User talk:Ezlev/Archive 2020

This page was manually created to be linked from ezlev's talk page.

June
(User talk:Ezlev/Archives/2020/June)

Failed verification on Daniel Dole
You put the following wikitext in the Daniel Dole article.

Dole is known to have held white supremacist beliefs which are reflected in his writing and the writings of early students at Punahou School. References to race science and degeneration theory can be found in many early writings created by and about Punahou School; the extent of Dole's influence on said writings is not entirely clear.

I reverted your edits because they were vague allegations that failed verification in both sources. If you are going to try to add this again, be prepared to use quotes & specific page numbers for each of those quotes. To allege someone is white supremacist without solid citations violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Peaceray (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

October
(User talk:Ezlev/Archives/2020/October)

Subjective information
I am removing inaccurate subjective information Kevin Funcle (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're removing well-sourced claims which provide important context to the article, and you've continued to do so after four warnings were issued on your talk page. Ezlev (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And by reverting Kevin Funcle, you've been taking part in an edit war. Please familiarise yourself with our edit warring and 3 revert rule policies before continuing to edit Wikipedia further. I understand you were trying to improve the project but if there is a repeat of this behaviour, you are certain to be blocked. Nick (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this was not edit warring. Kevin Funcle's edits indicate a white supremacist agenda. I've asked the blocking administrator to indef the account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See also block evasion by same vandal . Thank you,, for your edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's still blockable as edit warring, even if the editing account is being disruptive. There's no exemption in the WP:3RR policy for revert warring with disruptive editors. I do understand the reverting was done in good faith, which is why I haven't blocked in this case. I'm just making sure Ezlev knows policy and doesn't end up blocked. Nick (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, not by a longshot. Had you blocked this account I would have gone straight to ANI. Ezlev was dealing with a racist agenda, as at . The vandal has also been using multiple accounts, per the discussion I opened at , . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * your concern is warranted and appreciated. I'm aware of the rules and was being cognizant of them at first, but as I became increasingly frustrated with, I stopped paying attention to the number of edits I made. However, upon looking back at the page history for Criminal stereotype of African Americans, I'm fairly certain that I made only 3 reversions and thus did not violate the bright-line three-revert rule. Additionally, as 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 noted, the other user in question had a clearly disruptive agenda - which may not create an explicit exemption, but given that I did not violate 3RR, I do feel that it's relevant. While I appreciate the reminder and will be more careful in the future, I stand by my actions in this case. Ezlev (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

November
(User talk:Ezlev/Archives/2020/November)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roberto Jáuregui


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Roberto Jáuregui requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. As I noted on the article talk page, I accidentally clicked publish too early while using the translate tool. I believe I've got the article up into stub class and out of the speedy-deletion zone now. warmly, ezlev.  talk  08:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've removed the CSD tag. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 41, September – October 2020 
 * New partnership: Taxmann
 * WikiCite
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Carol Harlow
Please don't Prod members of The British Academy. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert at Human sexuality
Section title was refactored by for conciseness.

Other types of attraction patterns are every bit as significant as gender-based ones. Remember, this page is about "the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors." There is no reason to selectively include one but not another; there should at least be a sentence or two summarizing my edit near the "Someone's sexual orientation is their pattern of sexual interest in the opposite or same sex." that has been allowed to remain on the page.Miripog (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Miripog
 * As I mentioned in my edit summary, the relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT. You're entirely correct that "there is no reason to selectively include one but not another," however, my standpoint is that your edits gave undue weight to the concepts they discussed through phrasing and placement in the lead. My issue is not with the content you added, but rather with the way it was placed and phrased; I don't think the sources justify the amount of weight it was given. I'm tagging here for a third opinion if he's willing to give one, since he was also involved. warmly,  ezlev.  talk  20:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That revert was absolutely correct. Paraphilias are paraphilias. They are not considered to be standard sexualities. A number of them are considered mental disorders, regardless of if one wants to divide them into "paraphilia" and "paraphilic disorder." The most they should get is a mention lower in the article. As you surely already know, you can propose your addition on the talk page. Otherwise, no matter that you've placed the content lower, you may be reverted again. Sorry (not sorry), but we will not be describing pedophilia as just another sexuality. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And sexual racism (or racial sexual preference, as our Wikipedia article currently calls it) also is not a sexuality. Nor is it a paraphila. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Frozen nailed it. These things are not sexual orientations or equivalent to sexual orientations, per WP:Due weight. Crossroads -talk- 05:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up, Flyer and Crossroads! warmly, ezlev.  talk  05:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ezlev @Flyer22 Frozen @Crossroads No credible source identifies "paraphilias" as mental disorders/illnesses. Taking pedophilia as an example, the DSM-V entry on pedophilic disorder explicitly states, “If they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their pedophilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.” The ICD-11 page says, “In order for Pedophilic Disorder to be diagnosed, the individual must have acted on these thoughts, fantasies, or urges or be markedly distressed by them.” Additionally, plenty of scientific studies have shown that pedophilia works the same way as and is no fundamentally different from teleiophilia, or, for that matter, androphilia or gynephilia. See research: 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328129843_Study_of_the_psychological_and_physiological_characteristics_of_a_community_sample_of_pedophiles

Excerpt: “Scientific literature holds a large array of studies on pedophilia, which is the marked and persistent sexual attraction towards prepubescent children, and many of these studies tested various hypotheses in order to gain a general picture of pedophiles as a population. In this regard, a number of differences have been observed between pedophiles and controls, which lead to the identification of specific characteristics for which pedophiles appear to distinguish themselves. However, an important limitation of these studies is their almost systematic use of forensic and clinical samples. Indeed, there is little to suggest that such samples are representative of the general pedophile population. This extensive use of forensic and clinical samples in studies on pedophiles is especially problematic considering that the conclusions of such studies are often generalised to all pedophiles. As many studies have found that pedophiles from forensic and clinical samples display multiple differences when compared to controls, we decided to assess five of these differences in order to determine if these results would be replicated within a community sample of pedophiles. We compared a community sample of 190 male pedophiles with a control group composed of 151males from the general population, examining differences in their depressive symptoms, self-esteem, psychopathic traits, height, and handedness. All participants were recruited on the internet and filled an online questionnaire. Data were tested based on three different levels of analysis, each assessing a particular division of participants regarding their sexual orientation. Differences between pedophiles and controls were not statistically significant for depressive symptoms, self-esteem, height, and handedness. Difference between pedophiles and controls reached statistical significance for psychopathic traits, with pedophiles displaying fewer psychopathic traits compared to controls. These results contradict the findings of the large majority of studies using forensic and clinical samples of pedophiles.” 2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.23443 Excerpt: “As compared to offending pedophiles, non‐offending pedophiles exhibited superior inhibitory control as reflected by significantly lower rate of commission errors. Group‐by‐condition interaction analysis also revealed inhibition‐related activation in the left posterior cingulate and the left superior frontal cortex that distinguished between offending and non‐offending pedophiles, while no significant differences were found between pedophiles and healthy controls.” 3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333057587_Big_Five_Personality_Factors_Among_Men_With_a_Sexual_Interest_in_Children Excerpt: “Our results indicate that men with pedophilia or hebephilia are less emotionally stable and extraverted but more conscientious than controls.” “Past findings on the personality profiles of people with pedohebephilia (i.e., a sexual interest directed at sexually immature children before or in the early stages of puberty, Bailey, Hsu, & Bernhard, 2016) seem to coalesce around the notion that these interests are associated with increased introversion, neuroticism, and, in some studies, impulsivity or decreased conscientiousness (Tenbergen et al., 2015), which is sometimes interpreted as indicating "a causal relationship between abnormal brain functioning and pedophilia" (Kruger & Schiffer, 2001, p. 1651). In most cases, these observations are based on samples of sexual offenders against children (Cohen et al., 2002; Kruger & Schiffer, 2011; Langevin, Paitich, Freeman, Mann, & Handy, 1978). For instance, on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, child sexual offenders emerged as generally low on extraversion and conscientiousness and high on neuroticism compared to non-offenders (Dennison, Stough, & Birgden, 2001). Yet, only about 50% of child sexual offenders are assumed to have corresponding sexual interests in minors (Seto, 2007), while many people with a sexual interest in children find ways of managing their sexual desires without breaking the law (Cantor & McPhail, 2016). Hence, studies reporting personality differences associated with pedohebephilia are tainted by an overreliance on correctional samples of child sex offenders (who might or might not have a sexual interest in children; Cohen, Ndukwe, Yaseen, & Galynker, 2018; Feelgood & Hoyer, 2008).” 4. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/56377937.pdf Excerpt: “The studies Cantor et al. (2008) cite draw research subjects from problematic sources. For example, the 2002 study by Blanchard et al. presents conclusions about the relationship between pedophilic desires and childhood head injuries based on findings drawn from research subjects who were referred to a clinical sexology clinic because they had exhibited “illegal or disturbing sexual behavior” (Blanchard et al., 2002, p. 513). It is curious that claims about the deficiencies of a particular sub-set of men with pedophilic tendencies are presented as truths about “pedophilic men” (Cantor et al., 2008, p. 167) overall. It is impossible to know how many minor-attracted people actually have a history of childhood head injuries because a large-scale study has never been conducted on a representative sample. Despite methodological concerns present in these studies, “pedophilic men” (Ibid.) - as a group - are subject to unflattering claims about their intelligence levels and academic performance.”

Also, if you would just look up the definition of sexuality "sexual preference"/"capacity for sexual feelings", you would see that it includes literally any pattern of attraction, provided it involves sexual attraction rather than solely romantic attraction.

So, kindly cease the science-denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miripog (talk • contribs)
 * In the interest of keeping this discussion oriented toward improving the article (and keeping my talk page as concise as possible) rather than debating the science, I've collapsed the latter part of your message. I also don't feel that I'm knowledgeable enough to contribute constructively to this discussion, and I'd like more experienced editors to be able to find it and chime in. Please consider opening a similar discussion on the article's talk page or even making it a WP:RfC so that consensus can be reached on this issue more easily. I'm also pinging and  here so that they can see this. One final note: per WP:NPA, please don't accuse other editors of "science-denial." warmly,  ezlev.  talk  18:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Miripog states that "no credible source identifies 'paraphilias' as mental disorders/illnesses." And yet then goes on to point to the DSM-5 and ICD-11 entries that mention pedophilic disorder. That is a disorder. The difference with regard to the DSM and other authorities on paraphilias is that the DSM has made a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. But the vast majority of other sources on pedophilia do not make a "pedophilia" and "pedophilic disorder" distinction. And as for the DSM viewing pedophilia as a sexual orientation? No, they don't. They clarified years ago that "'[S]exual orientation' is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read 'sexual interest.'" They added, "In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a 'paraphilia,' not a 'sexual orientation.' This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual." They said they strongly support efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents, and "also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse."


 * This and this source that Miripog pointed to are theses. They are not WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. And either way, the excerpts Miripog cited have nothing to do with the argument against his edits. I have nothing else to state to him about any of this, especially on someone else's talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

December
(User talk:Ezlev/Archives/2020/December)

Cite Unseen update
Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below. If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icon (described below).
 * New categorizations/icons:
 * Font Awesome 5 solid bullhorn.svg Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
 * Hand-33988.svg Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
 * Book X red.svg Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
 * Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable, Achtung-orange.svg marginally reliable, Argentina - NO symbol.svg generally unreliable, Stop hand.svg deprecated, and X-circle.svg blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as Question Circle.svg varied reliability. Note that Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
 * With the addition of the new categorizations, the Scale icon unbalanced.svg biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.