User talk:Crossroads/2022, 1st half

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Surnames

Regarding this edit: I suggest not calling explanations regarding surnames "pointless boring trivia". I feel it distracts from the rest of your argument, which doesn't depend on it. Thanks for your consideration. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll save my strong opinion on that for my talk page, heh. I revised that part and added additional clarifications. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't think knowing someone's surname is trivia, but I appreciate your removing the adjectives. Thanks for your co-operation! isaacl (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

RS, facts, opinions (uncontested or otherwise), and epistemology

Something you said in this comment at WT:WTW really approaches the realm of epistemology (which kind of underlies things like WP:V, but we finesse that at Wikipedia, as we inevitably have to, with WP:RS—but I digress...) and immediately reminded me of a great course by Steven L. Goldman called The Science Wars which was one of the most fascinating I've encountered. (Don't be put off by the prices at the website; they have steep discounts annually, and if you have a free Kanopy account (which you should) you might have free access to it when they run occasional specials.) Probably a lot more discussions or arguments at Wikipedia dance around this topic without ever necessarily bringing it up directly, but it's really core, and I wish it were more widely part of our curriculum. In any case, if you haven't delved into it, whether via Goldman or some other avenue, I think you'd really enjoy it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the recommendation. I appreciate it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your reversion on sexual intercourse

Oops! I seriously didn't properly consider what implications the word actually had. How stupid. Well thank you for your quick reversion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the context really helps with this title... 😉 2605:8D80:600:B790:1962:A56E:E9C3:62E1 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Transfeminine lactation

There was an edit conflict between https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_reproduction&oldid=1080417199 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_reproduction&oldid=1080417579 can we address whether any of what I added then is WP:MEDRS and how to move forward with this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Gonna comment on the article talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR archive page

Crossroads, I was disappointed (though not surprised) by your comments here, as noted here. You quite transparently applied one set of standards to sources supporting your position and a different standard to those opposing it, by excluding attributed statements using "transgender people" but including attributed statements and even quotes using "transgender issues". The obvious interpretations of this are incompetence or TENDentious behaviour, but perhaps you have another explanation (BATTLEFIELD motivation not really offering an excuse IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that you opened that section by claiming that Most sources don't frame it as about "people" because it wasn't directed at specific people or at trans people as a group, but was largely about policies or understandings of gender and gender transition, and related terminology. We now know that your main claim there is false not demonstrably true, but what is more telling perhaps is your "because" clause. If anyone else had said something equivalent to "because it wasn't directed at specific people or at trans people as a group, but was largely about policies or understandings of gender and gender transition, and related terminology" - without providing evidence - that would be exactly the kind of thing you would be calling "SYNTH" and "OR". But when you do it, apparently it is fine? I don't know how to characterize that behaviour on your part, but it certainly doesn't contribute positively to a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Replied here. If I was applying a double standard in bad faith to mislead I clearly would be pretty dumb in doing so because I did so with the quotes right there pasted by my own self previously. It's been a long, long discussion, and we're all busy. I went by memory in describing the 10, which I should have double-checked, and a lot of the sources are vague as to whether it's in their own voice or not. But clearly, to move forward we need to wait for draft 3. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think you were applying a double standard in bad faith to mislead. I think this was WP:BATTLEFIELD. I think that, at the time you opened the section, you believed both your major claim and your "because" clause were true. And when you provided your sources, you believed that they would be "better" (in terms of number, or quality, or being unbiased, or geographical representation, or whatever) than sources using "people". And when I provided a comparable array of sources that did use "people", as promised, your priority was on finding a way to swat some of them down, rather than making a calm comparison to the sources you had provided. I may be wrong, of course, but that's what I think happened. BATTLEFIELD. Newimpartial (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, and that's not necessarily indicative of a BATTLEFIELD mentality anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

DSM-5-TR in Wikipedia Library

Hey. Thought you might be interested, as it was pointed out to me earlier that the DSM-5-TR text is accessible through WP:WIKILIB, just in case you need any other chapters from it. Just watch out for falling down the APA vs APA rabbit hole. Why oh why couldn't they have picked different acronyms ey? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, good to know, thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For the work on J.K. Rowling to get a difficult section just as it should be. Well done! I'm extremely impressed. Victoria (tk) 23:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus about plural of estrogen

The archived talk page that you put in the estrogen talk page for the name/classification where the editors reached consensus the reasons for the consensus are bad, one of the worst is quote "For simplicity and consistency with the article title" I do not believe that we should try to simplify this as biology should not be simplified, but most importantly just because they reached consensus about using the singular form of estrogens doesn't mean they were correct about using the singular form. ForestMade (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Username

Hey, does your username have anything to do with the state of Indiana? I was just wondering because I spent my early youth there, and remember the state motto. Huggums537 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that actually. It's unrelated. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you re: Eric Feigl-Ding

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your edits on Eric Feigl-Ding. I have not had bandwidth to edit recently but really appreciate your attempts to remove clear bias in the article. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, GlobeGores. I have also been too busy to really do much with the article, but if you do get the chance to work on some of the identified issues, I'll support that. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Jack Monroe and Boots theory

Hey. With regards to this edit, are you sure we should be using she/her pronouns there? Jack's social media states "they/she" which I believes indicates a first preference for they/them over she/her. I've tried checking the MOS, but the closest I can find to guidance is a bullet point under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender_identity#Best practices (point 6) which just covers the more general use of singular they. Is there some guidance I've missed somewhere, or have we not actually got guidance on this point as of yet? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit was first and foremost to harmonize the pronouns used within the article, and I chose the ones that matched Wikipedia's article on Jack Monroe. It's clear from that article and its talk page that the editors there have put thought into that choice. In a case where someone puts "they/she" in their profile but never specifies that they do in fact prefer the former, I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides of which to use, but I didn't concern myself with that and simply chose to eliminate the inconsistency. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed on edit summary

Hey. Could I get a citation for this edit summary? Ideally a review paper if one exists. That seems interesting, and it's not something I'm aware of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I figured it was common knowledge that in primate societies there are differences between males and females in terms how they get treated by other individuals, often having to do with their own sex (i.e. males treat males differently than females, etc.) but I did a quick search and you may find this interesting. It's not an academic paper, so I would not want it used in an article as a citation when academic papers exist, but for your own interest you may like it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

(ₜₐₗₖ ₚₐgₑ ᵥᵢₛᵢₜₒᵣ) I fiddled with it a bit. What do you think?  Tewdar  14:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Reversal of content at "Feminist views on transgender topics"

Hello,

I have relevant doubts about your recent ammendment of my edition at Feminist views on transgender topics.

1) How is information on key points by extremely influential feminist authors and sexologists (Butler, Fausto-Sterling, etc) that expand and develop Dworkin's argument on the non-binary character of sex "tangent material of no clear relevance to feminism and transgender topics"? Is the fact that sex has been posited (in highly discussed and cited work) as a social and political construct, as well as no longer conceived of as distinctly binary by biologists, not relevant for feminist discussions of trans issues? In fact, the majority of those authors are themselves feminist authors making influential contributions to those discussions.

2) Concerning neutrality,

-A book (Janice Raymond's) that says among other things to want to "wipe out of existence" transgender issues, and that is notoriously the founding work of modern transphobia within feminism, cannot be labeled as "openly transphobic"?

-The notoriety of figures like Miyares and Falcón in these debates is indeed due to much more than opposition to a law, and owes a great deal of it to "blatantly transphobic stances that found echo in conservative sectors" (e.g. intentionally referring to trans women as "dudes", linking them to pedophilia or calling them a "mutant sect", as properly referenced in the sources included there, in case you did check them out.)

-Similarly, it is hard for me to understand how it is not neutral to label as "trans-exclusionary" very openly and explicitly trans-exclusionary authors like Jeffreys or Greer.

Thanks for the feedback --Ideator 2.0 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Lede of Conversion therapy

Howdy! I agree that specifying some form of "non-heterosexual to heterosexual" and "non-cisgender to cisgender" is important for clarity in the opening sentence, but I empathize with the IP editor's concern that homosexual or bisexual is not sufficiently inclusive. Notably, asexual people are also targets of conversion therapy.. How do you feel about this edit, which replaces all mention of specific identity/orientation labels with just LGBT (i.e. attempting to change an LGBT individual's sexual orientation to heterosexual, or their gender identity to cisgender), which echoes earlier revisions (which literally spelled out lesbian, gay, or bisexual ... transgender, but can be construed as more inclusive than just listing those labels. Thoughts? RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(Addendum: there is now a discussion on the article's talk page). RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 07:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

References

DSM and ICD licensing, and paraphrasing

Hey. I just wanted to make you aware of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Paraphrasing DSM and ICD criteria if you hadn't already seen it. I know you're a big fan of sticking closely if not verbatim to the source text in medical articles, but in this case we may need to paraphrase due to how those texts are licensed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm probably just going to let editors who have a lot of experience with copyright fix the issues where needed (and try not to create any new ones). Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)