User talk:Jenga6342

Welcome!
Hello, Magsmacaulay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --DrWho42 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Your submission at AfC Margaret Benston was accepted
 Margaret Benston, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! FireflySixtySeven (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Magsmacaulay help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

What Wikipedia's NPOV actually means
Please read the actual WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia presents things as they perceived and judged by the mainstream academics in the field, we do not create false impression that something has been "neutrally" received when it hasn't.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".user talk:magsmacaulay
 * exactly, and thus your edits where you were eliminating views from the lead that are not positive but are widely representative is acting in a way that is not NPOV compliant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read the changes I made? I didn't eliminate anything. I moved it to the criticisms section, where criticisms belong and removed redundancy. While sometimes including controversy in a lead is useful, I don't think it is useful when discussing an issue as serious as child abuse and false memory syndrome. People who are editing these pages clearly have an agenda and are using it as a soapbox, which I personally find appalling when dealing with a sensitive issue like this. This is not the place for soapboxing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The article itself uses hyperbolic language to destroy the credibility of the book's authors (i.e. outrageous) and questionable sources to back up their claims. The Australian False Memory Syndrome Association would not be considered a credible source by academics. They would need to be an independent research organization but instead are an aggregator. It's like saying anti-vaccine newsletters or websites are credible sources when often they're just very creative and liberal interpretations of research. Come on. Anyway, like most other women on Wikipedia, I'm not going to spend any more time edit warring on this matter with people not willing to see the forest for the trees.femmebot 18:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to summarize the whole article, which means if the body of the article contains significant criticisms, the lead should as well. The lead is entirely redundant, deliberately so.  Moving criticisms out of the lead is inappropriate.
 * The entire entry is sourced appropriately and completely. Those sources demonstrate that the book is not considered a well-written, respected therapeutic tome - it's seen as harmful and inaccurate.  If you can find recent source that praise it (scholarly mind you, not amazon reviews), please feel free to include them.
 * A neutral page is not a kind page, it is a page that summarizes the prevailing view on the article's topic. The prevailing view of TCTH is not a positive view, and therefore that's what should be represented.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Editors are cherry-picking a few critics (McHugh's book has been criticized as flawed and deeply disturbing by scholarly, independent book reviews) to further their own agenda. Using words like "incompetent" in the lead is pretty editorializing. Anyway the entire article is poorly written and full of redundancies where editors keep mentioning the same points over and over again to prove their obsessive point. That's too bad because while editors are doing this, people are recovering memories of child abuse and instead of being like "here is the book. here are the controversies it provokes", the article discredits it and makes it seem as if "false memories" are more pervasive than actual experiences of child abuse. That is plain untrue. Here is a journal publication (the gold standard in academic sources, NOT books btw) suggesting that their methodology is sound: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213498001008. Herein lies the problem. Wikipedia editors are very good at following "the rules" without realizing how important it is to use critical sources and actually present arguments in a balanced way.femmebot 19:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to include any criticisms of McHugh's book that apply to TCTH in the article.
 * You appear to misunderstand neutrality; it doesn't mean "nice", it means "as described by reliable sources". A reliable source has pointed out that the book is not looked well upon, and uses the term "incompetent"; this makes it a valid inclusion.  Put another way, wikipedia is pointing out that someone else has called it the "bible of incompetent therapists", wikipedia is not saying so itself.
 * You also appear to misunderstand or not be aware of guidance on lead sections; they are meant to be redundant.
 * The article you point to is a primary source and should be used judiciously, if at all (I lean towards at all, given its age) and I'll also point out that it fails for the same reasons that other "recovered memory" approaches fail - because of a poor operational definition of what "not remembering" means,and because of a lack of external corroboration. That single, primary study from 16 years ago is greatly outweighed by the large number of contemporary critical sources that conclude, now that the satanic panic is over, that the hypothesis of recovered memory is a failed one.
 * You must learn the rules of wikipedia to edit here, particularly if you are going to be editing contentious pages. They exist for a reason.  You can try to change them to allow for original research if you'd like, but please do so first before you begin adding original research to articles.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably not a good idea to tell someone that the reason they disagree with you is because they misunderstand. Neutrality means assessing things fairly. Editorializing isn't "mean", it's using language to frame things in a certain way. I've already said I'm not interested in editing that page anymore so feel free to pass off that page as "neutral".

Furthermore I think your editing practices are hostile and unwelcoming for newcomers. I have a lot of expertise on issues I contribute to and it is unreasonable to insist that editors need to surreptitiously follow every. single. rule.femmebot 17:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy on neutrality, which defines what "neutrality" means for wikipedia.
 * You appear to be asking for a special exception because you are an expert. Please see WP:EXPERT.  Even experts are required to follow the rules.  To think of why, imagine what would happen if an expert men's rights activist decided they were worthy of an exception.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". That is Wikipedia's definition. It does not mean, as you say, "as described by reliable sources". That definition might be more on par with "credibility" or "validity". I'm not asking for an exception. I'm asking for the editors to hold themselves accountable to their own rules. Remember that treating people the same and treating them equally are two different things. femmebot 01:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the final phrase in that sentence as supporting my interpretation, and I don't think the community disagrees with me. Irrespective what you think what word you could use to replace "neutrality", it is still the policy that guides content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sign your comments using four tildes
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection
Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. User:Pundit is in support of increasing gender equality at Wikipedia and another user is opposed to User:Pundit's efforts. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender-related article idea
Going through Gender bias on Wikipedia talk page I saw discussion of removal of your material. Obviously editing in this, or any controversial area, before one has learned the Wikipedia rules can be frustrating but it actually makes you learn the (very helpful) rules faster so you can edit more effectively. In short, an article has to mention the topic - in this case Wikipedia - before we can use it. And using Reliable sources helpful; believe me the unreliable ones tend to be more hostile to womens and we'd hate to see a lot of those used!!

I am adding some of the links from the removed material to the resources data base I'm building for the Gender gap task force. And there will be a section for blog entries of interest that may not be RS for articles. Also, I think there will be refs there for a new policy section. Please keep watching the GGTF page for announcement of the list.

There definitely is a place for such analysis from WP:RS in a new article called something like "Women and the internet". (Start searching "women and" in the search box and a list of articles with such a title will pop up; they'll give you an idea of how such articles are organized. I think the closest thing we have now is individual articles about women or groups using the net, some mentions in Cyberbullying, and articles about notable women who also have be harassed. If you're interested you might make a draft on your sandbox and get advice from more experienced women editors - before letting it go live for nitpickers to work over. Please don't give up, it's necessary work. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)  18:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carol, I do appreciate your work. However, I think we have a difference of opinion because I actually feel that Wikipedia's standards like neutrality and reliability are precisely the problem. They privilege white Western men's knowledge and experience by positioning them as the default. I just feel like it's not fair to hold our knowledge to their standards since it is empirically true that women have a harder time BECOMING reliable (see my reverted entry where I discuss how our underrepresentation in media, publishing, academia gives men an unfair advantage as authoritative). We are held to different standards in sports because of our difference and I think the same can apply to this. Yes we have the same mental faculty but I feel like our knowledge and experiences are systematically devalued on- and offline, so why do we need men's standards to qualify what is a "reliable source"? And anyway, people seem to instrumentalize what constitutes a "reliable source" to suit their own ends. I've seen stuff touted on Wikipedia as "reliable" that certainly wouldn't pass scholarly peer-review but what do I know (I am only a scholar who has been through the peer-review process and is fluent in the language of many disciplines!). And this is not just about women for me. It is also about the knowledge of non-Westerners who get their contributions erased by Western editors who have no idea what they are talking about because of their dogged adherence to the rules. IMHO, a little WP:Common and contextual analysis would go a much longer way than policies regarding civility or giving female editors special privileges. I do appreciate your recommendation, but there is something that feels infantilizing to me about writing safely in a sandbox so I don't offend editors with "controversy" (not that you are being infantilizing, I just think the metaphor is too much for me). Tell me- when Wikipedia says to "be bold", to whom are they addressing, I wonder? Certainly not women. Well-behaved women seldom make history :) Anyway do use the external links you find useful, and there are some more that one of the editors moved on the Talk page. Good luck with your project! I wish you the best!--femmebot (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt bias in wider society narrows what might be considered reliable sources and/or what topics they cover. Bias on Wikipedia constantly results in double standards on what are reliable sources and the "majority" too often wins unless you are willing to drag them to a noticeboard frequently, which I do. Noticeboards result in better outcomes about 2/3 of the time. Sometimes it takes a lot of grassroots noise to get the media to pay attention and cover the other side of the story. Be it the Gaza is a "defacto prison" (amazingly heard over and over on tv lately) or like this New Yorker article which at least is a start at covering the position of radical feminists - and the average female.  As a secessionist myself, I keep smacking my head for not just boycotting the project. And maybe one day I will. But in the interim keep trudging along... Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie)  02:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)