from category discussions as much as I possibly can. :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll try to remember that for next time! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, being aware of a discussion doesn't compel me to participate in it, so I don't mind being notified. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, true! I'll still save it for particularly important/active ones though, don't want to endlessly spam you with notification...

Or do I? Muhahahahaha :P Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For the tireless work on J.K. Rowling to get a difficult section just as it should be. Well done! I'm extremely impressed. Victoria (tk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources about Marxist cultural analysis - in its various forms and schools - don't refer to either "cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism". The ones that do, usually refer to "cultural Marxism".

? Tewdar 

Most sources on one or another school of Marxist cultural analysis dont use either phrase, and of the minority that use one ot the other, most use the common noun. Prove me wrong. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I perhaps misunderstood. "Most people don't use either form, but the ones that do, use the small-c form", yes? I believe I misread what you were saying. Sorry.  Tewdar  17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't my most elegant writing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also re I'm not sure what you mean by refer to both the conspiracy theory and the school of thought interchangeably - do you mean within a single source? Because I haven't seen that. - Jamin (2018) does exactly this, does he not? With a big C, too! 😁  Tewdar  17:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of Jamin - which I expect you have read before, both on the CT talk page and at User Talk:Swood1000 - is that his writing distinguishes quite clearly when he is referring to the CT and when he is discussing actually existing Marxism. Yes, he uses the proper noun for both - he is the first academic I noticed to have retrojected that usage into Marxist scholarship - but then again, he is Belgian. Anyway, he certainly doesn't refer to both interchangeably. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • he is Belgian - lol - well, at least he isn't French, or "Cultural Marxism" would be simultaneously theft, freedom, and impossible. On a similar note, I observe a certain British former colony nationality bias on that page. Perhaps you need a more European outlook, like the UK... oh no, wait...  Tewdar  18:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tewdar/sandbox/page3 - the goal is basically to merge origins and development into a single section, then trim out some of the excessive detail. Obviously it will need approval from a certified non-Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory theorist, so I suppose you should take a look once it takes shape a bit better. 😁👍👌 oh shit no, not that last one, isn't it racist or something oh nooo...  Tewdar  15:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a heads-up regarding the user on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy I noticed you have engaged with them and I believe I should warn you their behavior is highly suspicious. The account is at least 2 years old and aside from a single edit from back then, their activity seems to be limited to that particular talk page. I was told that this is a potential telltale sign of sockpuppet activity. If that's the case it should be looked into. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not aware of any ROGD SPAs, but perhaps one of the lurkers can thing of something. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’d just like to let you know that I’ve gotten over the whole Grover Furr debacle and that I won’t be editing that page any longer since edit warring is a waste of time and does not result in any meaningful progress. 2A0E:CB01:10:3400:44CB:F1CB:98C4:FA4C (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy joining in with the renovations? The article sux, but I'm trying to make it better. You never know, you might even have fun!  Tewdar  12:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have any sources handy, there are a number of deletion discussions going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Article alerts! Also on the RPG side, Doug Kovacs was moved to drafts after AFD, Smuggler's Guide to the Rim was proposed for merging, I moved David Ladyman to draft space after it was redirected, and also SkyRealms Publishing was PRODded at this version and then redirected. BOZ (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for reference. While not unheard of in scientific papers The ultrasound identification of fetal gender at the gestational age of 11–12 weeks - PMC (nih.gov) 'Gender' is only related to 'Social constructs' contextually. When talking about fetuses, and pregnancies, Boy or girl? The difficulties of early gender prediction | Your Pregnancy Matters | UT Southwestern Medical Center (utswmed.org) it's pretty clear that Gender and Sex are interchangeable. Maybe a BRe thing but "Gender Scans" and "Gender Ultrasounds" are common English. (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+ultrasounds%22). JeffUK (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]