User talk:D.g.lab.

Karen (pejorative)

Thank you, D.g.lab., for your recent edits to the article Karen (pejorative), and its Talk page.

While I'm not sure that some of your edits to the article are sound (I won't be challenging them), I definitely appreciate the thoughts you shared on the talk page. I believe you have made a valid point in that a slang term for a self-serving complainer has been extended into a racial slur, and have called that extension into question.

I should like to mention that while you left edit summaries for the article changes, it appears that you have neglected to do so for the talk page (see Help:Edit summary). It is strongly advised to write a brief edit summary to explain the changes you've made, otherwise editors may become confused as to your intentions. This is especially so when you make several adjustments / reversals: I personally have made several changes to this text, but I made frequent use of the Show preview button (but it doesn't save my changes).

Don't forget to assume good faith, and maintain civility with fellow editors. If you need advice, follow the instructions for Template:Help me. Glad to have your contribution to the project; many happy edits. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeNoel: thank you for your kind suggestions.

I'll keep in mind to add edit summaries for talk page changes. While I do preview my changes, changing my mind or making minor edits tends to be common; a strategy that would help improve this is to re-read myself more carefully.

Your statements about good faith and civility are noted. --D.g.lab. (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just editor advice in regards to cleanup tags, such as Template:Citation needed... try to keep the |reason= parameter succinct. If you need to provide more than a brief sentence, consider following the CN template with Template:Discuss to direct people to the Talk page section that specifically addresses the issue you're tagging. Most of the time, I find I can fit what I want to say in the CN reason and rarely have to rely on the Discuss template. Due to the potentially contentious nature of the article, directing to a specific Talk page section may be advisable. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeNoel:OK, will keep in mind. Thanks for mentioning it.

Discretionary sanctions

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karen

I appreciate your deference to my profession, but "professors have argued" is pretty meaningless. You need to be more specific than that. Quotes and opinions should be ascribed; something doesn't become true or more true just because a professor says it--unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Are you referring to "Professors agree that Karen historically refers to racism"? This was an attempt to explain a somewhat dense set of quotations, with the feeling that my changes will eventually get reverted by someone because they don't appreciate the condensing of mentions of racism... I'd prefer to write "some professors agree..." but am not sure whether this is what you are suggesting. --D.g.lab. (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the very first thing you should do is let go of the idea that "professors", in the plural, used as a kind of shorthand for "important people who know what they are talking about", is helpful here. I mean, maybe some of them are lecturers, or adjuncts. Some are tenured, some are not. "Professor" is a job, that's it. More helpful is "Social scientists" or "Scholars of racial studies" or whatever--whatever is right here, and meaningful. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The paragraph mentions three people. Meredith Clark, the first, is a media researcher at the University of Virginia. Karen Grigsby Bates, the second, is a reporter for NPR on race and ethnicity. In the third sentence, Julia Carrie Wong (referenced but not mentioned) is a technology reporter for Guardian. So two out of three are not professors.

Being a technology reporter, Julia Carrie Wong is not an authority on race, not to mention that her articles states, "Derek Chauvin, a brutal portrait of the implacable indifference to Black life that defines American policing" -- far from an unbiased claim to define policing of a country by one man, in my personal opinion. If it were up to me, I'd drop that reference.

Karen Grigsby Bates is a reporter on race, so she likely has some experience, but will probably naturally err on the side of racism, that being her job.

Meredith Clark, on the other hand, "is a journalist and Assistant Professor in Media Studies at the University of Virginia. Her research focuses on the intersections of race, media, and power in digital, social, and news media. She was named to The Root 100 in 2015 for her dissertation research on Black Twitter". She holds a PhD, but yet again, will likely err on the side of racism seeing her experience.

The appellation "professor" is too dignified here; so also "scholars of racial studies". Again, if it were up to me, I'd say something like "activists"...

A lot of the article was written based on opinionated news sources. I'm not sure what can be done about that, though I have removed a couple of quotes, moving them to the talk page to explain why. What are your thoughts? --D.g.lab. (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drmies is suggesting that vague attribution leads to weasel words. I could be wrong, though—I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth—but "Professors agree" does sound like a vague conclusion. Citing a specific body or individual (as you've done in the above rely) is much better. I'm not an expert, though. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Signatures

Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tilde marks at the end, per WP:4TILDES.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]