User talk:Rorybowman/200706
Template:AfD_in_3_steps Wikipedia:Websites Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ Wikipedia:Logos
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style: Help:List Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
Be bold with NPOV. NOR and Wikipedia:Citing_sources for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Perfect!
Wikipedia:Merge /RSA /MA /FH
- 2006-01 Correspondents: Solar Mista-X Sam Spade Singkong2005 SirIsaacBrock
- 2005-12 Correspondents: Sango123 -Marcus-
Modus Operandi
[edit]One of my favorite Wikipedia techniques is to find and upload public-domain pictures to illustrate spatial things such as anatomy that are difficult to describe verbally. Any publication by the US federal government is an excellent source for these, which should then be uploaded to WikiMedia Commons. When possible I try to find a picture which (a) illustrates more than one thing, (b) can be clearly documented as public-domain and (c) is as small (in file size and pixels) as appropriate. Very few Wikipedia articles need more than one good thumbnail, and if a picture can be used in more than one place, this is efficient. I always try to explain enough about the source that others can jury my contributions or mine the same data. Someone who is good at finding and tracking down attributions for public-domain media can do a LOT to help Wikipedia in this way, especially if they assign keywords and categories within the Wikipeda Commons.
In one case I took a scan of a common-angle picture of a famous statue and then popped it into Photoshop where I altered it enough to void the original copyright, while still retaining the relevant parts Wikipedia purposes. It is very important when uploading pictures to be certain of copyrights as best you are able, and to provide "trackback" URLs so that others with more subject matter expertise can jury your decisions.
Other small things that can help are: alphabetizing longish lists; fixing redlines; fleshing out references and; currecint mizpellings (rampant on teh Internets).
What do you think about this
[edit]I noticed that the article about the boston crab used this image: Image. It is used purely under "fair use" apparently... so i started wondering if that same argument can be used for pictured depicting techniques related to fighting. Any ideas? ---Marcus- 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to be a bit conservative because I find people are VERY loose in what they consider "fair use," as demonstrated by the recent mess over at boxing. Unless I can explicitly cite the exact origin of an image I try not to use it. In one case I took a fairly standard picture of a famous statue and then used Photoshop to substantially enhance it and make it both clearer and more generic, but that is about as far as I will go. This particular image looks like it is from a commercial source, and without an explicit author release, I wouldn't. But then I'm a bit of a stickler that way. Rorybowman 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The catch wrestling article
[edit]I noticed you've got catch wrestling as one of your interests. I was thinking about maybe working on the catch wrestling article(there's atleast two of them right now), but maybe you'd like to do it if you are especially interested? It looks awful right now i think =] ---Marcus- 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and i'll also check out the swedish article in a sec. ---Marcus- 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK i translated it, but you can put the relevant information as you desire, since i don't know anything about that subject. I was however not able to properly translate three words:
- Handelsbolag - "Limited liability company", i'm not sure if there is an EXACT term meaning the same.
- 1:e kriminalinspektör - direct translation "1:st criminal inspector", some form of detective i presume it is. A position within the police hierarchy.
- generalagent - "main marketing agent"(or something like that), the person who is solely responsible for marketin(and selling) something withing a large region, such as a country. ---Marcus- 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Awesome job on the catch wrestling article. I redirected the short "catch as catch can" stub there. ---Marcus- 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope, i didn't add those pictures. I'm careful with copyright issues myself. But some of those farmer Burns images can be added since they are public domain. Ok good that you cleared it up about the hybrid martial arts! ---Marcus- 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Men's rights - Masculist
[edit]Your change to "Masculists, frequently anti-feminist and against legal reforms which 'unnaturally' favor women" is not reflected in the article, would appear to be POV. -- Paul foord 05:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention. I was using "unnaturally" in a way I felt technically accurate given many masculist assertions about the "natural" nature of gender roles, but it certainly is ambiguous enough to be worth checking. Thanks for the change in favor of moderation! Rorybowman 07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey no problem. I'm really interested in the Combatives, especially Defendo and Defendu because of the history of their development in Canada. I first heard about Fairbairn's systems in a book I read on Camp X...
You may also be interested to check out the List of martial arts. I added some stuff from combatives that wasn't on that list. Keep up the good work! --Mista-X 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for the work that you're doing on the Hunting page. Good Job!! Zonedar 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Merge of Combatives and Close combat
[edit]I replied here. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- and again here. Sam Spade 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge proposal from Appropriate technology
[edit]Thanks for your interest in the merge proposal at Talk:Appropriate technology for developing countries. I agree with your point, but I had other reasons for the merge, which I've now explained. See also the longer explanation.
I'd appreciate you checking this and seeing if this changes your mind. Regards --Singkong2005 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Rory,
- Thanks for your comments on my subpage. I didn't notice them till yesterday - apparently we don't get a "new messages" notice for changes to subpages. Anyway, I've made some minor category changes - check Category:Appropriate technology. Category:Appropriate technology advocates was the best I could come up with to cover people & organizations & courses. I didn't think separate categories were justified.
- The main article, Appropriate technology, needs a lot of work - the kind of detailed editing which isn't my strong point. But I'm hopefully roping in some people from Engineers Without Borders (Australia) and hopefully others, so we'll see how it goes. --Singkong2005 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's more than okay with me if you do a once through on the merged merged Appropriate technology page. That would be great. --Singkong2005 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Categories?
[edit](I originally posted a comment on this yesterday, here, then I also posted it on Talk:Adobe & Talk:Rammed earth.) I'm wondering whether there should be a category called "sustainable technology" - but perhaps it would overlap too much with categories like Category:Appropriate technology & Category:Renewable energy. For the moment, I'll just use Category:Appropriate technology (which is a now subcategory of Category:Development and Category:Sustainability).
In the cases of Rammed earth, Adobe & Dutch brick, I think they reasonably belong in Category:Appropriate technology. At the moment, though, the Appropriate technology aspect of these technologies is not developed in the articles. Anyway, feel free to make a different edit or suggestion. --Singkong2005 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Colours
[edit]Hello, the symbolism of using "Blood Red" as the colour for the template should be obvious. One poster lightened the original red, which is fine. Then you used pink and subsequently safety orange. May I enquire why you are picking strange colours. Are you a vandal ? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, primarily Welsh ancestry, and standard American cur. While a rhetorical preference to evoke blood over legibility is understandable, it is telling. The original plan was to lighten the red so that the blue was readable. I thought about the hex value for "salmon" as a joking nod to sport fishing but then decided that safety orange was another semi-humorous ref for the clever reader. Anything that increases readability would be great. The trick in legibility is not only to change the hue but also to increase contrast of light and dark. The change from one bright red to another didn't address that. A quick way to check on contrast of colors is to change your computer monitor to grayscale and then see if the text is still discernible. Rorybowman 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
HEllo and thanks
[edit]Hi Rorybowman. I just wanted to thank you for noticing my addition of Starhawk; I have long followed her work. I am a great fan of wikipedia too, but am not sure of the correct ways to do things. For example, I tried to reply to your message on my own talkpage, but couldn't make it do what I wanted to, so came over here instead -- I hope that is acceptable? It gave me a chance to see your list of how your interests have developed decade by decade -- I like the concept, and especially 1965! Thanks again for the encouragement. Contributing can feel like shouting into the wind sometimes.BrainyBabe 17:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Masculinity
[edit]Hi, I was attempting to improve the article by translating some parts of the interwiki de article. I thought that the part I removed seemed somewhat inappropriate and irrelevant. Although I do agree that the following could be true: non-standard behaviors may be considered a sign of homosexuality, the use of dyke and fag should not be considered a hallmark of masculinity. I do not object to a partial revert, but a little NPoVing would be nice. Gilliamjf 06:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, we've "met" in discussions in Talk:Hunting. Could I persuade you to help out editing hare coursing? Currently the page is attracting a lot of edits from a very pro-coursing editor who might be somewhat inexperienced, and we're having difficulty maintaining editorial quality. I think your sympathies are more pro-coursing than mine or User:MikeHobday's, but that's fine by me - you show a strong adherence to NPOV and it might even be easier for a user with such sympathies to get a good page out of the current process. Anything you can do to reduce the current workload would be much appreciated. Thanks! — ciphergoth 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have much spare time over the next week or so, but I will swing by and respond in more detail here later, when I do have some. I'm personally opposed to almost all bloodsports, but do believe NPOV and intellectual rigor are more relevant on these pages. Please watch this space for more comment in the next week or two. I certainly hope I can help! - Rorybowman 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you be able to help me tidy up the hare coursing article when you have time?Maybe i am putting in too much edits but still i think the article was in the past unfair and negative towards coursing so i had to give a proper opinion where people are not just giving the negative sides of hare coursing which as you know yourself is biased.Thanks!Ian Davies Friend 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please look at Masculine psychology
[edit]Would you please look at the Masculine psychology article, there are a few problems, the section on "Males are not born of their own identity" is such that I think it can't be easily paraphrased to make it encyclopedic. Paul foord 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Howdy Paul! I have a pretty heavy workload this week, but am currently showing no article (although strangely a talk page). I won't be able to get at much Wikipedia until later this week or early next, but yes, I would be happy to swing by and see what I can do. Cheers! Rorybowman 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject International development
[edit]Hi Rory, You may be interested to know that there is now a WikiProject International development. Would appreciate your input/feedback. Cheers, Singkong2005 03:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
ManKind Project article
[edit]Hi, Rory, Please drop by the ManKind Project discussion page when you can -- I had some questions about your last edit.
Best --Hooponopono 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Request for comments concerning gender bias
[edit]I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music [[1]], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.
A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.
I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and your suggestions. The only problem is that there are indeed women who do qualify in this category of "important opera composers", if the proper sources are admitted. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that I will be part of this solution to this problem, but I do appreciate your helpful attitude in giving these solutions. I do not think that seperating women and men is the solution in this case, however. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:AfD_in_3_steps Wikipedia:Websites Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ Wikipedia:Logos
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style: Help:List Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
Be bold with NPOV. NOR and Wikipedia:Citing_sources for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Perfect!
Wikipedia:Merge /RSA /MA /FH
- 2006-01 Correspondents: Solar Mista-X Sam Spade Singkong2005 SirIsaacBrock
- 2005-12 Correspondents: Sango123 -Marcus-
Modus Operandi
[edit]One of my favorite Wikipedia techniques is to find and upload public-domain pictures to illustrate spatial things such as anatomy that are difficult to describe verbally. Any publication by the US federal government is an excellent source for these, which should then be uploaded to WikiMedia Commons. When possible I try to find a picture which (a) illustrates more than one thing, (b) can be clearly documented as public-domain and (c) is as small (in file size and pixels) as appropriate. Very few Wikipedia articles need more than one good thumbnail, and if a picture can be used in more than one place, this is efficient. I always try to explain enough about the source that others can jury my contributions or mine the same data. Someone who is good at finding and tracking down attributions for public-domain media can do a LOT to help Wikipedia in this way, especially if they assign keywords and categories within the Wikipeda Commons.
In one case I took a scan of a common-angle picture of a famous statue and then popped it into Photoshop where I altered it enough to void the original copyright, while still retaining the relevant parts Wikipedia purposes. It is very important when uploading pictures to be certain of copyrights as best you are able, and to provide "trackback" URLs so that others with more subject matter expertise can jury your decisions.
Other small things that can help are: alphabetizing longish lists; fixing redlines; fleshing out references and; currecint mizpellings (rampant on teh Internets).
What do you think about this
[edit]I noticed that the article about the boston crab used this image: Image. It is used purely under "fair use" apparently... so i started wondering if that same argument can be used for pictured depicting techniques related to fighting. Any ideas? ---Marcus- 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to be a bit conservative because I find people are VERY loose in what they consider "fair use," as demonstrated by the recent mess over at boxing. Unless I can explicitly cite the exact origin of an image I try not to use it. In one case I took a fairly standard picture of a famous statue and then used Photoshop to substantially enhance it and make it both clearer and more generic, but that is about as far as I will go. This particular image looks like it is from a commercial source, and without an explicit author release, I wouldn't. But then I'm a bit of a stickler that way. Rorybowman 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The catch wrestling article
[edit]I noticed you've got catch wrestling as one of your interests. I was thinking about maybe working on the catch wrestling article(there's atleast two of them right now), but maybe you'd like to do it if you are especially interested? It looks awful right now i think =] ---Marcus- 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and i'll also check out the swedish article in a sec. ---Marcus- 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK i translated it, but you can put the relevant information as you desire, since i don't know anything about that subject. I was however not able to properly translate three words:
- Handelsbolag - "Limited liability company", i'm not sure if there is an EXACT term meaning the same.
- 1:e kriminalinspektör - direct translation "1:st criminal inspector", some form of detective i presume it is. A position within the police hierarchy.
- generalagent - "main marketing agent"(or something like that), the person who is solely responsible for marketin(and selling) something withing a large region, such as a country. ---Marcus- 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Awesome job on the catch wrestling article. I redirected the short "catch as catch can" stub there. ---Marcus- 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope, i didn't add those pictures. I'm careful with copyright issues myself. But some of those farmer Burns images can be added since they are public domain. Ok good that you cleared it up about the hybrid martial arts! ---Marcus- 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Men's rights - Masculist
[edit]Your change to "Masculists, frequently anti-feminist and against legal reforms which 'unnaturally' favor women" is not reflected in the article, would appear to be POV. -- Paul foord 05:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention. I was using "unnaturally" in a way I felt technically accurate given many masculist assertions about the "natural" nature of gender roles, but it certainly is ambiguous enough to be worth checking. Thanks for the change in favor of moderation! Rorybowman 07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey no problem. I'm really interested in the Combatives, especially Defendo and Defendu because of the history of their development in Canada. I first heard about Fairbairn's systems in a book I read on Camp X...
You may also be interested to check out the List of martial arts. I added some stuff from combatives that wasn't on that list. Keep up the good work! --Mista-X 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for the work that you're doing on the Hunting page. Good Job!! Zonedar 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Merge of Combatives and Close combat
[edit]I replied here. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- and again here. Sam Spade 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge proposal from Appropriate technology
[edit]Thanks for your interest in the merge proposal at Talk:Appropriate technology for developing countries. I agree with your point, but I had other reasons for the merge, which I've now explained. See also the longer explanation.
I'd appreciate you checking this and seeing if this changes your mind. Regards --Singkong2005 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Rory,
- Thanks for your comments on my subpage. I didn't notice them till yesterday - apparently we don't get a "new messages" notice for changes to subpages. Anyway, I've made some minor category changes - check Category:Appropriate technology. Category:Appropriate technology advocates was the best I could come up with to cover people & organizations & courses. I didn't think separate categories were justified.
- The main article, Appropriate technology, needs a lot of work - the kind of detailed editing which isn't my strong point. But I'm hopefully roping in some people from Engineers Without Borders (Australia) and hopefully others, so we'll see how it goes. --Singkong2005 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's more than okay with me if you do a once through on the merged merged Appropriate technology page. That would be great. --Singkong2005 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Categories?
[edit](I originally posted a comment on this yesterday, here, then I also posted it on Talk:Adobe & Talk:Rammed earth.) I'm wondering whether there should be a category called "sustainable technology" - but perhaps it would overlap too much with categories like Category:Appropriate technology & Category:Renewable energy. For the moment, I'll just use Category:Appropriate technology (which is a now subcategory of Category:Development and Category:Sustainability).
In the cases of Rammed earth, Adobe & Dutch brick, I think they reasonably belong in Category:Appropriate technology. At the moment, though, the Appropriate technology aspect of these technologies is not developed in the articles. Anyway, feel free to make a different edit or suggestion. --Singkong2005 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Colours
[edit]Hello, the symbolism of using "Blood Red" as the colour for the template should be obvious. One poster lightened the original red, which is fine. Then you used pink and subsequently safety orange. May I enquire why you are picking strange colours. Are you a vandal ? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, primarily Welsh ancestry, and standard American cur. While a rhetorical preference to evoke blood over legibility is understandable, it is telling. The original plan was to lighten the red so that the blue was readable. I thought about the hex value for "salmon" as a joking nod to sport fishing but then decided that safety orange was another semi-humorous ref for the clever reader. Anything that increases readability would be great. The trick in legibility is not only to change the hue but also to increase contrast of light and dark. The change from one bright red to another didn't address that. A quick way to check on contrast of colors is to change your computer monitor to grayscale and then see if the text is still discernible. Rorybowman 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
HEllo and thanks
[edit]Hi Rorybowman. I just wanted to thank you for noticing my addition of Starhawk; I have long followed her work. I am a great fan of wikipedia too, but am not sure of the correct ways to do things. For example, I tried to reply to your message on my own talkpage, but couldn't make it do what I wanted to, so came over here instead -- I hope that is acceptable? It gave me a chance to see your list of how your interests have developed decade by decade -- I like the concept, and especially 1965! Thanks again for the encouragement. Contributing can feel like shouting into the wind sometimes.BrainyBabe 17:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Masculinity
[edit]Hi, I was attempting to improve the article by translating some parts of the interwiki de article. I thought that the part I removed seemed somewhat inappropriate and irrelevant. Although I do agree that the following could be true: non-standard behaviors may be considered a sign of homosexuality, the use of dyke and fag should not be considered a hallmark of masculinity. I do not object to a partial revert, but a little NPoVing would be nice. Gilliamjf 06:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, we've "met" in discussions in Talk:Hunting. Could I persuade you to help out editing hare coursing? Currently the page is attracting a lot of edits from a very pro-coursing editor who might be somewhat inexperienced, and we're having difficulty maintaining editorial quality. I think your sympathies are more pro-coursing than mine or User:MikeHobday's, but that's fine by me - you show a strong adherence to NPOV and it might even be easier for a user with such sympathies to get a good page out of the current process. Anything you can do to reduce the current workload would be much appreciated. Thanks! — ciphergoth 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have much spare time over the next week or so, but I will swing by and respond in more detail here later, when I do have some. I'm personally opposed to almost all bloodsports, but do believe NPOV and intellectual rigor are more relevant on these pages. Please watch this space for more comment in the next week or two. I certainly hope I can help! - Rorybowman 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you be able to help me tidy up the hare coursing article when you have time?Maybe i am putting in too much edits but still i think the article was in the past unfair and negative towards coursing so i had to give a proper opinion where people are not just giving the negative sides of hare coursing which as you know yourself is biased.Thanks!Ian Davies Friend 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please look at Masculine psychology
[edit]Would you please look at the Masculine psychology article, there are a few problems, the section on "Males are not born of their own identity" is such that I think it can't be easily paraphrased to make it encyclopedic. Paul foord 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Howdy Paul! I have a pretty heavy workload this week, but am currently showing no article (although strangely a talk page). I won't be able to get at much Wikipedia until later this week or early next, but yes, I would be happy to swing by and see what I can do. Cheers! Rorybowman 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject International development
[edit]Hi Rory, You may be interested to know that there is now a WikiProject International development. Would appreciate your input/feedback. Cheers, Singkong2005 03:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
ManKind Project article
[edit]Hi, Rory, Please drop by the ManKind Project discussion page when you can -- I had some questions about your last edit.
Best --Hooponopono 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your kind words
Thanks for the kind words! Unfortunately, it looks like most of the current info from the article is stolen directly from Mankind Project-related company websites, which is not really encouraged on Wikipedia. I will try to improve and add info from cited sources - and possibly also delete info that reads like advertising, and/or has blatant quotes - without citations, which is actually kind of funny - to quote something without citing where the quote came from! I have done some searches and there are some reliable secondary sources out there - just have to dig for em. Smeelgova 06:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
- You are a peach to do so. I happened to have been called a clueless MKP apologist this week on another board, and am smarting a bit too much to edit with a clean heart on this one now. Methinks I may go out to a boxing gym and take pictures of boxing gloves and hand wraps and punching bags! 8^) Rorybowman 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a grand idea. I know from personal experience that various internet boards can be quite harrowing. Exercise is always a good stress reliever - sigh, I have to get back to martial arts at some point soon myself... Smeelgova 06:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Request for comments concerning gender bias
[edit]I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music [[2]], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.
A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.
I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and your suggestions. The only problem is that there are indeed women who do qualify in this category of "important opera composers", if the proper sources are admitted. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that I will be part of this solution to this problem, but I do appreciate your helpful attitude in giving these solutions. I do not think that seperating women and men is the solution in this case, however. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Deer hunting
[edit]Per your user page, I thought that you might be interested in adding to the Deer hunting article, which is in need of refinement. There also is a need to start a Wikipedia:WikiProject Hunting. -- Jreferee 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Category
[edit]The definition for LGAT category was re-defined to specify that items in the LGAT category must qualify to be in the LIST of LGATs. In order to preserve some of the items in the LGAT category, the requirements for the LIST had to be modified to include, organizations, individuals and methodologies.
I believe Smee created both the category and the list, and it only seems reasonable that she be the one to define what she intended to be included there.
-Peace in God. Lsi john 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was Lsi john's helpful suggestion to rename the list itself. Smee 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the replies here, folks, but I'll respond in the article talk page. See you there! Rorybowman 04:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sterling Institute of Relationship
[edit]
|
On 28 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sterling Institute of Relationship, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--howcheng {chat} 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Image in article First Things First
[edit]First of all: Great job on the article! You seem to have added both valuable information as well as two illuminating images. One small detail though: the image MerrillCoveyMatrix.png places quadrant 2 in the upper right corner, whereas the article on the Cartesian coordinate system places it in the upper left. --Bensin 11:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. This is an error that Merrill, Merill and Covey make in the original text, probably from an ignorance of the quadrant numbering convention in Algebra. Because the phrase "quadrant 2" is used repeatedly within the book, I didn't want to change it, but because the wikilink to a cool math article was so fun, I didn't want to remove it. Changing the book's content would clearly be wrong, so I changed the wikilink slightly to be less precise than it was before, in the hopes that folks would notice that Covey uses arabic rather than Roman numerals and not mind the odd connection. Good catch, though! The other alternative seemed to be to unwikify the links to the math articles, which seemed to me much less fun. If you can think of a more elegant way to solve the problem, please do, and thank you for the kind words! - Rorybowman 15:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome! I made this[3] edit to clarify. --Bensin 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Boxing article RfC
[edit]As a contributor to the Boxing article, you may want to be aware that there have been some problems with a user repeatedly reverting to an older version, discussed on the talk page. I've already tried to communicate with the user, but it may be necessary to submit a Request for Comment, in which case I need another editor to co-sponsor. Please let me know if you're interested. Djcastel 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)