User talk:FritFerret

March 2023
Hi FritFerret! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My edits did not change the meaning of the article. They only clarified the meaning. Specifically, in a couple places where the word "gender" was used, I clarified that the meaning was "self-declared gender." Without that clarification, someone might get a false impression as to what was meant. It's hard for me to imagine how that could possibly be a matter of dispute. FritFerret (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism disruptive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC) edited per discussion below Beccaynr (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you please tell me what information I introduced that was incorrect? I added the term "declared" before "gender" in a couple places to avoid misunderstanding and I added a clause in one place to make it reflect more accurately what was said in the cited source. I'm frankly puzzled as to what was incorrect about these edits, let alone how they could be construed "vandalism." If you would be so kind as to explain, I would appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance! FritFerret (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FritFerret, I had responded to your first attempt to add "declared gender" to the article, because this is not how sources or the wikilinks appear to discuss these issues (so it appears to be "incorrect"). I see you recently attempted to make this edit again  but have also opened a discussion on the article Talk page after the edit was reverted again, and further discussion is an appropriate next step in the editing process.
 * To be clear, I am not trying to describe your editing as vandalism; the standard caution template points to this policy, which includes a reference to the no original research policy, which I think is much more relevant to consider at this time. I encourage you to review the policy about original research and the related content policies discussed on that policy page. The discussion about the specific content can continue at the article Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that my edits "could be interpreted as vandalism," which implies that in your opinion such an interpretation would not be entirely unreasonable. The term "vandalism" is defined by Wikipedia as editing "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" of the encyclopedia. Do you really believe that a reasonable person could construe that as my intention? For from obstructing the purpose of Wikipedia, to add clarification strikes me as serving it! That leads me to believe that you must have construed my clarification in a way that is completely foreign to both my intent and the clear meaning of my words.
 * I'm similarly puzzled as to why you think such a straightforward clarification would be constitute "original research." There is no special "research" involved in recognizing that to use the word "gender" as the article does is to use it in a way that doesn't reflect the views of the article's subject. One needs only to have a native speaker's understanding of how the English language works and how the use of certain unclarified terms can give rise to misunderstanding,
 * It would be helpful if you could explain what you think it means to speak of someone's "declared gender." I believe reasonable people would understand it to mean the gender someone declares him- or herself to be, which leaves open the question of whether, for instance, declaring oneself to be a woman actually makes one a woman. Did you think it meant something else?
 * In any case, since I assume you now grasp the misunderstanding I'm trying to avoid, is there some other language you would suggest that could do the same work as the qualifier I proposed? I'm not wed to the term "declared," but I do think it's important to use language that doesn't potentially mislead readers about the actual views held by the subject of the article. What do you suggest? Thanks in advance for your help! FritFerret (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FritFerret, to clarify, I selected a standard warning template about the addition of "incorrect" information, which I explained in my comment above was based on my understanding of the sources and wikilinks. The standard template includes language about how the addition of "incorrect" information could be interpreted as vandalism, i.e. by others. The vandalism policy discusses other core content policies in addition to no original research, including no point of view and verifiability (which also seem important to consider with regard to the disputed content you have attempted to add to the article), but also has plenty of caveats about the use of the term "vandalism." My preference in responding to editors who seem to editing contrary to core policies is to provide a caution about disruptive editing, so I have edited the standard template above to reflect this.
 * As to the actual content issue, I think it would be best to continue discussion at the article Talk page, so discussion remains in one place. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained how my clarification is "contrary to core policies." What exactly about my edit do you judge to be "incorrect" and why? You mention principles concerning "original research," "no point of view," and "verifiability," but you haven't explained how they relate to my attempt to clarify the language of the article. I've already addressed the issue of "original research" and explained why it is irrelevant to my edit. As for "no point of view," my aim was precisely to make the language of the article MORE neutral, specifically, not to bias the question of whether a person's gender is necessarily whatever he or she declares it to be. And, as for "verifiability," that would be relevant ONLY if my edit had supplied new information that could be wrong. But to clarify language is not the same as supplying new information. Again, the purpose of my edit was to make the language more neutral, which is just the opposite of making a contentious claim that would require verification. So, please explain to me PRECISELY how my edit runs afoul of any of the principles you cite. Hopefully, you'll agree that you owe me at least that much. Can you do that? Thanks in advance! FritFerret (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FritFerret, the content and relevant policies are being discussed at the article Talk page discussion section you opened: Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull One of my comments in that discussion addresses an WP:OR issue directly . I have not yet had the opportunity to further participate in the article Talk discussion to the extent I had hoped - if you review the edit history of the article, it has recently been unusually busy. But as I said in the article Talk discussion, I would like to conduct specific research, so I appreciate your patience and encourage you to continue discussing article content on the article Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you understand the concern that prompted me to make that edit. If the issue is the phrase "self-declared," its meaning is sufficiently transparent that I can't fathom why anyone would need some citation to understand it. As I said before, to use the word "gender" without qualification is misleading, since traditionally "gender" simply means "sex." But clearly Ms. Keen-Minshull has no objection to transgender people being legally recognized as their SEX or participating in sports that align with their SEX, etc., since she believes that the sex someone was born as is immutable. So, without some qualification along the lines I proposed, the article would seem to ascribe a rather absurd position to her.
 * Also, please note that the idea that "self-declaration" might be sufficient to determine one's gender is not some weird linguistic innovation of my own. For example, the Trans Equality Network of Ireland uses that language on its "Gender Recognition" page. In volume 83(3) of Modern Law Review, Alex Sharpe asks, "Will Gender Self-Declaration Undermine Women’s Rights and Lead to an Increase in Harms?" A simple google search will turn up many other instances of this phrase being used by people friendly to the idea that one's gender may differ from the sex one was born as. The suggestion that there is something about this language that is opaque and/or novel strikes me as unfounded.
 * But, as I said before, I'm not wed to the phrase "self-declared." My sole concern is to dispose of an ambiguity that could easily lead to misunderstanding. Since you are the one who objected to my edit, I believe the onus is on you to propose a better solution now that you see the problem I was trying to address. Do you have any suggestions? Or are you content to let the problem go uncorrected? FritFerret (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FritFerret, I added a caution to your user Talk page about adding text for which the sources/wikilinks did not appear to support. My suggestion is to continue discussing the content on the article on the article Talk page, where I have made a suggestion about incorporating sources that identify specific laws Keen-Minshull is known to oppose, and where further discussion can happen if necessary. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the issue is simply eliminating a potentially misleading ambiguity, as I've explained again and again. Anyone who is familiar with the contemporary controversy surrounding "gender" and how it should is or should be determined can see the problem with the existing wording. It's not a matter of sources but rather of having the minimal linguistic competence to recognize how words can mislead. In any case, the existing sources do identify Ms. Keen-Minshull's position on specific laws well enough to establish that she, like most people, makes a distinction between one's "self-declared gender" and one's actual sex/gender, which she believes is determined by one's biology. The language of the article should reflect that. If you agree, what sort of language do you believe would do the necessary work, since you object to the simply clarification of adding the qualifier "self-declared" before the word "gender" when describing Ms. Keen-Minshull's positions? Or do you not see the problem with the existing language? Please answer directly without prevaricating or attempting to change the subject. FritFerret (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Article content issues can be discussed on the article Talk page. Please note that content discussion are influenced by Wikipedia policies, including to avoid promotional content, original research, and a battleground. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you now accusing me of promotional content and battleground? Haven't I said over and over again that I want to make the language of the article more neutral? I thought you understood that. Surely you also want this article to represent the views of its subject fairly. If so, then instead of making up accusations as a way of skirting the issue, please help me by suggesting some better language. What do you think is the best way to edit the article to make it more accurate and fair? I'm sure you have ideas. Work with me, not against me. Thanks in advance! FritFerret (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FritFerret, during this discussion, I have linked to Wikipedia policies that may be helpful to review for further discussion about the article content. I do not think it is helpful to continue trying to discuss article content here, and you may be able to get broader participation from more editors at the article Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You've linked to policies but you haven't offered any explanation of why you think they're relevant here, while I've repeatedly explained why I believe they aren't. Please explain why you think that clarifying article's language constitutes "original research," "promotional content," "battleground," etc. Unless I know exactly what you objection is, I don't know how to answer it on the Talk page. I'm frankly puzzled at your refusal to respond to this simple and reasonable request. So, let me ask you again: What precisely is your objection to my edit? How, in your mind, does it constitute "original research," etc.? And what would you propose as a better way to fix the problem I highlighted? Once again, I thank you in advance. FritFerret (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FritFerret, I feel that I have done what I can to address your questions, to suggest policies that may be helpful to review, and to direct this discussion to what appears to be the appropriate forum to continue discussing content issues. Please note that the fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have in fact only ignored by questions. You have only linked to policies that have no obvious relationship to my edit. And though you believe you have no obligation to justify your reversal of my edit, I believe otherwise. If you cannot justify your actions, then you are liable to the charge that you were acting arbitrarily without good reason. Do you or don't you agree that your reversal of my edit needs to be justified? If you don't, then you are giving yourself license to act arbitrarily, which certainly goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. In fact, it would fit the definition of vandalism to a tee. On the other hand, if you believe your action was justified, you should be able to explain why. The time you've spent evading my reasonable questions, which I believe you do have an obligation to answer, could have been used to answer them. So, please, give me your reasons for reversing my edit. If you believe they violate some Wikipedia, then explain how. If you are unable to do so, then I can't for the life of me understand why you think your actions are justified. I await your response and thank you in advance. FritFerret (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FritFerret, in the discussion here, I have responded to your questions in my previous comments in these edits:, , . Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to review what you've previously written. You'll find that you in no place explain how my addition of accurate clarification violates any Wikipedia policy. You simply cite policies and dogmatically claim that my clarification was in violence without offering any further explanation. I, on the other hand, have taken the trouble to explain why they don't apply here. As someone who has edited eight books for major publishers, I can assure that the standard practice is to give reasons for your edits. So, please, I ask you once more to explain WHY my clarification violates Wikipedia policy. My request is entirely reasonable, as I'm sure you can see. I look forward to your explanation. Thanks! FritFerret (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FritFerret, I have not "simply cite[d] policies and dogmatically claim[ed] that [your] clarification was in violence without offering any further explanation." I have not used the term "violence" nor do I think the discussions of content, policies, and guidelines here or at the article Talk page imply or otherwise refer to violence. I have provided explanation several times here and there is additional explanation at the article Talk page in the discussion section that you opened, so if you wish to continue discussing the content and applicable policies and guidelines, I suggest that you continue the discussion at the article Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you can't recognize a typo when you see one. A simple consideration of context would have made it clear to any reader with ordinary powers of discernment that the word I meant to type was "violation." Since you no doubt possess such powers, I can only assume you were mocking me.
 * In any case, the issue remains your refusal to offer any explanation of how my clarification violates any of Wikipedia policies, as opposed to advancing the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide accurate information. If you insist you have offered an explanation (as opposed to just citing policies with no clear relevance), then it shouldn't be any trouble to repeat it. However, I've read everything you've written to me and have yet to see anything that fits that description. So, please, give me the explanation I'm seeking. Feel free to cut and paste something you've already written if you think I've missed something. Thanks in advance!
 * PS Out of consideration for your sensibilities, I checked this message for typos, but please don't mock me again if I missed any. Given how long you've been dragging this conservation out, it's a miracle that I've made as few typos as I have. FritFerret (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FritFerret, I did not read your comment as including a typo, and I have no intention of mocking you or any editor, but I am sorry my comment led to such an assumption. Please note I do not intend to reply further to this discussion thread. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it's hard to believe that anyone of even medium intelligence could have read that in context and not recognized ir as a typo. Be that as it may, I accept your apology, such as it is. What I find hard to accept, however, is the way you've dragged this out without honoring my simple and reasonable request that you explain how my edit for clarification violates any of Wikipedia's rules. Are you simply unable to do so? If so (as now seems to be the case), may I take that as your tacit admission that you were wrong? Thanks! FritFerret (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)