User talk:Crossroads/2021, 2nd quarter

The JK rowling thing

Glad to see you and bodney worked something out. And my apologies for the outburst, I was a bit tired at the time, so I had less patience than I usually try to have. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

re. sex

A while ago you wrote, "None of the sources define sex as an 'attribute.'" I took your word for it but, for me, the observation related more to Wiki policy than to common sense. Afterward I saw you changed the lead definition to include "attribute." Even if there is no authoritative cite to back you up, for me - again - common sense should prevail. FWIW, I'm not at all interested in the article from a socio-political standpoint. All along I've been concerned about the relevance and grammar of the lead sentence. Accordingly, your edit was a vast improvement to what was there. Your definition is apt on its face, so I hope no one reverts it as original research. I tweaked the definition a moment ago for concision. Here's to consensus! Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
_____

Have you ridden in the bus of a school? (Or, was it a school bus?) Have you ever ridden in the plane of air? (Or, was it an airplane?) By analogy, "the attribute of male or female sounds just plain bizarre. The rest of the article goes on to say "male organisms produce small gametes..." and "both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic. " Etc. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at the article talk page. There's no reason to get into it here where nobody else will weigh in. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I was just trying to save you some embarrassment. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To save everyone some further embarrassment, none of the sources define sex is a phenotypic trait. According to CycoMa, that iteration qualifies as WP:OR. My reply: So what if your restatement is nowhere to be found elsewhere? The iteration suffices.

As an FYI, my initial interest in the lead stemmed from my intent to hyperlink two mentions of "sex" in my textbook to the definition given at Wikipedia. The pre-March 26 definition given here was so horrid that I edited it in what I thought was a reasonable manner. The thinking was merely that my readers would have the benefit of everything else provided in the article.

Given the subsequent acrimony here, however, I scrapped my initial plans and created my own definition. So, whatever definition emerges here no longer has any bearing on my own platform. Incidentally, my own definition is nominally-based, not attributively-based. My interest in seeing "sex" defined as an attribute (or trait, characteristic, adjectival-thingamajig... whatever) relates purely to how the majority of the article uses "sex" adjectivally/attributively and not nominally. Mix-matching a topical definition and its subsequent use within an article is just bad writing from a lexicological stance. It's like saying, "Cherry (noun) - a roundish type of fruit. Cherry wine is a related product." The two mentions of "cherry" semantically conflict even though the two statements are independently valid. No problem in everyday speech, but an encyclopedia article should be held to a higher standard of lexical care. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

On top

RM closed with the firm SNOW result expected. See also: [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

MEDMOS to-do list

The point of the to-do list at the top of WT:MEDMOS is to keep track of all of the things that need discussion. If these were simple subjects that could just to dumped in the guideline without any further discussion about wording, examples, etc., then we would have already done that.

As for Heart disease being mentioned as a possible example of a subject that should be gender-neutral, the article already contains statements like "People with obesity are at increased risk", and I doubt that any editor would want that changed to "Men with obesity are at increased risk" or "Men and women with obesity are at increased risk". Whereas, by contrast, Pregnancy says "Women who are...obese", and I don't think (based on the many previous discussions) that most editors want to see that changed to "Pregnant people who are...obese". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, but who would ever think of stating "men and women" in a case like that? The suggestion seemed to me to be against statements such as "Diagnosis of disease typically occurs seven to ten years earlier in men as compared to women"; we wouldn't that to be gender neutral. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That's something that should be discussed whenever we decide to deal with that point. We need to write at least a paragraph on the subject of balancing gender neutrality with sex specificity. Perhaps we will decide that it should say "People with obesity are at increased risk" but "Diagnosis of disease typically occurs seven to ten years earlier in adult males as compared to adult females". I don't know what editors will decide. That's why we need to have that question in the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to replace "men" with "adult males" and the like. That is what the sources likely say anyway. This was discussed before at the Village Pump here. The idea that we can't say men are male due to rare exceptions or whatever was rejected, and is WP:ADVOCACY, not plain English. This not being in the to-do list doesn't prevent you from bringing it up, anyway; it just keeps it from having the unwarranted authority of an unsigned to-do list that makes it seems like lots of people endorse the idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone believes that an unsigned list of subjects for future discussion has any authority at all. The purpose of including information/details/examples in the list is so that nobody has to remember to bring it up later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

re male

You might want to have a look a what's happened to the lead. IMHO, the most recent edit is just plain wrong. It should say, Male (♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete known as sperm, or i.e. the gamete that fuses with the female gamete," if anything needs to be added. Forgive me for lacking enough topical interest to deal with the fallout that's likely to ensue upon restoring your version of it, but I'll weigh in further if needed. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: One of the sources literally states that. Our jobs as Wikipedians is write down what sources say not what we think they say. CycoMa (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If there's a source that says "or" rather than "i.e." exactly the way it appears in this article, please post it and ping me. Otherwise, I won't condescend with an explanation why "or" is semantically wrong and why "i.e." is correct in the given context. And, as I've said repeatedly, I really couldn't care less to argue the substantive elements of articles, including whether the "the gamete that fuses with the female gamete" part of your edit should stay or go. My suggestion: Change "or" to "i.e." in your edit yourself to save everyone some grief. If someone else deletes the whole edit afterward, argue with him or her, not with me. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, it isn't necessary to match the wording of sources exactly, as long as the intended meaning is the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(With apologies to @Crossroads: Sorry for hijacking your talk page.) @CycoMa: The latest edit you made to the article on male is a good semantic fix. But I need to point out that the edit, as a whole, isn't necessary because the information is repeated in the very next line of the article. I typically don't bother to delete/revert harmless stuff like that but, sooner or later, some other editor is likely to remove it as being needless/redundant. When that happens, I suggest letting it go. Removing it isn't a case of bias against the underlying idea, pushing a contradictory POV, or a quibble with the source. Whoever deletes it will just be trying to be word-efficient. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

LAPD

Hello! I know you saw from the extensive talk page debate, and from my own arguments against a longer addition to the lead, that I'm generally with you on avoiding undue weight, recentism, etc. when discussing charges of police brutality––so my most recent addition wasn't just about adding extra copy: I think the lead as it stands is misleading.

current: The LAPD has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, and discriminatory policing. In 2001, the United States Department of Justice entered into a consent decree with the LAPD regarding systemic civil rights violations and lack of accountability that stretched back decades. As a result of major reforms, the consent decree was lifted in 2013.

This makes it sound like issues concerning police brutality were resolved in 2013. I made my addition to show that clearly is not the case, as the department's currently dealing with what's been called its biggest scandal in decades:

added copy: In 2020, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced that six LAPD officers had been charged with conspiracy and falsifying information in a false gang labeling scandal, with an additional 18 officers under investigation. The discovery of false accusations led to the review of hundreds of cases and the dismissal of a number of felony charges dating back to 2016.

I agree that my addition was too long, I just wasn't sure how to make clear my reasoning in changing the language––but I think if the preceding sentences are trimmed down, we can make it work without adding too much copy:

proposed: The LAPD has been criticized for its history of police brutality, corruption, and discriminatory policing. In 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into a consent decree with the LAPD regarding systemic civil rights violations stretching back decades. The consent decree was lifted in 2013, but several years later the L.A. County District Attorney's Office resumed investigating corruption in the department.

This way the paragraph 1) acknowledges criticisms, 2) establishes that systemic issues were found in the second half of the 20th century, and 3) shows that these issues were not resolved in the 21st––but adds only a few words to the current lead. Does this work for you? (Regardless, thanks for being even-keeled in our exchanges; I've seen people get rather heated when taking this sort of debate personally…) Knifegames (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The existing text is about systemic issues; this recent stuff appears to be about issues that are not systemic (i.e. system-wide), even though it did involve several officers, not just one - though still a tiny proportion of the force of about 10,000. No large department is ever going to be perfect with no one committing misconduct ever after. I still maintain that this is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. There is no good reason to 'disprove' anything about the 2013 reforms. "But" is WP:Editorializing. We should be sticking to well-established generalizations sourced to peer-reviewed sources for this sort of thing in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Consequence Culture

Hi Crossroads, you have deleted more than half of the above article, I believe some of which without grounds. Please have a look at the talk page, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Crossroads,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Defund the police: Difference between revisions

Hi. I was trying to correct the indented heading "outside the United States" but your reversion has now left that section still indented, but also now attached it as a sub section of the previous section "Police Unions".

Pls can you tell me how I should have done it please(?), and also whether you inspected the version on which I did my revision, or the final version after your revision (which now looks even worse than it did at the beginning! Thanks. G6cid (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't noticed any such issue. I see you've made other edits since then and it looks fine to me now, so this may be solved. If not, feel free to bring it up on the article talk page. Maybe it differs by computer or something. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The SPIs

The email-related SPI was closed following discussion with other checkusers and clerks because it doesn't come close to meeting the criteria for checking, even aside from the issue of posting direct quotes from an email received on someone else's account that is no longer retrievable; it is, in fact, a fatal flaw that the entire email could not be produced (in a non-public forum), since we have absolutely nothing to compare it against. Nonetheless, the consensus was that it was a trolling email that could have been sent by anyone, just based on the information provided in the SPI. For all we know, hundreds of people may have that email address; it's in my list of contacts, and I can't even remember when I interacted with Flyer22 Frozen by email.

The other case was examined by multiple checkusers at my request. Another checkuser closed it, not me. It took the team only a brief time to confirm that the two accounts are not socks of each other at all, and it didn't require CU evidence to identify it. There was also a lot of concern amongst the team that no further injury be caused to Halo Jerk1, but also concern that this was a pattern of behaviour that should be discouraged; SPIs are serious business to those who are named in them, so there is a need to be cautious. Thus my carefully worded message on his talk page. It is worth noting that the two SPIs he filed were given high priority, even over cases that had been clerk-endorsed, and was reviewed by at least 5 different checkusers. The requests were taken seriously. Risker (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

On citations

Just my opinion: I feel that you are being overzealous with your undos and reverts over statements claimed to be "unsourced" despite them being commonly accepted. I've noticed you undoing multiple of my edits over such minor reasons. Do you mind holding back from reverting noncontentious/nonquestionable unsourced statements and instead seeking less "radical" means with {{Citation needed}}? Thanks. Casspedia (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edits exactly prompted this and I don't remember reverting you for this, although I don't necessarily pay close attention to who wrote something. In any case, I do make use of the CN tag sometimes. If I'm removing it, it's because it is contentious and needs to be sourced. This is per WP:BURDEN. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, also: if an article is already fairly well sourced and I see someone adding unsourced text, I'll usually revert such new material. Editors should be finding their own sources and not passing that burden to others. I don't recall you doing that though. With pre-existing material, I generally only remove if dubious, as described above. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Stana Cerović pronouns

you are correct that none of the sources uses make pronouns, but on page 155 of that one book, **before** the section referring to the other swornvergin, it does say that he used the make pronouns on interviews. Some2Guy (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Hey thank you for helping me on gender. I was honestly surprised me removing that sentence would cause controversy.

I guess those editors saw that Joan was a biologist and instantly assumed she was reliable.CycoMa (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain a certain removal?

Hey I noticed you removed this from gender. Can you explain further in detail your reasoning for its removal.CycoMa (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to add. If you feel you need to, better to open discussion at the article talk page in cases like this. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You commented that the paper was fringe? Did one of us misread something in it that made it fringe?CycoMa (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The paper is about this: This paper advances a third pillar, that hitherto has been almost completely ignored, namely the cellular Ca2+-homeostasis system, more specifically its sex-specific differences. Differential male-female genetics- and hormone-based Ca2+-homeostasis with effects on gender-related processes has been named Calcigender before. It will be argued that it follows from the principles of Ca2+- physiology and homeostasis that all individuals of a sexually reproducing animal population have a personalized gender behaviour. [2] This is a fringe view. The quote you were using was unnecessary anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that discussion at intersex

I’m honestly sorry if I came off as uncivil at Intersex. And I’m sorry you had to see that.CycoMa (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)