Newimpartial (talk | contribs) |
→Alert: new section Tag: contentious topics alert |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
In any event, please don't make unsubstantiated and invalid accusations of canvassing as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=909430867&oldid=909430738 here], since they violate CIVIL and poison the discourse of a DS topic area. 11:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
In any event, please don't make unsubstantiated and invalid accusations of canvassing as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=909430867&oldid=909430738 here], since they violate CIVIL and poison the discourse of a DS topic area. 11:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Alert == |
|||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. |
|||
For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons|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. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> |
|||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. |
|||
For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate|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. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> |
|||
--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:09, 5 August 2019
Regarding “expected” in Richlin
Okay, I’ve now bothered pulling Amy Richlin’s The Garden of Priapus off my shelf and having a look at page 225, in reference to your recent edits at Sexuality in Ancient Rome and Homosexuality in ancient Rome. I don’t think your reading is particularly apt. That is, I don’t believe we can legitimately conclude that the “expected” from our articles is being extracted directly from Richlin’s text, let alone from the context of her usage. I deem it substantially more likely that “expected” is being used to interpret what is otherwise said on that page—as on the next page as well, for that matter. I also deem that a perfectly reasonable and even obvious interpretation. I see no need for alteration of any kind. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Might be interested in weighing in on the Sexual fluidity article
Hi, Crossroads1. You definitely don't strike me as exactly new or even relatively new to editing. By this, I mean that I sense that you edited Wikipedia before getting your Crossroads1 account. But given your work at the Human male sexuality article and interest in sexual topics, I'm wondering if you are interested in weighing in on the latest discussion at Talk:Sexual fluidity. The article does need a lot of work; it was significantly built by WP:Student editing. And I never got around to fixing it up the way it should be fixed up. I also know that my lead edits weren't perfect there. If you join the discussion and want to note there that I invited you to join, then do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing it out. I have commented over there. Thanks for trying to improve that page. I had done very little editing prior to this account actually, but I did lurk for a while. So far I find that student edited material pushes hard for weird POVs, probably because they think they are writing a paper. Eventually I think the term 'essentialism' should be removed from the sexual fluidity page; it is not used in science but originates in decades old debates in the humanities of essentialism vs. social constructionism. Social constructionism is an extreme nurture only position in the nature vs. nurture debate; I suspect "essentialism" was made up by them as a strawman/insult. Pretty much all scientists are interested in how nature and nurture interact; as the Bailey paper and other recent sources show, nurture's influence on sexual orientation is minimal. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Breasts
Hey, Crossroads1. I couldn't help but see your edit to the Breast article and then look at your contributions since we are both currently debating at Talk:Woman and are interested in similar topics. I see that you are currently working on breast content in your sandbox. For the "this holds true across cultures" part, I would word it as "this holds true for different cultures" since the source is WP:Primary and looks at four cultures. Also, as addressed in the Breast fetishism article, men's sexual attraction to breasts are debated. A number of authors do discuss society having influenced modern-day sexual attraction to breasts, since there is some difference with regard to history and it's not an object of sexual desire in some cultures. I'm sure you will want to work on the Breast fetishism article.
I want to state something about the following piece as well: "In women, stimulation of the nipple results in activation of the brain's genital sensory cortex. This explains why many women find nipple stimulation arousing and why some women are able to orgasm by nipple stimulation alone." I'd change "results in activation of the brain's genital sensory cortex" to "seems to result in activation of the brain's genital sensory cortex" since the research is thus far only based on Komisaruk et al.'s research and the source uses the word seem. And I'd change "This explains why" to "This is one reason why" or "This may be one reason why" since, again, this is thus far only based on Komisaruk et al.'s research, and other research indicates different reasons that women get pleasure from nipple stimulation. I'd also add "the same region of the brain activated by stimulation of the clitoris, vagina, and cervix" (or similar) in parentheses after "genital sensory cortex" to briefly explain to readers what that means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the input. I hadn't yet finished adding refs at that time; but I have changed it to say "a variety of cultures" so I am not making an implicit claim of universality, but it is true in many parts of the world and even includes (some?) foragers. Society has an impact, but I think it is implausible and against the evidence that attraction to breasts is totally learned, no matter how much some social theorists wish it were so. Of course, Western culture does view exposed breasts differently than tribes where women are topless, as I said society does have an impact. I followed your other suggestions (although I think "may be" is enough hedging instead of "may be one reason why"). However putting "seem" may not have been necessary as the statements regarding brain wiring like my statement were not hedged in this way. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Functional and Dysfunctional Sexual Behavior (Elsevier, 2007)
Regarding this, I don't care that it's been removed, but what part of it states that sexual orientation is learned? I'm not sure if I read that book before. Also, keep in mind that when sources talk about the social aspect with regard to sexual orientation, they don't always mean learned behavior. In fact, in the vast majority of cases these days, it's not what they mean since scientists generally agree that sexual orientation is not learned. They mean some interaction with social environment, a nature and nurture type of thing. We can see in the Nature versus nurture article that the article doesn't only talk about learning with respect to environmental influence. Scientists think that sexual orientation has some complex interplay with biology and social environment, but they are definitely with the belief that biology contributes significantly more so to the development of sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say here, but see his summary on page 376: [1] The source is clearly out of step with scientific consensus. I recognized this source as it is the same one I removed from the article Human sexuality. Crossroads1 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. Well, part of the source's title is "A Synthesis of Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology." The author is clearly putting a personal spin on the matter, and that includes quite clearly stating "I." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Postmodern philosophy
I notice that you've referred to Postmodern philosophy several times at Talk:Woman. The way that you've used it makes me suspect that you mean it as a shorthand for "all this nonsense that's come up in the last couple of decades" rather than a reference to the actual field.
As I understand it, the field could be summarized as "I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that" or maybe "I'm not certain what's true, but I can prove that the story you're telling is false". (In one sense, postmodernism is a sort of scientific approach, since in science, it's okay to tell people what's wrong with their ideas even if you haven't got anything better to replace it with.) The popularity of (actual) postmodern philosophy certainly annoyed the traditional philosophers back in the day (because which of us like having people poke holes in our worldview, especially when our careers and self-identities are wrapped up in being smart and logical?), but it's not just some internet insult, and I think it would be good not to use that term in discussions on Wikipedia as a synonym for nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that "postmodernism" is not a synonym for nonsense but has specific meanings. I was using it as defined in our article on postmodernism because it is foundational to gender studies. I do regret having used it so casually as I can see how it gives the wrong impression. For example Jordan Peterson and other conservatives use it as a snarl word; I am liberal and think this is an appropriation (hah) of legitimate criticism (most of which is by liberals) for political ends. That is why I made this comment. An excellent starting point for critique of postmodernism and allied ideas which I recommend is What Science Offers the Humanities by Edward Slingerland. [2] This is the kind of angle I am coming from.
- You state that it is 'sort of a scientific approach.' This isn't really accurate; science relies heavily on testability, falsification, and quantification. On the other hand, you are right that science can find what is wrong even if it is unsure what is right. Critics of science often overlook that it is non-dogmatic and all about complexity, rejects overgeneralizations, and so on.
- It's certainly okay to point out what's wrong even if one don't know what's right, but where postmodernism took a wrong turn is taking skepticism and relativism too far.
- So, I used the term correctly, but will probably be more careful doing so in the future to avoid misunderstanding. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- As you noted, one quality that post-modernism seems to have in common with proper science is that post-modernism seems to spend a good deal of time telling the other branches of philosophy that they're wrong. "Oh, you think that such-and-such is true? Well, that isn't true for my hairy green ball thing, so your grand theory is wrong."
- I suppose that we should wander back over to Woman some time to add some well-sourced information. I've been feeling like taking WP:TNT to the ==Terminology== section, but I'm pretty sure that's an over-reaction that I should resist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
About your reverting my edition in Empathy article
Hello!
You've recently reverted my edition in Empathy article. I inform you that I used the phrase from the cited article: "The results showed a small overall advantage in favour of females on emotion recognition tasks (d = 0.19)." ([3]) The word "small" is used the cited research. Why then you deleted it? The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Declaration of other accounts
In the light of your account only becoming "active" in June 2019, along with the facts that your edits appear to show significant overlap with a sock puppet master that you are already aware of, along with the unusual "startup editing pattern" for your account, could you please confirm any and all other accounts you have created or edited from on the English Wikipedia.
If you prefer to declare other accounts privately to an Arbcom member for some reason, that would be legitimate per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, but given recent events it would be reasonable for you to state that this has happened. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Accusation of CANVASsing
Please distinguish between a policy-conpliant neutral notification, like this one, and canvassing. Not only was my notice neutrally worded with respect to both discussions, but as your "side" has characterized the discussion (inaccurately) as a conflict between lesbians and trans people, people interested in BOTH lesbian and Trans issues are included in the LGBT topic area. I would of course be happy for those in the Feminism subject area to he notified as well, or the gender studies topic, but I went with the sharp ends of the stick as it were.
In any event, please don't make unsubstantiated and invalid accusations of canvassing as you did here, since they violate CIVIL and poison the discourse of a DS topic area. 11:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Alert
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.