Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) →Copyediting request: Men's tits and women's clits=== The title suggested by Stephen Jay Gould's wife was not implemented in his essay, I'm sorry to say. |
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) →Men's tits and women's clits: "Tits and clits": "Male nipples and clitoral ripples"=== The [http://books.google.se/books?id=nhIl7e61WOUC&pg=PA767&lpg=PA767&dq=tits+clits,+Stephen+Jay+Gould&source=bl&ots=ZCoy36LYwH&sig=0nXM9V5u6naFKPWX3SGLrUeYKic |
||
Line 249: | Line 249: | ||
:::::::::I don't entirely agree with that, as I don't see an unexplained or wikilinked term such as "bipotential gonadal anlage" as being either necessary or helpful to a general reader. As for "sex" vs "gender", we'll simply have to agree to differ. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::I don't entirely agree with that, as I don't see an unexplained or wikilinked term such as "bipotential gonadal anlage" as being either necessary or helpful to a general reader. As for "sex" vs "gender", we'll simply have to agree to differ. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Okay. And I understand about explaining terms that are not readily and/or easily understood; like I told SilkTork, I'm okay with that, especially if briefly explained in parentheses, as long as we aren't excessive with it, the article remains professional-sounding and the text's meaning isn't changed. As for "sex vs. gender," which has been extensively debated on the Gender talk page, my view on that comes from the reading of a lot of scholarly texts, including [[transgender]] topics. It was also recently echoed by a prominent editor from [[WP:MED]] ([[User:Jmh649|Jmh649]]) when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.234.215.133&diff=503316350&oldid=503315823 speaking to an IP.] But I have acknowledged that the terms are often used interchangeably; I was only pointing out that "gender" is more of a social term. But I understand "agree to disagree," and will shut up about it now, LOL. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
::::::::::Okay. And I understand about explaining terms that are not readily and/or easily understood; like I told SilkTork, I'm okay with that, especially if briefly explained in parentheses, as long as we aren't excessive with it, the article remains professional-sounding and the text's meaning isn't changed. As for "sex vs. gender," which has been extensively debated on the Gender talk page, my view on that comes from the reading of a lot of scholarly texts, including [[transgender]] topics. It was also recently echoed by a prominent editor from [[WP:MED]] ([[User:Jmh649|Jmh649]]) when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.234.215.133&diff=503316350&oldid=503315823 speaking to an IP.] But I have acknowledged that the terms are often used interchangeably; I was only pointing out that "gender" is more of a social term. But I understand "agree to disagree," and will shut up about it now, LOL. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
=== |
==="Tits and clits": "Male nipples and clitoral ripples"=== |
||
The title |
The [http://books.google.se/books?id=nhIl7e61WOUC&pg=PA767&lpg=PA767&dq=tits+clits,+Stephen+Jay+Gould&source=bl&ots=ZCoy36LYwH&sig=0nXM9V5u6naFKPWX3SGLrUeYKic&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=1LQTUNSEEsbQ4QTu04DIDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tits%20clits%2C%20Stephen%20Jay%20Gould&f=false title "tits and clits" of an essay] by [[Stephen Jay Gould]] was vetoed by his publisher, I'm sorry to say. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penyulap]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penyulap]] == |
Revision as of 09:48, 28 July 2012
"It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: [1] that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."
— Extract from Giano's retirement statement
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Precious
forum | |
Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "we need some perspective", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
- Well Deserved! PumpkinSky talk 00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"we need some perspective".One of the most intelligent comments I've heard in a long time on here. If only most of the ANI wiki gods had a good perspective of what is important.. Lack of perspective that we are actually an encyclopedia not a law court is probably one of the biggest site problems in my experience. If they cut their crap and started actually contributing to articles we'd be many times richer as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The perspective that I find is most missing is that the editor behind the online avatar is a real person with feelings and human frailties. It was a real joy to meet Malleus a few months ago, and to experience what a jovial and interesting character he is. How badly this project is let down by those who can't see past their screen and appreciate the other human beings they are interacting with. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The missing perspective seems familiar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hope you are well.PumpkinSky talk 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- The missing perspective seems familiar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Get back to work, Mally; you're welcome in Our House ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Our House ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Celebrate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- ... good sense every now and then (see below) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- We hope for good constellations for you, personally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- May we quote you "The TFA people seem to have given up ..."? - Happy river navigation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Our house is building, perspective: quality, it's open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Appeal for guidance re: leads
I have always been of the opinion that citations in lead sections are usually not required, although WP:LEAD is silent on the matter. I've generally found people agree with me, albeit sometimes after gentle debate. However, I have never seen a discussion on the subject in which there were many participants.
I am yet again in such a discussion. It is amicable enough but I'd be grateful if you or your esteemed stalkers could give me any, erm, leads regarding wider community consensus. I can understand that exceptional circumstances might require one or two such cites, btw, but not a shoebox full of footnotes. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- (stalking) To my knowledge the lead is a summary of the body, should not contain any citations, but everything mentioned there should appear - cited - in the body, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not strictly true. I have very occasionally included some minor factoid in a lead that wasn't covered anywhere else in the article – can't think of an example offhand – and in that case I'd always include a citation. That's never been a problem even at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've just found an example here, in which I use the phrase "pathological fear of premature burial" in the lead, but in the body of the article I simply give the context for that fear, without repeating the diagnosis. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Another example is at Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer), which you reviewed for GA. We agreed that the factoid there could not easily be placed elsewhere in the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's pretty well established at FAC that the lead usually does not contain cites, but can do, in particular for quotes, which my FA's often include in the lead. Also for information not included elsewhere, which can happen (the measurements of a painting for example). Many say that if a lead has cites (other than for quotes maybe) then the whole lead should have cites like any other section; not sure how universal this view is. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good to know. I've had a couple of ledes tagged for "not having citations" when the information did appear, properly cited, in the body of the article. Intothatdarkness 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, many editors, especially if used to shorter articles, just don't know. The WP:LEAD section is enough to see them off. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with Johnbod's position, particularly in regard to quotations, which must be cited wherever they appear, even if that's in the lead. It seems to be a common misconception that citations are forbidden in the lead, but the reality is that they're usually simply unnecessary, as most if not all of the material will be properly cited in the body of the article anyway, so to repeat the citations would be redundant. Bottom line: if the material is cited elsewhere in the article than it's not cited in the lead, except for direct quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the lead does not have to have cites and I usually reinforce that understanding but if the lead can be cited in important (FA) type articles like Ezra Pound for example it's a good idea, while not required. I have cited lead images on occasion usually to clarify some ambiguity...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good to know. I've had a couple of ledes tagged for "not having citations" when the information did appear, properly cited, in the body of the article. Intothatdarkness 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This is turning into quite a useful discussion that I feel may well be used as a reference. We're getting input from what I have referred to as The Great and The Good. I appreciate this very much and perhaps at some point it may result in an amendment to WP:LEAD. This was not my intention at the outset and I have very little experience of formal discussions re: guidelines but I feel that the issue is something that probably should be addressed in an explicit manner in that guideline even though there are obvious exceptions (quotes, one-offs etc). Provided that Malleus does not object, please do keep those thoughts coming. If ever I propose an amendment then perhaps it would be ok to refer to it here? Or even refer it to here? - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object at all, although rather than the "Great and the Good" I'd probably have said The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And please, nobody point out that in a competition for the Bad part I'd be a shoe in. Even I have feelings. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- How convenient of you to find some fancy schmancy title that leaves me out. I don't think anyone ever paid money to see The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Beautiful Dutchman. Malleus, at the risk of looking like a fool, I think I would like for you to have a look at an RfC I closed on Talk:H. G. Wells, if you have a moment--I know full well that you probably have an opinion and a dozen reference books on your side, and I don't mind being corrected. Well, I do, but it's for the greater good, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- H. G. Wells is one of my favourite authors, so I'll probably have an opinion. One of my prized possessions is a Wells anthology given to me as a prize when I came top of my third form (I'm not sure how to translate that into US, maybe that would be 9th-grade?) But where's the RfC? Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Talk:H._G._Wells#Possessive_with_an_s_ending. Funny--I just noticed H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), without "s". Drmies (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I had a rather similar discussion on the Robert Burns talk page almost five years ago now, in which I came down on the side of "Burns's,"[2], but looking again at the article a few minutes I see it's still inconsistent. It should obviously be "Wells's", and even Fowler agrees, considering the "Wells' form to be old-fashioned and appropriate only for "verse and ... poetic or reverential contexts". But there seems to be a great deal of resistance to writing the possessive forms of words ending "s" correctly here on Wikipedia, and I'm certain that if I changed all of the "Burns'" back to "Burns's" World War III would break out. I blame the teachers. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the tinker in me forced me to change all of the "Burns'" to "Burns's" (the article wasn't consistent anyway), so I guess my next stop will be ArbCom (again). MalleusFatuorum 23:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I had a rather similar discussion on the Robert Burns talk page almost five years ago now, in which I came down on the side of "Burns's,"[2], but looking again at the article a few minutes I see it's still inconsistent. It should obviously be "Wells's", and even Fowler agrees, considering the "Wells' form to be old-fashioned and appropriate only for "verse and ... poetic or reverential contexts". But there seems to be a great deal of resistance to writing the possessive forms of words ending "s" correctly here on Wikipedia, and I'm certain that if I changed all of the "Burns'" back to "Burns's" World War III would break out. I blame the teachers. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Talk:H._G._Wells#Possessive_with_an_s_ending. Funny--I just noticed H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), without "s". Drmies (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- H. G. Wells is one of my favourite authors, so I'll probably have an opinion. One of my prized possessions is a Wells anthology given to me as a prize when I came top of my third form (I'm not sure how to translate that into US, maybe that would be 9th-grade?) But where's the RfC? Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- How convenient of you to find some fancy schmancy title that leaves me out. I don't think anyone ever paid money to see The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Beautiful Dutchman. Malleus, at the risk of looking like a fool, I think I would like for you to have a look at an RfC I closed on Talk:H. G. Wells, if you have a moment--I know full well that you probably have an opinion and a dozen reference books on your side, and I don't mind being corrected. Well, I do, but it's for the greater good, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough, WP:CITELEAD contains good, reasoned advice. The only other point that I haven't seen mentioned is that the lead should introduce and define the topic as well as summarise the body of the article - which implies that some of the content of the lead (i.e. intro/definition) may not be covered further in the article and hence may be challengeable content that requires citation in its own right. Before I forget: no surprise, Malleus, you had loads of friends at Wikimania! Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. I've always found the notion that the lead should be only a summary of the article to be rather simple minded. As for my friends at Wkimania, all I can say is that I'm not aware of any other organisation that progressively punishes its workers the more they try to improve its product. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the "only a summary" comes back to another problematic caste article. At Caste system in Kerala (you really, really do not want to know the details if you are struggling with Caste system in India!), I have recently made the point to someone who wants to extend the scope that if we do extend then we need to define what it is thatt reliable sources consider the caste system actually to be ... and that is, of course, a can of worms per my recent response to you on my talk page. A lot of this is basic examination stuff, or at least it was back in my schooldays: you begin an exposition by defining the scope of the subject/question. I will now completely befuddle you by pointing out that the Indian caste system, which many consider to be a Hindu concept, actually embraces Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. Perhaps some Buddhists also. How the hell we sort this type of mess out with resorting to highly dubious internal links to equally unstable articles or extreme bloat is one of the big challenges for me. Thankfully, I have to sleep from time to time and can forget all about it. Except I cannot - it is a bloody nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Gulliver's travels
Remember the Big-endians versus the Little-endians in Gulliver's travels? Well, you may have thought it was a bit far-fetched but it's all being played out for real at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#The/the ... again. I can't believe I let myself get drawn in at the beginning, but I've since extricated myself and I'm just watching it from the sidelines as it gets more and more surreal. Richerman (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's the trouble with consensus, it's very difficult to get one even on clear-cut trivia such as this example. Someone should just be given the authority to make binding decisions, preferably me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it true that when Rem Koolhaas complained after a journalist wrote an article about him, which was full of errors, the journalist replied that it was Koolhaas' fault, for not editing the Wikipedia article to remove the errors? Ning-ning (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I saw it mentioned in the Straight Dope. Wikipedia saved me £200 last week; an unreferenced sentence in Kurt Schwitters stopped me bidding on a collage at a provincial auction. Ning-ning (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I watched a programme on TV a few months ago about the trade in fake autographs. One poor chap who'd spent tens of thousands of pounds on his collection was gutted to learn when they were examined by an expert that almost every single one were fakes, and some of them pretty obvious fakes too. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry!
Sorry I have not been here, i have been rather busy! I will fix the 2 issues yet to be fixed. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Im going to get past reviewers of the past FA nominations to have a look at the article. Some reviewers passed it on the second go, so I think I should get them involved, allowing us to get more "Supports". Once again, I cant begin to thank you on your edits to Poppy. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Copy Edit of the Month contest
I know you're not a fan of the Guild of Copy Editors, but I thought you'd be interested to hear about a new event I've set up for the project. It's located here, and it's basically the opposite of the monthly copy editing drives, in that it focuses on quality over quantity. Hopefully, it will encourage people to share their knowledge and improve their skills, by allowing for a back and forth discussion of the copy editing process. Perhaps you would be interested in submitting some of your excellent work there as a way to help educate other editors. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not a fan of competitions in general, unless there's something real to be won. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you would be willing to comment on or critique others' submissions, in that case. It's really just an excuse for people to share copy editing efforts and get feedback. But if you're not interested, I understand; I know you have a lot on your plate. —Torchiest talkedits 22:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hug
Giving is getting | |
Pesky |
- ... and, while we're cuddling, your views (or ideally, improvements) on the actual clarity of this stuff would be much appreciated. The idea is not my baby, though I appear inadvertently to have adopted it from its biological parent. Pesky (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Melford Stevenson
Lord Denning once, rather unnecessarily, repeated in full an insult thrown at Stevenson by a defendant after sentence had been passed: "You are a humourless automaton. Why don't you self-destruct?" (Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] Q.B. 73, for the lawyers among us). Mr Balogh's sin had been to plot to disrupt a tedious pornography trial in an adjoining court to Stevenson's by injecting laughing gas; Stevenson said that this was contempt of court, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. Elsewhere in a Westlaw search I find Lord Bingham paying tribute to his predecessor as Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, by saying that Stevenson, "who was no mean judge of these things, considered [Taylor] so good a defence advocate as to threaten the administration of justice." And one of his extra-judicial comments was quoted by the media companies intervening in the European Court of Human Rights proceedings of Mosley v United Kingdom: "I believe that newsworthiness is a firm realisation of the fact that there's nothing so much the average Englishman enjoys on a Sunday morning - particularly a Sunday morning - as to read a bit of dirt" (their full submission is here). Probably nothing usable for the article, but thought these points might amuse you! BencherliteTalk 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd come across that Denning one before, but part of the trouble with Stevenson is there are so many good quotes, and it's impossible to include all of them. Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- John had asked me to take a look at the article. My thoughts and suggestions are on my talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyediting request
Hello, Malleus Fatuorum. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind copyediting the Clitoris article, which is currently nominated for WP:GA status. GA reviewer SilkTork has been clear that the copyediting of this article "will need to be subtle and careful," and has recommended you. The article has been put on hold for the standard initial seven days, but will be extended beyond that if needed, to allow time for the copyediting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try and take a look through over the next few days, but tell me, what does this mean? "The clitoris is present in most mammiferous female animals, and is especially developed in apes, rabbits, spider monkeys, etc., and other carnivorous female animals besides the spotted hyena." Does it mean "except for the spotted hyena" or "as well as the spotted hyena", as it was specifically mentioned in the preceding sentence? And does that mean especially well developed, as "especially developed could mean absolutely anything? Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I see that you've already gotten started. If you are asking what "mammiferous" means, it means "having breasts or mammae." Saying "female" in this case may seem redundant, but breasts are not only a female feature. "Especially developed" means "larger," sometimes including a scrotum-like aspect. "Besides" means "as well as." The previous sentence used to touch on the fact that the clitoris is more developed in the spotted hyena than in other animals, if we consider "more developed" to mean "acting more like a penis," but SilkTork changed that (although he is unsure about the change in that edit summary). Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, I know what "mammiferous" means, but in the context of the sentence I quoted "besides" could reasonably have been interpreted to mean either "except for" or "as well as". But if it means "as well as" in this instance, then why mention the spotted hyena again anyway? And the word "especially" carries no implication of "larger" as far as I'm concerned; it could alternatively mean that the complexity of the clitoral structures had increased, or they had become more enervated.
- Thank you. I see that you've already gotten started. If you are asking what "mammiferous" means, it means "having breasts or mammae." Saying "female" in this case may seem redundant, but breasts are not only a female feature. "Especially developed" means "larger," sometimes including a scrotum-like aspect. "Besides" means "as well as." The previous sentence used to touch on the fact that the clitoris is more developed in the spotted hyena than in other animals, if we consider "more developed" to mean "acting more like a penis," but SilkTork changed that (although he is unsure about the change in that edit summary). Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, the main problem with the lead as it stands, as I mentioned in one of my edit summaries, is that it needs to be a paragraph longer, summarising the development and structure sections. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I was going by one of the sources when I added "especially" and the sources are speaking of "large" and "larger" or, also in the case of the spotted hyena, having a "false scrotum." As the article currently says, "Detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris in non-human animals are significantly rare." So, aside from the spotted hyena, researchers don't know if there are more complex clitoral structures in other animals than in humans. But I understand what you mean about the vagueness of "especially developed." The same goes for "well-developed," but you did add "particularly" in front of it when adding it, and sicking with "particularly well-developed" seems better than sticking with "especially developed."
- Anyway, the main problem with the lead as it stands, as I mentioned in one of my edit summaries, is that it needs to be a paragraph longer, summarising the development and structure sections. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the "Whether or not the clitoris is vestigial or serves a reproductive function has also been the subject of debate." line you added to the lead, I consider it covered by the following line: "The debates have primarily focused on anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-Spot, as well as their possible biological function." But I guess it's not as clear as I considered since you added a line to specifically address it.
- I'm easy. You obviously know the material better than me, but I'll happily have a go at it if you'd rather. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Re your comment about the need for any copyediting to be "subtle and careful", are you happy with the kind of changes I've made so far? Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd rather you give it a go, especially since you're copyediting the article, LOL. I'll correct any mistakes that appear with the addition, but you should be fine by just lifting something from the article text -- what you feel needs summarizing.
- It seemed to me to be an interesting point that wasn't covered in the lead, even though there's a subsection on vestigiality in the article. It's just about making the lead a better summary of the article as well of the topic, but if you're convinced that it's unnecessary I probably wouldn't fight you over it, although I certainly don't think that vestigiality is implied by anything in the previous sentence. As a general rule of thumb I try to include at least a snippet from each significant section/subsection. As a matter of interest, why are there so many citations in the lead? Is that material not properly cited in the body of the article? (I haven't read the whole article yet, so I don't know.) Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've mentioned that the vestigiality topic is covered by the previous line; this is because the vestigiality discussion is about whether or not the clitoris is just for sexual pleasure or whether or not it has, or used to have, a biological function -- "biological" as in "reproductive." But perhaps it should be worked into that line by mentioning "vestigiality" somewhere. As for including a "snippet from each significant section/subsection," I take it that you mean a summary of the most important/major aspects of the article? That's what I've done, aside from including a paragraph of the clitoris's structure in the lead (which you will be incorporating). But I only stick to the most important/major aspects...per WP:LEAD. As for citations in the lead, I am also following WP:LEAD. Whether or not to include citations in the lead is a case-by-case matter, usually a personal choice, and I feel that such a contentious topic as this should have a well-sourced lead. For years on this site, I've seen enough editors add citation tags for things that are clearly cited lower in the article, and I'd rather not have to worry about that with this article or any article I have heavily edited.
- As you may have seen already, although the terms are often used interchangeably, I changed this back to "sex" because "sex" is more about biological/anatomical aspects, while "gender" is more about social aspects. Both articles showcase this. Furthermore, most sources on this topic use "sex"...including the ones backing this text in the article.
- As for the technical language, I don't know what more to state on that other than what I've already stated on it. The technical language is only used where it needs to be, and many other medical and/or anatomical articles, such as HIV/AIDS, use technical language (more than this article in the case of HIV/AIDS). SilkTork took care of a bit of the technical wording, either by having me change things or changing things himself, but most of it cannot be reworded to where we are discarding the technical terms (which, as I stated, have Wikipedia links to explain what they are). Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't entirely agree with that, as I don't see an unexplained or wikilinked term such as "bipotential gonadal anlage" as being either necessary or helpful to a general reader. As for "sex" vs "gender", we'll simply have to agree to differ. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. And I understand about explaining terms that are not readily and/or easily understood; like I told SilkTork, I'm okay with that, especially if briefly explained in parentheses, as long as we aren't excessive with it, the article remains professional-sounding and the text's meaning isn't changed. As for "sex vs. gender," which has been extensively debated on the Gender talk page, my view on that comes from the reading of a lot of scholarly texts, including transgender topics. It was also recently echoed by a prominent editor from WP:MED (Jmh649) when speaking to an IP. But I have acknowledged that the terms are often used interchangeably; I was only pointing out that "gender" is more of a social term. But I understand "agree to disagree," and will shut up about it now, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't entirely agree with that, as I don't see an unexplained or wikilinked term such as "bipotential gonadal anlage" as being either necessary or helpful to a general reader. As for "sex" vs "gender", we'll simply have to agree to differ. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Tits and clits": "Male nipples and clitoral ripples"
The title "tits and clits" of an essay by Stephen Jay Gould was vetoed by his publisher, I'm sorry to say. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hurry, threats of snow. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Moving
Noting you have undone my edit to the positioning of the pics on the Southport page. Could you assist me with where I went wrong, please? Thanks Lowthen (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)