User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Closure at Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy
Hi, this isn't a complaint as such, but I don't think your closure of the discussion at Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy was particularly helpful. I personally agree with your conclusion that it's too early, but the only person who'd actually written that in the discussion was Sideswipe9th, so it was hardly a full-on consensus. The other reason for closure was that the discussion had gone off topic. I don't think that was true.
The reason I think it was on-topic is this: the article is about the controversy surrounding a proposed diagnosis that no reputable body believes. Apparently the NHS has taken a stance that shares some ideas with the proposed diagnosis, and a national newspaper has reported on it. Apart from the question of whether it's too soon, there were two big questions to sort out. (1) Do we care what a newspaper says in a medical article? I was trying to make the point that this is not a medical article, it's an article about a medical controversy that's escaped into the wider world. It's a controversy because some people have believed it but the main-stream medical world doesn't. You can't write about a controversy if you can't state the position of both sides. The Telegraph might not be a reliable source on medicine, but it is a reliable source to back up the idea that some people believe in a sort of socially-induced gender dysphoria, and it's those people's beliefs that create a controversy. But (2) the problem we hadn't yet addressed is that the article is about the proposed diagnosis with a very specific name, ROGD. The NHS/Telegraph thing talks about similar concepts but I think doesn't actually use the term ROGD. So we need to decide whether the article is about the general controversy behind the general ideas embodied in ROGD, or whether it's about ROGD as originally proposed, specifically. If the latter (that's my view), then the new NHS/Telegraph stuff is irrelevant.
I do think these things were reasonable subjects of discussion. Yes, some people had started to state their own personal viewpoints on gender dysphoria, and I was rather opposed to that: our job is not to have an opinion, but to reflect what sources say. So I needed to sort out whether it was appropriate to reflect the Telegraph.
The danger of closing a discussion like that too early is that it can look, to controversy-believers and fringe theorists, as though the evil powers behind Wikipedia are trying to stifle discussion.
I'm not asking you to re-open it. I don't think it would make any difference to the article anyway, because no one seems keen to include any of this material (yet). This was just a general rant from me on the closure! I think I felt maybe a little as though I were being accused of using WP to trumpet my own opinion, which I was honestly trying not to do. Hope that's okay? Elemimele (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- That talk page is riddled with FORUM problems and going off topic. My closure is not a statement on your behavior. Several editors agreed with the overall COATRACK sentiment, and that it's a moot point. Indeed, you said
Well if there's nothing particularly relevant to this article in either the Telegraph article, or in the NHS statement, then we shouldn't need to refer to either and the whole question is moot
. Apologies if you felt the closure was unhelpful. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2022
- From the team: A new goose on the roost
- News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment
- Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove
- Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com
- Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?
- Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Dark forest hypothesis
On 2 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dark forest hypothesis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some scientists believe we may live in a "dark forest"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dark forest hypothesis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dark forest hypothesis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:XOR gate on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Re: MEDRS
I'd love to talk in-depth here about the extent of MEDRS on ROGD, if that's okay with you, as I think it's a bit tangential to the specific question of whether the lead should call the practice pseudoscience. But if you'd prefer it to be on that page, or somewhere else, let me know. Either way, I appreciate your willingness to explain this guideline to me, as I've always understood it as one of the "harder" sourcing guidelines out there, closer to (but not quite at the level of) BLP. So it's interesting that that's at odds with consensus. Ovinus (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I tagged Mental health of Asian Americans as requiring more systematic-review sourcing this morning. But maybe the sources in there are actually already adequate? Ovinus (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
ROGD source access
Thanks for the offer to provide some otherwise unavailable ROGD sources. I'll add them here as I run across them. First one, is from Quadrant:
- Connor, M. (2019). An outbreak of rapid onset gender dysphoria. Quadrant, 63(5), 24–27. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.356976168181182 (my ref: 16)
- TERF Wars: Feminism and the fight for transgender futures B Vincent, S Erikainen, R Pearce - 2020 - oro.open.ac.uk; or via G books. (my ref: 26)
Ta, Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- I emailed you the first -- Is this the second? [1]. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Got the first—thanks—and updated the TP accordingly; yes, this is the second; thanks for this one! Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it's moot now, and further rounds of book search, and my final set of web search tests got cut off, because the Rfc has been closed and assessed. It's kind of a relief, actually because I wasn't looking forward to the additional searches, and I'm glad I won't have to do them, now. Thanks for all the constructive feedback and assistance with sources. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Got the first—thanks—and updated the TP accordingly; yes, this is the second; thanks for this one! Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that if you look closely at that RM, you will find that "president" should be lowercased. See MOS:JOBTITLES and its example of "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States" (with lowercase "p"). No one objected to the lowercase suggestion, and no one actually suggested the title that you moved it to. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent point, absolute typo on my part, not intentional. Fixing now — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- fixed, thanks for that, good catch — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks for being receptive to the comment. — BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Flying car discussion
I will not participate in the discussion on Talk:Flying Car which you requested. As it is clear from the discussion at ANI that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and the UCOC do not apply, and that anyone who disagrees is liable to be punished, and that certain editors or their points of view are not allowed to be challenged, it is clear that my presence there is not desirable, and that it will not be welcomed.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- All good, I just wanted to make sure you knew in case you wanted to participate. I make no comment on whether NPA etc should apply, clearly they should but I'm not sure it rises yet to that level on any side or from any user. I would welcome your presence, even if it were only to briefly say whether or not you think the proposal is a good or bad idea. I understand why you might feel unwelcome, even if I very sincerely would want you to feel the opposite. Each of us can and should determine which spaces we feel comfortable enough to participate in. Have a great day — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Since the sources mention that super unhealthy diet as his diet, the article should place more focus on his connection to the diet, and only secondary focus on the daughter's connection with it. I haven't researched this, so I'm wondering if she started using his diet and is suffering the effects. That family seems to be in danger because of that diet. They could suffer both physically and mentally. Have there been such problems? --- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think if you or I started a fad diet and did media appearances and started a podcast about it, we probably would attribute any negative effects to external causes. For example, if I were to have a terrible reaction to COVID-19, or pneumonia, I might attribute it to something other than my diet, even if my diet were partially responsible. We absolutely have no way to know, and we only know what Peterson and his family tell the tabloids. That's why I think it's probably most important that we just report what our sources say, and bring in the mainstream view whenever possible. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I was just curious if you knew more about this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- What I will say, from a medical perspective, is that absolutely the deficit of vitamin C and calcium from a carnivore diet can predispose one to more severe infections. You have to be extremely careful which meats you eat and how fresh... There's a reason why sailors kept limes on 19th century naval ships! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I was just curious if you knew more about this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Shibbolethink,
You can not move a category page as if it was an article or draft. You have to use Categories for Discussion and nominate it for a category rename. Then a bot will recategorize all of the contents of the category to the new name. Please don't move a category page again. It doesn't matter whether the request is from a RM or decided by an RFC, a page title change has to go through CFD so our category bot can handle all of the associated recategorization. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- ah this I did not know or had forgotten. Thank you for the reminder and won't happen again — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)