User:Pincrete/sandbox

Crap
*The interesting aspect of being WP:WIKIHOUNDED by a POV apologist for Islam and Islamism is the way your interpretations of policy change depending on whether the article appears to you to show Islam and/or Islamism is a favorable or negative light.

Irreversible Damage
Regarding this edit, and it's revert, I believe that the removed text is unnecessary, confusing, PoV and its absence does not offend any MOS:GENDERID provisions. The text attempts to clarify that when the author writes about "adolescent girls", she is "referring to teenagers assigned female at birth". Why on earth would "adolescent girls", need clarifying?

Firstly, although relatively trivial, 'adolescent' and 'teenager' are not synonyms. Their usage overlaps a good deal, but 'adolescence' is a biologically linked physical and mental developmental stage, which frequently begins before 13, while 'teenager' is simply an age term, which extends - at 19 - into legal and social adulthood in most societies.

I have read some, but not all of the talk discussion about this and agree with much that argues for its exclusion or rephrasing. Policies about misgendering relate to individual's expressed wishes, not to editorial assumptions about whole groups. Besides, no misgendering occurs, those who identify as transgender are called that, whereas the others, those in the group in which the transgender students previously appeared, are called "adolescent girls" thus the non-transgender "girls" are distinguished, with the transgender ones not being gendered at all. Futhermore, the text is explicitly a quote from the author, which would only justify any qualifying text if its meaning were unclear or ambiguous. To most readers, it is actually the 'qualifying text' which is less clear, and the addition is actually comes across as  WP:EDITORIALISING

However, even if text to qualify/clarify what is meant by "adolescent girls" is felt to be necessary, given the sensitivities of the topic area, I find it difficult to imagine a more confusing and PoV 'qualifying' text than that employed at present - "adolescent girls" in the 2010s, referring to teenagers assigned female at birth. AFAB confuses, rather than clarifies what is meant by 'girls'. It is simply not widely understood or used terminology outside of debates around trans issues, it is jargon at best. Furthermore, given that the very purpose of the book is to challenge much of the concepts and terminology around trans issues, it is perverse to use that very terminology to 'explain' the content of the book. It is rather as if laissez-faire free-market capitalism were being expounded using Maoist terminology (or vice-versa). To compound the error the 'qualifying' text is cited to the book itself - as though the AFAB terminology were used in the book, which I strongly doubt (I haven't read the book, but have read the author's intro which details her use of pronouns and terms).

Overall, I think the 'clarification' text is a clumsy intervention, which does nothing to clarify the author's use of terminology or the contents of the book. Pincrete (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

She describes what she sees as difficulties facing teenagers who were assigned female at birth, whom she refers to as "girls"

FGM
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&diff=next&oldid=1127399378

is the cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons.

is the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.

Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons (WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, 1997).

Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option (token/ purely symbolic) "Group Backs Ritual 'Nick' as Female Circumcision Option"-The New York Times, 6 May 2010

ritual good mornings - routine / perfunctory / half-hearted

No source uses 'ritual' as part of the definition

Some of the supposed victims of ritual murder — William of Norwich, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, St. Christopher of La Guardia and Simon of Trent — were canonized … Spain’s Toledo Cathedral has a fresco depicting the alleged ritual murder of Christopher of La Guardia near one of its exits — on one side a malevolent man is dragging away a child, while on the other the child is being crucified

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
Article:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Principle source The plot to bring down Britain's planes, A documentary broadcast on UK Channel 4 (also prev. available on National Geographic in US/elsewhere where it was titled Liquid Bomb Plot).

Secondary sources, reviews and articles about this documentary, mainly in UK press.

This documentary was shown on UK Ch4 in 2012 (broadcast delayed because of the three trials related to the case and UK laws prohibiting broadcast of possibly 'prejudicial' material in an ongoing prosecution). The documentary featured numerous lengthy interviews with named senior UK Police, John Reid, the then UK Home Secretary and then senior US anti-terrorist figures, most notably Michael Hayden and Michael Chertoff. The documentary largely confirmed info already in the public sphere (and in the article). It also reveals some new details about the UK operation(such as how the UK police became suspicious of these individuals and how they concluded that aircraft were the proposed targets). This is fairly uncontroversial detail.

More controversial are disagreements between US and UK authorities about timing (US thought that Britain should 'close down' the plot immediately, UK police wanted to continue surveillance a little longer, since they thought that implementation of the plot was not imminent and because they needed to collect more evidence, calculating that a failed prosecution was the likely outcome of their then evidential state and releasing the plotters 'back onto the street', had its own dangers. Though they had by this point decided to make a coordinated swoop on all suspects and locations 5 days later).

The documentary presents what key US figures did in response at this point, and the consequences to the UK operation.

The main source in question is the actual words of 'key players' as to their actions and reasons (ie primary sources). There are some secondary sources of UK reviews/articles about the documentary (of Gdn, Tel. etc quality), some of which are very critical of US actions, whenever possible these would be used in preference to the primary material.

I'm aware of the dangers of synth/editorialising in using this material but think it adds very valuable info, not generally available elsewhere. The documentary won several prestigious UK awards and was for a time available on Nat Geographic, it isn't now available anywhere AFAIK, but my country is blocked on some NatGeog sites.

Two questions, is this material usable, since it is difficult for readers/editors to verify content (I have both video and subs as aids). Secondly, how does one cite a video interview as a source.?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/apr/26/bring-down-britains-planes-nixon

Store
The Taliban visit Disneyland



lopsided err obvious yerr  believed somewhere obvious  by  I think  it is  (Hidden text)

… Done …  Not done:  … CurrentUK

… Tiny

http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=MrX&users=Pincrete&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

Pincrete My edits Speak to me

biriyani stats global edits

 P I N C RE T E undefined   yackety yack

♫ Let it go. Let it gooooo. ♫  P I N C RE T E undefined   yacketyyack

&#9743;&#9743;(ring-ring)

Pincrete My 2d/ Your 2d

 P I N C RE T E undefined  My 2d/ Your 2d

 P I N C RE T E undefined  My 2d/ Shake me up, Judy




 * OUTdent



|Kilburn,_Derbyshire|Kilburn,_North_Yorkshire|Kilburn,_South_Australia|Kilburn_Dam|Kilburn_White_Horse comparative page views

is a more accessible approach (it uses  adding  to a page will not affect its presentation