User talk:Crossroads/2021, 1st quarter

A calming and soothing cup of tea


 // Timothy ::  talk  05:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That thing
...you emailed me about, I just heard from the Trust and Safety team that they're on it (I know, a bit late). Thanks again for letting me know. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oxford Handbook of Capitalism
Hi Crossroads. You said, in your edit description, that we do not water down excellently sourced material - such as the Oxford Handbook of Capitalism - by making it seem like it's just one guy's belief. Could you please have a look at the Oxford Handbook of Capitalism, because if you do you'll realize that it is a collection of essays, and therefore it is in fact not an "excellently sourced material", and it is quite literally "one guy's belief", namely information taken from the introductory essay. Many thanks. BeŻet (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Replying on the talk page of the article. Keep the matter there. Crossroads -talk- 17:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on Critical Race Theory
By my reading on talk, the rewrite to the lead was largely by one editor (with the other participant broadly opposed); it was plainly WP:BOLD for them to rewrite the entire lead so drastically, so they ought to follow WP:BRD. More importantly, though, unless I miss something I note that you hadn't previously edited that article - what brought it to your attention? I'm a bit surprised your first edit to an article you hadn't previously participated in would be a sweeping revert to revert-war back in several bold changes. --Aquillion (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the other editor was broadly opposed, but maybe I missed it. I have been watching that article for a while and have edited it before in November and December, but I've generally refrained from weighing in for fear that certain editors (one of which is you) will follow me there. I suppose you suspect me of following you there instead, but as I showed, I was there previously and have been watching it. Crossroads -talk- 17:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I edited it previously as well (as you can see from the logs.) And you can see the relevant disagreement here as well as elsewhere on the talk page.  (Jlevi's suggestion / objection at the end seems to have been largely ignored until now.) FWIW it caught my attention because the giant eye-catching "NEGATIVITY OF ARTICLE" subsection crossed my watchlist, which made it pretty obvious something was going awry there and more attention from experienced editors was necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

ROGD article archived discission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_1

here is the long discussion to reach that definition. Please read through it in it's entirety before opening a discussion. If you want to contest that agreed upon definition please create a talk page post and initiate a debate.

101.98.135.42 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a whole archive page, and regardless, you are copying the wrong part of the definition to another article with a properly sourced description already. See: Talk:Irreversible Damage Crossroads -talk- 03:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for Informing Me
I appreciate you telling me that terms are only bolded at their first occurence, I always wondered what the rules were concerning that. Bill Williams (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing practices
I noticed the behavior of Newimpartial, including hounding and editing without regard for relevant talkpage sections. It hampers productive discussion. Is there anything that can be done? DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it would be polite to notify when discussing their conduct. You will need to add evidence in the form of diffs to your claims here about their conduct to avoid casting aspersions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong venue for this discussion; please take it up at User talk:Newimpartial first, and if you feel there's no resolution there, then the appropriate venue. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My question was a genuine question. I don't know whether/if there's action to take, or how. I don't even know which diffs to note. Both of us have noted the behavior, so I wanted to consult a more experienced user before (if) putting something together. My understanding is that talk pages are the closest thing to "sending a direct message". DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , my advice to you regarding that article, on top of what I said there, is as follows: (1) Don't get embroiled in long debates with a single editor. Wait for onlooker opinions before a wall of text is created. If the other editor is wrong then they will be outnumbered. (2) Doubly so if the subject has in any way strayed from specific article edits. There is essentially zero chance you will convince another editor to significantly change their worldview or philosophy. (3) Stick to talking about specific edits and what the WP:Due weight of WP:Reliable sources is. (4) Don't edit war against the status quo. Take a gradualist approach to article improvement. Crossroads -talk- 05:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is good advice and I'll try to keep it in mind. The sad fact is I don't have the time. As long as it takes us days to make or revert an edit that it takes an ideologically motivated editor minutes to counter, these pages will be bad. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Gay men
Hi Crossroads,

Just wanted to talk to you about the page Gay men!

I wanted to see if I could understand your argument and maybe talk a bit. In most style guides, and in colloquial English usage today (especially amongst people under 30), the terms homosexual and gay no longer refer exclusively to gay men, they are meant as general umbrella terms used to refer to people of any gender who are attracted to people of the same sex. In the LGBT community, lesbian is used to refer specifically to same-sex attracted women, while gay men refers to same-sex attracted men (either cis or transgender).

The term "gay man" has a specific political and cultural history and is not the same as referring specifically to "male homosexuality," which is a socio-biological and sexological term. By linking the term gay men only to a small section about male homosexuality, the clear implication is that gay men are no more than their sexuality. Which is not accurate and would be considered by many to be offensive.

I just wanted to reach out to get your point of view before we got into an AfD argument.

Best, Louisianajones1978 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's simpler to just take it to AfD for community scrutiny and so everyone can discuss it together. I agree with you that the former redirect target was not good; that is why I have argued to have it go to Homosexuality. Crossroads -talk- 05:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on WP:OFFENSIVE
I corrected the grammar. I did not water down the content. I just reverted your revert. I am not going to get into a revert war over this, so if you revert me again, I will meekly comply and not make a fuss.

Be aware though that it is excessive (perhaps WP:TENDENTIOUS even) to use revert for "according to" rather than "per" and "Wikimedia Foundation" rather than "The Foundation". Per is jargon. The Foundation evokes Big Brother in 1984. I changed per to according to, and The Foundation to Wikimedia Foundation for those reasons. Please, let's not bicker over this? I'm exhausted.--FeralOink (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi there Crossroads. I'm not sure we've interacted before, so I figured I'd drop by to say hi and show that I'm not an automaton suddenly programmed to disagree with you at every MEDRS/MEDMOS discussion. I am sorry about that by the way. For me, a large part of this is my somewhat deeply held feeling that we have too much guidance material on Wikipedia, and that it's repetitive, sometimes out-of-sync, and confusing for newbies (or at least it was confusing to me, and after several years sometimes still is). Most of the time, I just let it go, but once a year or so, the urge to trim redundant guidance is too much to resist and can get me into small spots of trouble, as it has currently at MEDRS. Anyway, my point in all this isn't to try to change your mind, but rather to explain my thinking. I know it's annoying when a bunch of randos show up to disagree with you somewhere. So perhaps I can cast myself as slightly less random. Either way, I hope you're staying well. I'll see you around. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks. I wasn't thinking anything like that, so don't worry. It's fine. Crossroads -talk- 20:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Age of Enligthment
I am afraid, I do not understad why you have revereted my contribution to the page The Better Angels of Our Nature. It will be wise to provide an explanation before deleting what others have done. Thanks Porzia1988 (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I said it wasn't sourced, and it wasn't. Material has to follow WP:Verifiability. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

removed link about GD Treatment
Hi Crossroads,

Thank you for asking for the clarification of my edit on the GD page. I am not sure *where* to respond to your question about my statement that quality of evidence is of low or low quality, citing the guidelines, https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558.

If this is the wrong place to ask you, I'm sorry, I can delete this or you can?

In the paper I cited, they use the "GRADE" scale for evidence, which has the choices (https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/toolkit/learn-ebm/what-is-grade/): very low, low, moderate and high. These are denoted by pluses with circles in them.⊕.

⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ High quality,

⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ○ Moderate quality,

⊕ ⊕ ○ ○ Low quality,

⊕ ○ ○ ○ Very low quality,

Also at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470778/table/app2.t2/

In the cited paper, everything was either ⊕ ⊕ ○ ○ or ⊕ ○ ○ ○, except, from what I saw, the recommendation to preserve fertility, which was "Moderate" quality. This is why I added the information to the page that the evidence base was of low quality or very low quality and cited this paper.

They also have numbers in the rating, and I could not find the paper that explained those, though I have seen an explanation of that somewhere.

I am guessing that I should include this information in the citation somehow, I am still learning and apologize for not doing that the first time! Thank you, Jdbrook (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, it would be best if you take this to the article's talk page. I saw many entries in the source that were of moderate quality or above; I couldn't see which of them corresponded to the claim in the article text. Please state on the article talk page which quote from the article, with the plus/circle system or otherwise, that supports it. Crossroads -talk- 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you. I am so sorry! I was looking at the top right hand part of the page, if you can believe it. That was dumb.  So sorry to take your time, I will reply over there. Thank you for your time!  Jdbrook (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by reviewing
Hi, thanks for letting me know. I am no expert on Wiki-politics and procedural matters but I have noticed that same editor doing similar things elsewhere, something I find deeply unpleasant. Perhaps the action that is needed is in that direction, rather than trying to fix every issue they raise, but as I say I've no skill in such matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please keep an eye out for any further unnecessary tags and feel free to revert them. The editor has already started edit warring and ignoring what I said. Don't let yourself be intimidated. Crossroads -talk- 18:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then administrative action is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Truce
This doesn't have to be so nasty, it takes all the fun out of editing wikipedia when things get so heated. How about we call a truce? I'd prefer to be friendly and discuss things in a civil manner, there's no need for everything to be so bitter and personal. I assure you I wont be making any bold edits to Cancel culture. I'm willing to reset and try again if you are. Bacondrum 03:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Bible as a secondary source.
Hello Crossroads, I wanted to touch on a claim you made regarding the Bible being a primary source. I believe in the context it was used in it was a secondary source. Of course every source can be primary for something or secondary for another, for example: in an article about Noah's Ark the bible is a primary source, however in an article about floods, it would be a secondary source. In a similar manner, an essay by Plato about the allegory of the caves would be a primary source, but an essay by Plato about love would be a secondary source. This ties to another claim you made about age, and I hope this proves that it's subjective (and a WP guideline, not a policy.). Since to me, an article on Love is richer by citing Plato than by citing the most recent 2015 paper on the empirical basis of love, regardless, there's room for both.

Regards, Tomás.--TZubiri (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. Please read all of WP:PSTS, including the footnotes. The Bible is a primary source for any of its statements, and Wikipedia does not engage in Bible interpretation; we report what secondary sources say in that regard. An article about love could easily include Plato by citing modern texts that understand how to interpret and contextualize what Plato said. Stating that guidelines are "subjective" is not a valid excuse for citing a 40 year old source when newer research exists that takes that work and more recent work into account. Crossroads -talk- 20:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to include the source twice in my last edit, just in the "Relationships" section which I find is less controversial. Please take a look at it again and let me know if you still wish to revert. If so, I'll take it to the discussion page, but feel free to post there first.

Thanks.--TZubiri (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * the thing is that your edit mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah was an interpretation (thus original research), an Exegesis. The actual article says that "This is based upon exegesis of the Biblical text interpreting divine judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexual sex, though some contemporary scholars dispute this interpretation". Doug Weller  talk 11:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input Doug. The last version I added was the following

The sacred texts of the three major Abrahamic religions(Judaism, Christianity and Islam) explicitly forbid homosexuality, the book of Leviticus for example  states that: "A man shall not lie with another man as he would with a woman, it is an abomination". The Abrahamic religions also displays homosexuality in a negative context in the widely influential story of Sodom and Gomorrah.


 * But it was reverted. As you can see I removed the interpretation (Exegesis) that could constitute original research.
 * The change was bundled with other editions so maybe it was reverted for other fragments, I'll readd this atomic paragraph to see if it passes through.


 * Regards.--TZubiri (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day

 * Thank you very much! Crossroads -talk- 02:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 06:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

re. sex
Your reading of my edited definition was in error. So too was your rationale. Yet, after I undid your reversion I saw a further need for concision that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Writing is rewriting and editing is re-editing. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * I've blocked this account. I've no idea what they said to you - I suspect it's not great - but more than not paying any attention, I would probably recommend not replying... it is up to you of course. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)