Jump to content

User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Barney Frank

As I said before I'm done with the article, so I'll once more place my suggestion here for your consideration and then be done with it: "Initially known for partisanship and party politics, he has since gone on to become...(fill in blank with what's there now) sources would include: [1](The two parties are increasingly divided" on the topic of gay concerns, he said. "Almost all the Republicans are on the wrong side, almost all the Democrats are on the right side.), [2] (if you get the whole article it refers to Frank as partisan), [3], and [4] which all highlight his early partisan nature (I can get more but they start going back earlier) while [5] and [6] for examples of changing attitude towards dealmaking. I think that it gives Frank in a proper light and makes accusations of anything inappropriate impossible. I also wished to apologize for my rather arrogant attitude in not obtaining sources earlier and insisting that it was all your job. Soxwon (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article needs improving but this process just seemed counter-intuitive. Being intertwined with CoM does not help anyone's opinion of your efforts. If you had presented a case similar to what you're stating here I think I would have replied that yes, we should neutrally and fairly spell this out in his career section. I still think we should but this is also among the many things that should be added so as not to be given undue weight. The biography on Frank, Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman, is to be released in October 2009 so is already getting reviewed /plenty of attention and I'm sure plenty of book reviews which we can also pull from overviewing his entire career. I also will look to re-organing his political issues sections as they really seem to invite polarized writing - _____ believes ____ about _(various hot topic)__. We realy should ditch all of that and go chronologically spelling out what he's done during each term and then inserting various issues that were worked on at each point. Thus all the LGBT (or any other area) isn't clumped as a Frank issue but we show the notable highligts and see if a more clear picture presents itself as to what he does feel is important. I easily was too harsh and am sensitive to all LGBT BLPs being used for various soapboxing so if I unfairly characterized you as doing that I apologize. -- Banjeboi 07:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've posted my proposal in clear and concise terms with a few more sources on the Frank talk page. I think what I posted is fair, and will look for additional supporting citations if you feel it necessary. Soxwon (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've responded there. -- Banjeboi 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholic League (U.S.)

I'm wondering why you removed all the stuff about Myers. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was merged above to the section about this material. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No prob. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Faith

clean-up. -- Banjeboi

Done. -- Banjeboi 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Do four merges - ugh

Talk:Gynephilia_and_androphilia#Multi_Merge_discussion. -- Banjeboi

Where is this at now, Benji? It makes sense to incorporate these two alongside the four detailed, into the single piece - and include asexuality, bisexuality, monosexuality, pansexuality - and arguably incorporate 'autogynephilia' and 'homosexual transsexualism'... Mish (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? -- Banjeboi 21:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter - I have enough to attend to. Mish (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is finished! -- Banjeboi 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Place names considered unusual

Clean-up AfD notes. -- Banjeboi

I'm not sure when you made this note, but it looks like KingofHearts did it yesterday. LadyofShalott 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I added the two DRV's as well. -- Banjeboi 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Backlog caught up through 27th, start with 28th

Wartch. -- Banjeboi 10:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Wrangler

Recently died, flup on obits, clean and fluff. -- Banjeboi 10:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Transgender health

Transgender health could be a lovely article overviewing issues addressing mental and physical health issues. It could overview general mental health challenges for all intersex, trans (pre-, post- and non-op) folks and summarize the various articles we already have thus exposing some of our gaps in coverage of these issues. In the physical health issues could share the challenges with finding adequate healthcare and summarize our current coverage for these various areas - again suggesting any gaps we have, etc etc; also a spiritual health vectroing off to LGBT and religion articles. -- Banjeboi

I cannot find a location for LGBT health. Am I missing something, and would it make sense to situate this there? Mish (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You're so right! There is LGBT issues in medicine which can cover most of this. -- Banjeboi 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How do we set up a redirect for 'LGBT health' to LGBT issues in medicine? Just so I know... Mish (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirect has the ... long version. The easy version is add the wikilink brackets and click on that article name. Then add #REDIRECT [[LGBT issues in medicine]] and save. -- Banjeboi 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That was pretty straightforward then. Mish (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel

I've noticed that you've been drafting an entirely new Bindel article in your userspace, and seemingly ignoring the discussion page at the same time.

I think this is a bad idea - you're going to run smack into some fairly vigorous criticism when you've finished your draft if you do that, and I suspect you're going to wind up wasting a fair bit of effort, since you're just not going to get a consensus for a lot of the changes you want to make. However, if you actually work with the other editors on the talk page, I'm convinced we can come up with something that's acceptable to everyone.

For starters, I have no issue with any of your proposed extensions up until the beginning of her time at The Guardian. I also think that your summary of her most recent article is close to being acceptable, with a few minor changes. In turn, MishMich has come up with a source on the talk page that deals with a good many of my concerns about the response to Bindel's columns. If you're willing to come to the table, we can deal with the issues of weight within the section on her Guardian columns, and I'm fairly amenable to compromising so we can come up with something that works, is neutral, and acceptable to all editors concerned.

However, I can basically guarantee that your proposed Guardian section is not going to be acceptable, and you're going to have a big fight on your hands if you think you're going to try and blast it through without consensus support. If other pro-Bindel editors have seen fit to work towards a consensus solution, how about working with us all? Rebecca (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for more of the same assumptions about what I'm doing and why. Let me tell you so you don't have to guess anymore. She's apparently had 160+ articles published yet her article focusses rather heavily on one. I'm looking to review - since there are only a handful - her articles that concern her published statements on trans issues. Looks to be only a handful and dispassionately look to them from chronological and theoretical perspectives. That is, she said ___ in 2004 but later apologized however in 2007 she said ____, this hopefully will give a more accurate portrayal of her veiws. Intwertwined with that should be the nomination protest and her response to it since we have that. Someone posted a link to the protest photos and at least some of those protesters had signs having nothing to with Bindel but instead against Stonewall for being LGB rather than LGBT - which was one of her points. So it's not only in a reliable source (verifiable) but also seems to be true. Just because I haven't been engaging in blow-by-blow quibbling war of words with every statement made, as seems to be the case against what I post there by a group of determined editors, doesn't mean I'm not "at the table". Thoughtful editing, IMHO, entailing digging through reliable sources to let them speak for themselves. Cheers for the heads up though that a big fight awaits me. Regardless the article will improve, POV mud-slinging removed and unreliable sourcing stripped away. That it has been done in battle style is disappointing but at least we have that former consensus and those involved on record. That will likely come in handy as well. -- Banjeboi 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As I've said repeatedly, I believe the article needs to be expanded so that there are no issues of undue weight, and I support any edits to that extent. My two concerns with your edits to the article thusfar has been a) your apparent tendency to veer away from neutral point of view and towards sympathetic point of view, and b) your refusal to respond to any concerns posted on the talk page, including suggestions whereby your own work could be adopted with consensus support with a few minor changes.
There also seems to be a problem that your perspective on this is not supported by the available sources. Firstly, this is not a matter of one article which she later apologised for; even the most strictest sources, and those supported by the other pro-Bindel editors on the talk page, do not support that conclusion. Secondly, for someone who has been so strong on quoting people in context, you've totally taken one quote of a Stonewall protest organiser out of context. While the protest was airing grievances with Stonewall, the catalyst for that protest was their nomination of a figure heavily associated with transphobia in Britain for an award. The two are fundamentally intertwined, and the sources make this clear. While this distinction should be mentioned in the article, it is important that the sources aren't misrepresented to try and slant the article.
I have no problem with thoughtful editing, digging through reliable sources, or letting them speak for themselves. I do, however, have a problem with the way this has worked out in practice; specifically, as I noted above, what I feel is your tendency to use sympathetic point of view instead of neutral point of view. I also believe, however, that quite a bit of your writing on the disputed sections could be adopted with consensus support with a few changes, should you be so willing. This can only occur if you will actually discuss such changes, however; you have so far shown a tendency to try and ram your drafts unchanged through without consensus. I would like to see a draft of this article that everyone involved - you included - is happy with. Unfortunately, this is simply not possible unless you take a less belligerent stance towards the other editors of the article. Rebecca (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Oy vey. We'll have to agree to disagree a bit here. I've been correcting some rather unbalanced negative content to be more NPOV - it's still undue but that can be fixed to an extent. You apparent see me as sympathetic or even "pro-Bindel", which I'm not. I've also responded to every question and concern ften repeating myself but I will continue there despite these negative characterizing of my work and intentions. My nly concern is follwing BLP policies, I had never even heard of Bindel until i looked at the article - this is surprising because the article suggests she's enemy #1 which doesn't seem to be true. Instead her views on some trans issues are seen as offensive by sometrans activists. It's fine that we state this but we shouldn't conflate something t be what it isn't - either positive or negative to a subject, especially negative and contentious material on a BLP. This has been the core issue from moment one and seems unlikely to change from being the core issue. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have relocated the draft to my own user area to work on. It is mostly formating citations, following up refs, wrapping text around them, and accommodating sugegstions from the discussion page. Ironically, although the rest of the article has expanded to reflect her wider corpus of writing and work, the trans section appears to have expanded as well.Mish (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, wonderful work so far. I'd rather not interupt things but let me know if/when I can trim a bit. I think you have extra section titles but thse may just be for organizing efforts - duh! wish I'd thought of that. I'm having a low drama tolerance lately but piles of wikignoning don't scare me. If you want all the refs converted or anything let me know. -- Banjeboi 18:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm working through the citations as I pull the sections together, it isn't that onerous, just takes time. Yes, I'm pulling the core sections together from the different sections, and it leaves us with about 5 or 6 main themes. I think the trans section works better within an LGBT section, because that way the feminist, lesbian, gay and trans 'issue' kind of lead you through to the more recent rejection of the LGBT movement and retrenchment into traditional radical lesbian feminism that came out of it all. Not entirely surprising considering her proximity to Jeffries & Dworkin. Fascinating stuff. it's in the same place in my user area as you had it in yours. Mish (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have done most of it, and formated the citations I have put in, as well as a few others. Needs a bit of work checking they are formated properly, as well as some of the others, and not duplicated but with consistent ref names throughout where duplicated. No doubt can be slimmed. It is under Julie Bindel in my area, feel free to copy back to your area to edit, then it can go back to the discussion page. Thanks, Mish (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Had to break, will look there in a bit. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Tks. Let me know if there's stuff I need to attend to, & when you've finished, & I'll post it up on the talk page. Mish (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Violence against LGBT people

Hi Benjiboi. I was doing a thorough, item-by-item edit of this article a while back but never got all the way through, so it's nice to have some good help. One of your edits inserted the word "promimally"; I'm not sure what you meant. (Proximally? Proximately? Prominently? Nominally? It was fun guessing but none of them made especially good sense!) Btw, there's a thread on the talk page about splitting the list off into a separate article. I think this makes some sense, and now that Homosexuality is in reasonably tolerable shape, I might have time to work on it. Your help would be much appreciated, especially in trying to flesh out the main article, which would be pretty short after a split. Rivertorch (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and replied. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"Proximally close" sounds a little strange, don't you think? Rivertorch (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps. It's technically accurate - situated close to : proximate - but any better wording that means the same? -- Banjeboi 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I generally think of proximal as a technical term in anatomy, although I see that AHD does show it as a synonym of proximate. Then again, AHD defines proximate as "very near or next," and that doesn't quite work for Mauritania or perhaps Nigeria, either. In any case, "proximally close" is redundant. Do you think it's critical to note that the countries are all in the Middle East or northern Africa? I'm not sure, but if so, we might say just that. Rivertorch (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems relevant, so "clustered in the Middle East and northern Africa"? -- Banjeboi 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd skip "clustered," since some of them aren't really, but otherwise that sounds fine. Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking, but let's get it as precise as we can now while things are still relatively serene. It has been a lovely calm before the storm, but I fear the skirmishes are beginning again. Rivertorch (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Bring it on! Lol! Yes, the dramahz do seem to be consistently predictable but at the end of it - one by one - our articles improve! -- Banjeboi 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related, read Scjessey (talk · contribs)'s section called Wikipedia and bias. That's the best I have seen anyone explain how nutjobs game the system. They claim the moral high ground, yet they employ cheating and lying as normal tactics to achieve their goals. <--So true. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And oh yeah, I'm famous! Jody = Me! - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Lol! I recall reading how "you are the change the world needs" and "change the world by changing yourself" infuriated old-school social conservatives who adhere to patriarchal top-down leadership. "Hippie Crap Saves The World: Can better orgasms and upping your personal vibe really thwart BushCo idiocy?" is quite a gem. -- Banjeboi 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You gay boys - always the chicken! -- Banjeboi 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

As I mentioned before, do you think a straw poll over a topic banning certain disruptive editors is in order? Please respond here. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll won't help much. If you want to invest energy into it perhaps start a subpage regarding the chief one's disruptions showing a pattern of disruption. I suggest chronological and sticking more minor "called all ARS inclusionists" and "accuses people of canvassing" in subsections. -- Banjeboi 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
that is a great idea. thanks. I never thought about doing this way. Once I have that list what would I do with it? Do you ever check you know what? :) I don't think you do. :( Ikip (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Then we invite a few neutral editors to see what their take on it is. It should be prefaced with a generalized although criticisms have always been embraced and many improvements to ARS have been made from constructive comments... and some concerns are reasonable and worth due consideration ... there is, however, a pattern which has been evident that goes beyond the patience of any Wikiproject whether directed at a few editors or generalized at an entire project. Harrassment and incivility is generally toxic and counters consensus-building and long-term problem solving. No one should have to try to maintain productive and stressful editing - the majority of all ARS work concerns XfD activity with tight deadlines - while being disparaged and vilified across multiple forums especially over a longterm when concerns have been raised and answered repeatedly. Would anyone want to be continually asked "When will you stop beating your dog?" when it was reponded to in full the first time. ARS is not interested in being the battleground or referee in the ongoing inclusionist/deletionist battles. Take it elsewhere, we have better things to do. Just some thoughts. -- Banjeboi 09:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That sentence

Grrr . . . you've restored the sentence—"Same sex couples are not capable of sexual reproduction"—that finally went away. Rivertorch (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well remove it until consensus is to add it; the rest of that edit was fixing multiple issues. I'm not terribly bothered if it's there - kinda don't see the need personally - but if it has to be then it should be contextualized and integrated. Take it away of you want. I won't fight it. -- Banjeboi 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_44&oldid=1141624073"