User talk:TillermanJimW: Difference between revisions

Welcome TillermanJimW!

Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Hello Walter,

Thanks muchly for the welcome; appreciate the list of links. Looks to be quite a learning curve.

Sorry for the delay in responding; took me some time to figure out the correct syntax for the "Reply to" template.

BTW, I had put my signature in square brackets which didn't work; standard curved ones seems to.

Regards, Jim (TillermanJimW (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huashang, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here.

Template:Z33 Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Laurel Hubbard, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Your comment has been removed per WP:NOTFORUM and because it appears to be a dispute with the MOS:GENDERID guideline. It has been suggested that you can bring your concern to WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. And because you asked "How many undos do I get?", please review the three-revert rule. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per WP:OWNTALK, and due to the nature of the message you left on my Talk page, I am moving your comment here. I have watchlisted your Talk page and I apologize for not making that more clear in my message above. If I have more to say, I can reply here. The message you left on my Talk page is as follows:

Hello,

Thanks for the information about the GenderID, NotForum, Fringe, and VillagePump tags. And about the three-revert rule, all of which I’ll look into.

But while I’ll hang-fire on using up my third reversion, at least until I’ve looked into those tags, I will have to see about kicking the issue up the food chain, about deciding which will be the most effective use of my time & Wikipedia’s.

However, I rather object to the Fringe characterization. If you or the other editor weighing in had bothered to look at the substance of the section I’d added on the Hubbard article page then I think you’d see that the definition of “female” as a sex – and not as a gender – is anything but “fringe”. While I’ve justified that rather extensively in that added section, you might also do a Google search for “female definition”:

Over 3 billion hits, the top one of which is apparently a definition from the Oxford English dictionary, many others of which say the same thing as does the OED, and the bulk of which is:

female, adjective: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

If you do decide to follow the link then might notice that, on my search results in any case, there’s a post & quote also at the top of the page of a Wikipedia article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account.

However, I will also more or less concede your point that I am in effect at least raising a question as to whether the GenderID guideline is in fact consistent with Wikipedia’s own NPOV guidelines. But it might be a reasonable question to pose for the folks at the VillagePump whether that guideline or the NPOV policy is to be trump.

But it may also be of some benefit if you were to take a closer look at what I’d posted and give some thought to that question yourself. And consider reverting my added section yourself.

Thanks again.

TillermanJimW (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not raise WP:FRINGE, i.e. [1], and while I think it is an important consideration, I think the priority at the moment is to consider WP:NOTFORUM and how it relates to the constructive use of an article Talk page. I appreciate that you recognize how your interest in editing the Laurel Hubbard article appears to reflect a dispute with a guideline and policy, and therefore appears best suited for another forum. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beccaynr Not quite sure why you decided to move my response particularly as you had said I could respond to you on your own Talk page - as others have done. And not sure about the necessity for pinging you. But you're right about the Fringe tag - my apologies; hard to keep track of who's saying what, particularly when someone is just starting the learning curve.

However while I agree that the substance of my efforts to improve the Hubbard article is based on my view that there's a conflict between the Gender guideline as it's implement in that article and the NPOV principle, I'm most certainly not agreeing that the debate is better suited to another "forum", or article page. That article is where the rubber meets the road, where the gun is still smoking, where the evidence is, I think, manifestly obvious that that conflict is germane to the question of improving that article - presumably Job One. Sending me off to another article page looks like moving the goalposts, like not really very much committed to an NPOV.

Thanks. TillermanJimW (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my lack of clarity with regard to why I moved your comment - I had considered whether to edit the original template I added to your Talk page to modify the text to say you could reply on your own Talk page, and explain that I would be able to see your reply without a ping. After I read the message left on my Talk page, I decided to move it for several reasons, including because some of your comment relates to an issue I did not raise, and it includes the line If you or the other editor weighing in had bothered to look at the substance of the section I’d added, which I feel does not assume good faith by myself or Newimpartial, and was something I did not want to keep on my Talk page.

I do empathize with the perspective that a guideline or policy can or should be challenged in an individual case, but if you tried to make your suggested edit, it would simply be reverted per the guidelines and policies. I'd personally also look more closely at WP:OR in addition to WP:FRINGE, but I think MOS:GENDERID is sufficient. Your proposed edit appears to be a dispute with the guideline because the guideline would need to change before your suggested edit could be made, and the guideline will not be changed based on a discussion on the article Talk page. This is why it is suggested that you bring your concern about the guideline to a more appropriate forum. I hope this helps clarify my perspective; I have pinged Newimpartial because we have mentioned them, and they may have additional perspective to share. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the moving of the comment - I can understand why you might want to do that. But one might reasonably wonder whether you actually read much of what I'd posted.

As for "challenging", I've had some reason to review Wikipedia's Five Pillars and article on the NPOV. Of particular note:

"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." Wikipedia:Five Pillars

"This [NPOV] policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Seems rather clear that the NPOV is trump, that the GenderID Manual of Style - which you seem to think is gospel truth - has to play second fiddle. You might note the fifth pillar about "no firm rules".

But further, I don't even see how that MOS section is particularly relevant - it says, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words ... that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification". But the convention, the standard point of view, the one subscribed to by much of biology and endorsed by most credible dictionaries, the one I had taken some pains to justify in exhaustive if not exhausting detail, is that "female" is NOT a gender - it is ONLY a sex. Clearly, if anything is a "fringe view", it is the idea that "female" is a gender. Doesn't much look like the Hubbard article took any consideration at all of "major points of view" in asserting that "Hubbard transitioned to female". Offhand, as I had argued, a more accurate phrasing might have been "Hubbard transitioned to a feminine gender and to a legal sex, at least in some jurisdictions, that is incompatible with her biological sex". Hardly perfect, but far closer to an NPOV than the original.

Finally, WP:NOR - (NOR BTW) looks like another red herring. Unless you're seriously going to argue that quoting Wikipedia's own article on Woman, and citing Merriam-Webster, Justice Scalia, the British Medical Journal, the OED, most of the other dozen and a half sources I linked to qualifies as "original research", that they don't qualify as "reliable, published sources". And, from the NOR article, it's maybe moot if that even pertains to talk page on the Hubbard article. But maybe if you'd read much of that section then you wouldn't have been making that argument.

In any case, time to call it a day; thanks for at least addressing some of my points. --TillermanJimW (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just on I think you’d see that the definition of “female” as a sex – and not as a gender – is anything but “fringe” - the part of this that is WP:FRINGE is the part stating and not as a gender. Many, many reliable sources on sex and gender - including ones you yourself cited in your long Talk page intervention - observe that "female" is the term for a sex, and a!so a gender. Arguing that it is not also a gender label is FRINGE, and op-eds will never be reliable sources for such a claim. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your reference to the article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account violates Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Don't do that. Substantively, since female is a term for gender and since Hubbard unquestionably has a female gender identity, your statement is also factually false on both counts, as well as being uncivil. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, literally right under the gamete definition of woman in the dictionary I see Relating to women or the female gender - the claim that female is NOT a gender is certainly not proven by the sources you offer, which is a good thing because it is, in fact, false according to the overwhelming weight of Reliable Sources available, Which, in fact, the Wikipedia article on Woman also reflects, as it discusses both female sex and female gender. Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Many, many reliable sources on sex and gender": Which ones? Where?

"observe that 'female' is the term for a sex, and also a gender": Where's the quote of them saying that "female" is a gender? And where's their definition of what it means to have a gender in the first place? Along with the evidence to support their contention? You might note that the Wikipedia Female (disambiguation) page, right at the top of it, says "Female is the sex of an ovum-producing organism." Absolutely diddly-squat about anything at all pertaining to or referencing the concept of gender.

"violates Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people": How so? Which specific part of that BLP article is relevant and you have in mind? If the article had said, "Hubbard transitioned into the Queen of England" then do you seriously think that if I'd then said, "I rather doubt she qualifies on any account" that that would be running afoul of that BLP document? If people make claims to being members of particular categories - and "female" is clearly defined as a sex category - then there's some justification to ask to see their membership cards, that they've paid their membership dues, that they possess the properties, the necessary & sufficient conditions specified in the definitions, that qualifies them as referents of the terms in question.

More particularly on the category department, try looking at and thinking - start off with a NPOV in thinking - about how definitions work, particularly relative to the standard definition for the sexes; here's the Oxford/Lexico one but the Google/OED one I'd quoted earlier says exactly the same thing:

"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

And Lexico then goes on to define category thusly:

"A class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics."

Which raises the question of which particular "shared characteristics" qualifies any organism to be a member of the "female" category. And both the Wikipedia female disambiguation and female pages clearly indicate that that shared property is "produces ova". And that Wikipedia article on intensional & extensional definitions clearly indicates that that is the way intensional definitions work: a specification of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as referents of the terms in question. If an individual does not produce ova then, ipso facto, they are NOT members of the female category. At least the female sex category as I doubt you or anyone else has much of a clue as to what might be the "necessary & sufficient conditions" to qualify anyone as a member of the "female gender" category - if such a thing can even be said to "exist".

But consider an analogy - put on your NPOV hat - of the definition for, say, "teenager": "A person aged between 13 and 19 years." Absolutely diddly-squat about anything else; nothing at all about whether they're male, female, sexless, masculine, feminine, white, black, brown, or pink with purple polka-dots. Those are what are called "accidental properties", ones that are not essential to qualify as teenagers. The essential property - being between 13 and 19 - is the "necessary & sufficient condition" to qualify as a member of that category. Same thing with "female". You might - to exercise your NPOV - try reading the article on analogies and the one there at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - presumably what Wikipedians, at least if they have any sincere commitment to an NPOV, might consider as a "reliable source".

And pointing me to a bunch of 10 or 20 page documents and not specifying which point or section of a dozen or more is relevant seems not far removed from moving the goal posts, from strewing a boat load of red herrings on the field, from playing the Courtier's reply, from being manifest evidence of anything but an NPOV. Becoming more of a challenge all the time to see how either of you are arguing in good faith.

"... under the gamete definition of woman in the dictionary": Which "gamete definition"? In the Urban Dictionary?

"the claim that female is NOT a gender is certainly not proven by the sources you offer": It is NOT necessary to prove that "female is NOT a gender". It's implicit in the definition, in how intensional and extensional definitions work, in what is implied by the phrase "necessary and sufficient conditions". It's not necessary to say that Sally or Mike is not a teenager - if they're not 13 to 19 then, ipso facto, they don't qualify. It would be ridiculous beyond belief - not to mention impossible - to give a definition for "female" by listing all of the things that it is not: "female: the sex that produces ova, but also not cars, boats, trains, planes, rivers, mountains, electrical connectors, and most certainly not bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ..." There's a myriad of things that "female" is not, but there is, at least in a the context of biology, only ONE "thing" that a female is: "an ovum-producing organism".

"Wikipedia article on Woman also reflects, as it discusses both female sex and female gender": Where, exactly, does that article say "female gender"? That it discusses gender hardly qualifies as a definition of the term. Adult human females may have feminine or masculine genders - or any of the rather risible 50-odd that Facebook has apparently accepted - but those are NOT essential properties of the category "woman". See the above.

But sure don't see much evidence yet from either of you to justify any claim at all that you - or the Hubbard article in question - have much if any commitment to an NPOV. Which I might emphasize again is considered the second of Wikipedia's Five Pillars and that it is considered "non-negotiable, and [that] the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." --TillermanJimW (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your WALLOFTEXT is intended to achieve here, but to start with the least reliable of sources you are directing us to, the article woman refers to gender roles and gender identity, while female observes that the term female can also be used to refer to gender. Your own Oxford dictionary source defines the word female as Relating to women or the female gender. You have made an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, and need sources to back it up that are both extraordinary and explicit in their support. The original research you are offering here (scholastic reasoning through categories) is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia, in both article space and, frankly, in Talk space as well. I see no need to humour this further.

Honestly, the vast majority of your text wall seems to be trying to demonstrate that "female" is a term that can refer to biological sex. No shite. But when we refer to human beings as "female", we are much more likely (outside the contexts of medical studies and reproductive health) to be referring to social gender. This is WP:BLUESKY, and you do in fact need to provide someone besides Justice Scalia in your corner if you want to argue the contrary and want your conclusion to look anything less than FRINGE.

And to A the most possible GF, what precisely did you mean by there’s a post & quote also at the top of the page of a Wikipedia article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account, particularly those last three words? Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Laurel Hubbard, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message here. I removed the NPOV template you added to because it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed per WP:WTRMT and the discussion here. It continues to appear that your dispute is with the MOS:GENDERID guideline and the WP:NPOV policy, and based on WP:OR. Please consider posting your dispute at WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Laurel Hubbard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So other editors aren't subject to the 3RR? Two or more can gang up on a single user? They EACH get 3 reverts of MY posts, but I only get 3 total?

Don't think any of you have addressed my points. Don't think you can reasonably remove the NPOV until that is done. Willing to discuss the issue but not as long as the NPOV tag is being removed. TillermanJimW (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]