User talk:Rainbowofpeace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Antisemitism Usage[edit]

The quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica on antisemitism is from the articles lede. Ít concerns precisely the problems with modern usage. To say that "The addition is not neutral." is to suggest the entire EB article is not neutral. I am not at liberty to "rephrase [it] in a neutral fashion".

Are you not showing intolerance for alternative views? Galerita (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Discrimination sidebar[edit]

Linking to those templates is an interesting idea, although the direct links to the templates are more intended for designers, particlularly once documentation has been added. There are already links to high level articles Religious intolerance and Xenophobia. These more-or-less duplicate the issues dealt with by the two templates. In each case a well-written top-level article including the relevant navbox should render the direct template link unnecessary. Perhaps you can consider how best to accomplish that if the articles are not currently suitable? --Mirokado (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It used to be that the forms of anti-ethnic and anti-religious articles were listed after the specific forms. This however has fallen out of practice so to make these articles easily accessible for those studying discrimination and to keep the articles like anti-christian sentiment and anti-americanism in a relevent area I linked them as new templates connected to the discrimination templete. However, if you wish to bring it back to the old way I am more than willing to help but think that it would be unreasonable and would only fill up the template.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The template links do not seem to be worrying anybody so I suggest we leave well alone. --Mirokado (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Pangender , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. April Arcus (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-cultural sentiment[edit]

I'm having to move this template again for various technical and manual-of-style reasons (see the edit summary.) It will take a little while to finish all the necessary related changes. --Mirokado (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this template again for various reasons, please see Template_talk:Anti-cultural_sentiment#Anti-cultural_sentiment. Sorry I didn't notice the previous discussion first. --Mirokado (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

Hi. I just suppressed an edit that you made to your userpage, on request from another user via OTRS. While it's self-disclosure and technically, I can't really mandate that you not put it there, I highly recommend that you do not add personally-identifiable information to your Wikipedia userpage again. It can be used against you in a myriad of ways and, once out, is very hard to put back in. Best regards - Alison 03:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent moves[edit]

Hello, regarding your recent moves: can you please file a move request for these articles instead of moving them without prior talk page discussion? The reason I ask is that the articles in question are the subject of a prior move request, so they are potentially controversial moves per Wikipedia's definition. Potentially controversial moves require a move discussion to reach consensus for a new name. Directions for requesting a move are available at Wikipedia:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Thanks and regards. --Muchness (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial Badges[edit]

Great idea with the badges, it's right that we should never forget what happened. I personally congratulate you on that. I'm a pink triangle and a repeat offender apparently! Jenova20 14:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination sidebar[edit]

See Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar#Persistent_addition_of_unsourced_material and please stop doing this. Your latest edit was a breach of Wikipedia etiquette for the reasons stated in the link. --Mirokado (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Heterosexism edit[edit]

Thanks for helping out! I got tired of repeating the very same edit and explaining unfortunately overshadowed difference. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I came to your talk page to thank you for this edit, as well. It's ridiculous (and offensive) how conflated and forced together homosexuality and transgenderism are here on Wikipedia. I'm heartened at least a few editors understand they're distinct phenomena. I recently made a secton on the LGBT project talk page discussing the conflation on that project itself and in articles. 75.132.142.26 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why I undid your good-faith edit to Racism[edit]

A racist is obsessed by the bogus concept of "race" (however they define it), even if what they are obsessing over is comething you or I might classify more accurately as ethnicity or nationality. Your edit obscured that fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Come hang out with us![edit]

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap. We hope this channel can serve as a safe haven to hang out, talk Wiki, closing the gender gap, women in Wikimedia, article alerts and foster friendships. I hope you join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me. I would love to be a part of your group unfortunately the link isn't working very well. Anyway. I'll keep trying.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Hi Rainbowofpeace!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology, "homophobia", all that jazz[edit]

Hi, RoP! Thanks for the invite! As I said, I had an off-topic comment, which is this: I wish "pedophilia" (which, I agree, would better be spelled "pediaphilia") didn't mean what it means, because etymologically, if I'm understanding the roots correctly, the word expresses something very useful to me. I've heard in sermons that "philia" (also "phileo") refers, at least in the NT, to the sort of love that a friend has for a friend. Lately, I've discovered that I have an intense desire to be friends with children, because I find them to be fun and interesting. I like to do a lot of what they do. I like to read with them. I like to hear what they say about the world. I like to let them lead me into their own adventures, e.g., when I had the privilege of riding with a little boy on our bicycles and following his lead as he showed me various points of local interest that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Maybe it was a mistake that I never had kids of my own, because in this paranoid world, opportunities for a middle-aged non-father to have fellowship with kids are quite rare. Last year, I did get that privilege briefly, and I heard a beautiful girl say to me how much she likes it when adults are friends to children; I'll never forget how my heart soared in joyous affirmation when I heard that. It was a true "Aha!" moment, because from then on, that's how I think of it, I love it when I get to be friends with children and walk miles and miles in their shoes. If I could be the Lord Of Meaning for a day, I'd rip the word "pedophile"/"pedophilia"/"pedia-" right out of the hands of psychiatrists and prosecutors, and I'd put it into this benign schema I've just described. "Pedophile, properly Pediaphile: (n) Person who loves being friends with children".

As for homophobia and prejudice, come to think of it, if I were biased in either direction, it would be pro-homosexual! Yep! I once found a booklet that purported to give the correct interpretation of all those Bible verses that seem to condemn homosexual acts. I was very interested and open-minded about it. In fact, for a while I bought it whole, because I have a difference in sexual orientation myself, so I wanted that booklet to be right! Years later, I was in a Bible study group, and we were having a dialogue with a homosexual guy who was presenting that sort of material. A number of the verses did seem to "fall by the wayside". But there were a couple of stubborn verses remaining. At the close of the session, the pastor decided, and I agreed, that those couple of verses really couldn't be explained away, and that the Bible does condemn homosexual behavior. I really was open to being convinced otherwise. Really! I wanted to be convinced otherwise. There was a time in my life when I was candidly exploring the possibility that I might be gay or bi! (Finally, an honest man came out and said the obvious, "You're not gay", not even partly.) How can I hate homosexuals? I empathize with homosexuals! (I wish I could say more about my difference in orientation, but my wife keeps me in the closet about that. I'm not gay or bi, but I'm not very hetero, either.) PaulSank (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The parts of the bible that can't be explained away almost always as said before involve homosexual acts only and not homosexual love between two people. It would be incredibly difficult to explain away the love between two people. As far as I know the most commonly cited biblical prohibition againist homosexuals is in Leviticus "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou does with a woman". That gets complicated because it could in the most conservative view condemn all homosexual sex in the most liberal view could be a prohibition from creating a scientific way for a man to have sex with a man in the same way as he does with a woman but there still as of yet not one biblical verse I have found that condemns homosexual love between two people.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's because it's after 2am where I am, but your message seems somewhat garbled and I'm having a hard time getting what you mean here. And I'm not well enough informed to be much of a debater on these topics anyway. If I'm going to get involved in debates with activists, I should undergo some sort of training or study first. All I really wanted to do was challenge the neutrality of the article, and I've done that to my satisfaction. Also, I want to stop people from condemning me as a bigot just because I have a belief that activists don't agree with; from the latest reply I got on this point, I can see that I will always be subject to such attacks. Some homosexuals will always absolutely refuse to recognize that I don't hate them. Some of the people who preach tolerance seem to be quite intolerant themselves. Sooner or later, if I live long enough, I suppose I will be imprisoned, executed, or lynched as a "hate criminal". PaulSank (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Human taxonomies[edit]

Noticing your interest in human taxonomy, I've poked around in that area myself from time to time:

Have you looked at temperament? E.g. [1]. Briggs-Myers, Keirsey and Bates, are some names to look up; me, I'm classed as an INFP.

Have you looked at occupational interest? E.g. [2] and [3] I'm an ASI.

Both these taxonomies have been very helpful to me.

There have also been attempts to classify folks according to their "spiritual gifts". E.g. [4] PaulSank (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Startup article[edit]

Hi, can i get your opinion on this article User talk:Jenova20/Homophobia in the media. It's still in it's infancy and i saw how well you handled things on the Homophobia talk page recently. Thanks Jenova20 08:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

...for removing this [5] on my talk page. Yeah, that sort of stuff needs to go ASAP. That's a sock of a banned user who always comes back to try and stir things up on the Chaz Bono page. It's been his MO for years. It's pretty sad, really. Thanks for looking out for my take page, though, take care! Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Kitty[edit]

Thanks for the Kitty! Have a mice day and best fishes! Jenova20 10:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Re: Argument[edit]

The edit I made was an accident - feel free to revert it with no controversy. I apologize. »εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 12:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, I tried a new anti-vandal software and it made a mistake. Sorry. »εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 12:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Opinion[edit]

It's not that I don't agree with the statement - it's an opinion because you didn't provide a source. Find a source and re-enter it. --Seduisant (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Misandry[edit]

Would you please help me understand your comment at the RfC on Misandry? I'm not sure whether you are stating that discrimination such as that displayed by the airlines toward men should be considered misandry, or whether you are saying that you did not see evidence of prejudicial discrimination on behalf of the airlines. Any further explanation would help my sometimes-thick skull wrap itself around what you are trying to say. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I will be interested to see the response to your statement. It seems you and I share similar views on the relationship between discrimination and hatred. Most other editors wanted to see a more defined, specific relationship between the two in any citations. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming[edit]

I appreciate the time you spent coming to the meetup tonight. Your enthusiasm is encouraging to me and I am glad to have met you. I hope that we can collaborate on some project in the future because your creativity gives you good ideas which I want to support. I see on your userpage that you say Wikipedia is not a safe place. Definitely there is discrimination here but I really think that things are getting better and someday this website will be much more fair. Thanks for the compliments you gave to me because you made me feel good. It would make me happy to help you be successful in your projects so please stay in touch. The userpages for everyone else who came are on the list here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for difference between racism and religious discrimination[edit]

Hello, it's not a question of whether racism and religious discrimination are different (of course they are!) but Ticklewickleukulele's assertion that "Religious discrimination is sometimes incorrectly called 'racism'". There needs to be a source indicating that it's a widespread issue that religious discrimination is sometimes called racism. I find that claim highly dubious and not very useful for the article. I'm sure people have all sorts of mistaken ideas about religious discrimination but we don't just add them unless they're backed up by good sources indicating that it's a significant issue. SQGibbon (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its a problem to call any form of discrimination racism. Homophobia is sometimes inproperly called racism I was just stating that racism and religious discrimination are seperate in every non-ethnoreligious group. There are only five execptions I can think of Jews, Druze, Yazidis, Yarsans and Samaritans. Aside from those religions discrimination against any religious group should not properly be called racism because it isn't based strictly on "race, ethnicity or nationality" which is what racism is about. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish to correct myself I think in a setting where you are trying to combat discrimination sometimes inaccurately calling one form of discrimination another is usually but not always a bad thing. However in an intellectual setting calling religious discrimination racism or calling homophobia sexism isn't really appropriate. Btw hope you enjoy the kitten.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW[edit]

Even though I may agree with your assessment, I think that a part of a possible agenda is to simply stir up angst where none is needed or desired. Some people just like to distress and by meeting them at that level you may encourage more of the same.Insomesia (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes America/Seattle[edit]

Wikipedia Takes America/Seattle needs you. Please sign up to participate, and discuss a date and meeting location. And maybe volunteer to be the organizer. I've been tagging articles needing photos for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Seattle, Washington. A lot of these articles need proper location data added to that they will appear on the Google map. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where is this event located?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The event is to take needed pictures for Seattle articles on a certain day, and compete to get the most, or the best, pictures. There may or may not also be a meeting early in the day (coffee shop) and/or another meeting the end of the day (bar). But meeting is not, strictly speaking, necessary or relevant. Just fun, I guess. You could just upload pics and not meet anyone if you want. When? It's supposed to happen in September, but we haven't agreed on a day yet. Discuss here. I'm hoping somebody with more spare time than me steps up to be in charge. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Source for Gender Binary affecting binary trans people.[edit]

Hi. I responded to your message. See here. Thanks. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Binarism deletion nomination[edit]

Hi. Since I nominated binarism for deletion, many changes have been made to the article. As a result, many of the reasons that I nominated it for deletion are no longer applicable. In fact, I only see one serious problem with the article that remains. Specifically, the use of the term "binarism" with the definition of "discrimination towards those who fall outside the gender binary". As I mentioned on the AfD page, the use of "binarism" in this way is a neologism. This is a very significant problem that — while it may not necessitate deletion of the article I think — unquestionably necessitates a rename at the very least. See WP:NEO:

Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. [...]

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

As I mentioned on the AfD page, I tried to find reliable sources that explicitly defined the term "binarism" in the way that the article uses it, but I was hardly able to find any instances where the term was even so much as used in this way at all, let alone defined as such. Indeed, I would not be surprised at all, and in fact I think it's likely, that no such sources even exist at present. This is somewhat unfortunate, as I agree, "binarism" would be a nice term to use to describe the phenomenon in question. But because it's currently a neologism, and because the published literature almost exclusively uses the term instead simply as a synonym for "gender binary", its use on Wikipedia in this way is not appropriate.

In any case, since most of the issues I nominated the article for deletion for no longer apply, if the article is renamed from "binarism" to something like "non-binary discrimination" and if the instances of "binarism" used in it are modified accordingly (i.e., removed/replaced), then I do not feel that a deletion will be necessary anymore. Hence, if you are still fine with a rename, I will have no problem with withdrawing my deletion request, and will promptly do so.

Please let me know. Thanks.

el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear El3ctr0nika, I feel that you have declared war on my subject and I also feel that you will not get binarism deleted (at least not the first time around). I feel that by placing the article up for deletion without giving me a reasonable amount of time to make changes you were using dirty policies. I am far too hurt to trust you and as this is specifically my talk page and not wikipedia in general I will tell you that I have faced massive amounts of binarism lately and am deeply suicidal and I created binarism so that people would understand how I feel and know that what is happening is not okay. That page saved my life in a way because it made it so I didn't feel like I had to end my life just to be able to be me. I've been attacked several times for being GQ. Of those attacks 5 were by binary transgender people out of those five two ended in hospitalization. Statements told to me by binary trans people like "You're making this shit up" or "Your trivilizing the transgender concept." really hurt. So I'm sorry but this page is personal to me and my final fight for life. I know you don't see it that way but I really don't care. I understand that due to binary privilege you will find it difficult to understand exactly what I'm going through. Thats why I'm not actually angry with you. Please just try to understand how I feel.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Rainbow, hope you saw the email I sent you and feel more than free to write back. Actually, please write me back. I think its clear that that El3ctr0nika is just concerned about terminology. Basically their concern is that IS a valid topic but that the word binarism is not established. Now I see that it appears there are more sources for it. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"Now I see that it appears there are more sources for it." — Are you referring to the ones on the talk page for the article? I looked at those but I didn't see any that supported the use of the term as such. Am I missing something? Maybe I should give them another look over just to be sure... Edit: Nope, I was correct the first time around; virtually all of them use "gender binary" and "binarism" as synonyms. Hence, those articles do not necessarily touch on non-binary discrimination, but rather the overarching subject of the gender binary. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I gave them just a quick look. Perhaps I was wrong. North8000 (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear El3ctr0nika, I feel that you have declared war on my subject

As North8000 said, I'm just concerned with the problems with the article such as terminology. I have no personal qualms with you or with the subject of non-binary discrimination. Although admittedly (and justifiably I think), I am pretty frustrated with you at the moment for several reasons, such as your failure to adhere to Wikipedia's policies (e.g., use proper sources), your combativeness, and your edit warring. But again, rest assured, I have no inherent personal agenda with either you or with the subject at hand.

and I also feel that you will not get binarism deleted (at least not the first time around).

Provided the terminology problem is resolved, I don't really have any interest in having the article deleted anymore. It is still my opinion that the subject would be best discussed within the gender binary article instead, but that is more of a personal opinion (which many here seem to disagree with), so it's not a big deal to me, and I have no problem with going with the majority opinion on the matter. I'm probably going to withdraw the deletion request soon anyway even though the terminology issue has still yet to be resolved. That being said, I will still be pursuing that particular issue until a consensus is reached or it is otherwise resolved, deletion aside. Edit: As of now, I have formally withdrawn the request for deletion of the binarism article.
In any case, as per WP:CLOSEAFD, in regards to what you say about binarism being deleted, you should probably know that "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." It doesn't really apply now obviously, but for future reference, you might want to keep it in mind.

I feel that by placing the article up for deletion without giving me a reasonable amount of time to make changes you were using dirty policies.

As per WP:CLOSEAFD once again: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven days." Hence, articles will not be deleted until at least a week has passed. This generally provides plenty of time for changes to be made. Indeed, the article has changed so much that I no longer feel that deletion is necessary, the terminology problem aside. Hence, your feelings here are unjustified.

I am far too hurt to trust you and as this is specifically my talk page and not wikipedia in general I will tell you that I have faced massive amounts of binarism lately and am deeply suicidal and I created binarism so that people would understand how I feel and know that what is happening is not okay. That page saved my life in a way because it made it so I didn't feel like I had to end my life just to be able to be me. I've been attacked several times for being GQ. Of those attacks 5 were by binary transgender people out of those five two ended in hospitalization. Statements told to me by binary trans people like "You're making this shit up" or "Your trivilizing the transgender concept." really hurt. So I'm sorry but this page is personal to me and my final fight for life. I know you don't see it that way but I really don't care. I understand that due to binary privilege you will find it difficult to understand exactly what I'm going through. Thats why I'm not actually angry with you. Please just try to understand how I feel.

I'm sorry for the things you're going through. I really am. As a transgender person myself (albeit mostly binary-identified), I can empathize to a degree. That being said, a guilt trip is not going to change my mind. You do not get to ignore Wikipedia policies simply because you feel strongly about a given subject. Furthermore, because of your severe personal conflict of interest with the subject at hand, I honestly don't think you should be anywhere near either the gender binary or binarism article at all. In any case, I do not at all expect that to change, but please, for the sake of the rest of us, try to moderate your personal feelings towards the subject, and more importantly, try to abide by Wikipedia's policies.
el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 02:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuation from bonze blayk's talk page[edit]

Rainbowofpeace: I really feel that your thinking is much too narrow/black and white here. You state on your user page that you have high-functioning autism, so I would imagine that that is why you seem to be having such difficulty "thinking outside of the box" in this case (not trying to offend). Don't get me wrong, I can and do empathize — I lean towards the autistic spectrum myself (to the extent that I was diagnosed with PDD-NOS when I was younger) and have had difficulty with black and white thinking as well — but please do at least attempt to make an effort to break out of it as best you can and to try to see where we're coming from on the matter.

Anyway, here's my attempt at explaining bonze's and I's point: "Binarism" (as you define it) relates to external gender expression just as much as it does to internal gender identity, if not much more so. In other words, binarism has more to do with the expression of gender variance rather than with how a person identifies internally. As an example, which scenario do you think would provoke more binarist discrimination: a) a large, masculine guy putting on a frilly pink dress; or b) the same guy stating that he feels more like a girl inside? The answer should be pretty obvious. Anyway, my point is this: because binarism is provoked mainly by gender variance rather than identity necessarily, it unquestionably has the potential to affect binary-identified individuals as well. In fact, since non-binary identities make up such a small portion of the population, I would imagine that, as a whole/purely in terms of amount, binarism affects gender variant binary-identified people much more in comparison. As a result, I feel that it is common sense that binarism does not apply solely to non-binary-identified people, and hence, I do not think a source that definitively states that "binarism may affect transgender and/or cisgender people as well" is at all necessary.

Also, recall that there are more attributes to gender than simply identity. The binarism article formerly listed the following attributes: gender/sexual identity, sexual preference/orientation, gender presentation/expression, gender/sex role, chromosome type, and genital morphology (also secondary sexual characteristics). Variation in any one of these can potentially result in a given individual falling outside of the gender binary to some degree. As an example, binary-identified/cisgender lesbians technically do not fall entirely into the gender binary on account of their non-binary sexual orientation, and many also display varying degrees of variance in gender expression (e.g., butch lesbians), which is another non-binary characteristic. As another example, binary-identified transsexuals as a rule have non-binary chromosome types, and there is the potential for them to display some degree of non-binary variation in virtually every one of the attributes listed above (e.g., non-ops in regards to genital morphology, variation in secondary sexual characteristics (since hormones simply can't reverse all of the effects of puberty of course), homosexual/bisexual sexual preferences, gender variance in behavioral expression (e.g., tomboyism in MTFs, which is relatively common I believe), etc). As a result of all this, I think that it's fairly obvious that transsexual and even cissexual individuals can be affected by binarism; indeed, I feel that transsexual people by definition are affected by it; and if you still feel compelled to pursue the matter, I would have to ask you to provide a citation that states that binarism only applies solely to gender identity and not to any of these other attributes of sex and gender as well.

I've gotta go for now, but I'll be back later tonight.

el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Rainbowofpeace: I've left you a couple messages in different places but you've yet to respond to either of them. I was just wondering if you are you planning on doing so? — el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I havn't been on in a while. I want you all to know that there is a difference between transphobia and binarism. Transphobia is discrimination by a non-match of sex, gender identity or gender expression. Therefore what you are talking about specifically fits in that. However only the androgynous gender expression would completely fit outside the gender binary. Therefore intersex, various forms of non-binary gender identity and androgynous gender expression would be what binarism would target. Please try and remember this is not synonmous with transphobia. I'-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. That is your personal (and rather narrow I might add) definition of the term "binarism". As I said again, if you want to prove that that term means what you claim it means, you'll have to provide valid citations from published material. Otherwise, you can assert your own definition of that term all day, but it won't get you anywhere. Sorry. Anyway, out of the shower and leaving for serious now. Bye. — el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And second of all I'm getting tired of this stop ignoring other non-binary identites thing. I put "non-binary transgender people." I DID NOT put "genderqueer trans people." If you want to throw in binary cis or trans people that is fine but I will continue to demand a source which I have the right to do according to wikipedias policies.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)]
Sorry. I missed that. It said this originally: "It can also represent some of the prejudices which stigmatize intersex and those that are genderqueer-identified — individuals who may not always fit neatly into the gender binary." But you changed it to this at some point during the revert wars: "It can also represent some of the prejudices which stigmatize intersex and non-binary identified transgender people." Which I had not noticed what with all the chaos going on at the time. Hence, my mistake. In any case, as I've elaborated on above (as well as has bonze blayk on her talk page) and to reiterate, I feel that binarist discrimination can apply just as much to binary-identified gender variant people including transsexual and cissexual individuals as well. — el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 03:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Sex change operation" and similar terms[edit]

You might be interested in commenting in this discussion. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect blanking[edit]

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Binarism. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Racism article[edit]

It's a notable concept (see this for example). That doesn't mean racism is higher in any minority community including LGBT communities. Just that it has been studied and reported on. Personally I think the article should be either vastly improved or deleted. Insomesia (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then you agree with me. Can you support delete?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I was kind of assuming what has happened would happen. It's being kept as a legitimate concept even though the present article is very slim. Insomesia (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

I have semi-reopened your case at ANI, as this is starting to look like deja vu from a year ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Please consider my compromise[edit]

Hi, unless we are discussing racism within Israeli or Palestinian LGBT communities, I don't think the Israel-Palestine issue is relevant to Racism in the LGBT community. If you want to delete the controversial paragraph entirely, that's fine with me. I won't add anything about Israel-Palestine because I never thought it was on-topic in the first place. Am86 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia articles[edit]

I thought these articles Homophobia in the Black community and Homophobia in the Latino community might be of interest any help would be be appreciated.Dwanyewest (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh thats awesome thanks for telling me. I will certainly add to those. We should also create Homophobia in the Asian American community, Homophobia in the Arab Community, and Homophobia in the Jewish community.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why stop there? Is there no Homophobia in the White community? Or do only ethnic minorities get the "privilege" of being racially pathologized? Am86 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Homophobia in the White commmunity is covered by the Homophobia article. Much like Racism in the Straight community is covered by the Racism article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some links I promised!![edit]

Here some links as promised [6][7][8][9]Dwanyewest (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Nelson[edit]

If that handsome devil ever becomes real famous and notable the article can be recreated even though it is salted. All it takes is a friendly admin to override that decision. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative[edit]

WikiWomen Unite!
WWC-02.png
Hi Rainbowofpeace! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Antisemitism#Usage". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rainbowofpeace. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to participate in this discussion[edit]

Concerning that you made this edit you might want to participate in this discussion: Talk:Palestinian_territories#.22Palestinian_territories.22_vs_.22Palestinian_Authority.22.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Library event in Seattle[edit]

Hey Angel. I am still living in NYC so am unable to attend Seattle events. I thought you might like to know about Wikipedia:Meetup/SeattleWLL/2012. I hope you are well and I appreciate the enthusiasm you have for learning and helping others to learn. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm.. what?[edit]

"Muslims are generally throughout most of the world considered to be a persecuted minority."

Huh? You mean, the second-largest religion in the world (1.6 billion people) which is the majority religion in 49 states, of which 22 place hold a role for Islam in their legal system, is "generally considered a persecuted minority"?

Surely you jest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.212.106 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your ignorance of minority issues is showing. Don't post on my talk page again. The fact that a group is the second largest does not mean they are not persecuted, nor does the fact that some places have a majority of that group of people. I kindly request as a Person of Color, a Person of a Non-Christian faith, a People with Disabilities and a LGBT person I kindly request you take your ignorance and stay off my talk page. Hispanics are also one of the largest ethnic groups on the planet they practically govern a whole continent (South America) and yet I can name several instinces where Hispanics are persecuted. Are you saying Hispanophobia or Anti-Black racism is not legitimate since they are a majority group in certain places. Women are also a majority all over the world is misogyny not legitimate? No. "Muslims are generally throughout MOST OF THE WORLD considered to be a persecuted minority."-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a minority. Moreover, I am a Muslim. Not that it should have anything at all to do with our discussion, but you pulled the race/religion card.
I never said that Islamophobia was illegitimate, I merely questioned the factual accuracy of your statement. It's impossible for Muslims to be "generally throughout most of the world considered to be a persecuted minority", when, in much of the world, they are the majority, and the ones in power - such as in my home country, Iraq.
Christians are the largest religion, but they are also a minority on a world scale (only 2 billion out of 7). So according to your logic, wouldn't it be true to also say that "Christians are generally throughout most of the world considered to be a persecuted minority"?
The fact is, both are extremely powerful religions, on a world scale. The Catholic Church wields enormous influence, but the UN bloc the Organization for Islamic Cooperation is much more powerful again, as they can actually influence policy. Moreover, there is no equivalent to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or Sudan in the Christian world. These states are run according to religious law (Sharia) where non-Muslims have less rights under their constitutions, than Muslims. So, Christians, for example, are a "persecuted minority" under the law of at least 4 Muslim-majority countries. No Christian-majority country I am aware of, have constitutions that specifically afford less rights to non-Christians.
Thanks.

Comments[edit]

Hi Rainbowofpeace. In addition to quitting, I'm attempting to remove as much of my content as I can (especially anything transgender-related) from Wikipedia for privacy reasons. The discussion in question is no longer of relevance and is still readily available in the respective page talk histories (User talk:Rainbowofpeace and Talk:Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons). I would very much appreciate it if I had your permission to remove it from the two pages in question so that it can't be indexed by search engines anymore. Also, proof that I am who I claim to be: clickie. Anyway, let me know. Thanks... Chemgirl131 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In theory, if you put __NOINDEX__ or {{NOINDEX|visible=no}} at the top of a talk page, it should be skipped by Google's internet scrapers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)![edit]

WikiWomen - We need you!
WWC logo purple and blue.png
Hi Rainbowofpeace! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

  • Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
  • Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
  • Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
  • Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
  • Reading and writing for our blog channel
  • Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
  • Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Israelophobia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israelophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelophobia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talkcontribs) 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia in the black community title change[edit]

I think Homophobia in the black community should etither be changed to Homophobia in the African diaspora or it should be split into two seperate articles such as Homophobia in the black British community and Homophobia in the African American community. What do you thinkDwanyewest (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Definitely Homophobia in the African diaspora would be more appropriate. The point of the article along with Racism in the LGBT community is to show interminority prejudice. However I think that the word Black is probably more appropriate because not all Africans are Black. Many are Arab or White.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism lead[edit]

Hello,

I have left a message on the talk page of the article regarding the lead issue. I agree that Zionism refers more today to an opposition to Israel than to Zionism but anyway what is written currently is not clear and the historical Anti-Zionism should be talked about a little bit to. All in all, it is not a notion that is easy to describe.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia in the black community debate[edit]

A new debate has started regarding splitting the article at Talk:Homophobia in the black communityDwanyewest (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the new title is the best option currently.Dwanyewest (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


If you are interested in Homophobia in the UK here is a useful website [10] I think alot of information could one day contribute to a solo article in the future. I agree with your stance that currently there is not enough information for a solo article.Dwanyewest (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Homophobia in the Asian American community[edit]

Hi, I'm Benboy00. Rainbowofpeace, thanks for creating Homophobia in the Asian American community!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This seems like quite a large topic, but has little content, and slmost no substantial content. It may be a duplication, but i have not checked yet

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Benboy00 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Films[edit]

Did you mean films with a strong theme of discrimination, or anything with a decent amount? You may already have some of these. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 08:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was looking for I have two of those films already on the list. However we also still have the american-centric problem.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you start an article either at User:Rainbowofpeace/List of Films about Hate Crimes or List of Films about Hate Crimes so we put everything together? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
More resources: A Jihad for love harvest harvest Jenova20 (email) 14:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rainbowofpeace. You have new messages at EvergreenFir's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
) Also Happy Spirit Day! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rainbowofpeace. You have new messages at EvergreenFir's talk page.
Message added 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning![edit]

Good morning good morning! I only wish I was a bit less bored right now, but its wonderful to meet someone in sociology! I should chat with people here much more often! I am in this dusty desert typing to you right now. It appears there are no good cartoons right now, but maybe I will check. How are you and what do you like to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.225 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T[edit]

Well, that is what my name should be, I took sociology in college once and I still like it, but college was awful for me. As for me, well I can tell you about myself, I'm a male, Caucasian who grew up with a Christian background, maybe not as clear cut on the outside per se, but alas my interests grew after seeing how high school was like. I like video games, and cartoons too, but too bad most of the good ones were cancelled on Cartoon Network. I guess I'm typing on Wikipedia right now, and its nice for it to be cold outside, or at least cool for right now. In Arizona, its hot in the city and can be quite dull, but I still hang out with some of my church friends, so that's good. Do you have any advice though on how to get started after high school? I would most appreciate it since its tough to choose what to do... I'm sure you aren't online now, but I will be back in a bit, in the meantime, its breakfast time!174.19.163.225 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So......[edit]

Been on Wikipedia often?71.35.19.202 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

dinner[edit]

dinner =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.160.183 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi badges[edit]

I have reverted your change. As with the bullet points for the other badges, only a brief classification is required here. A special point doesn't need to be made here about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism RfC[edit]

Did you mean to put your comment in the yes/no section rather than the threaded discussion section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize but I don't know where I was supposed to put it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize, and it's not the most clearly laid out thing I ever saw. It seems that the intention is that the first section is for yes/no answers to the question of whether having the template violates NPOV, the second section is for yes/no answers to the question of whether the organization should be removed from the template, and the third is for threaded discussion to keep the rest of it more clear. That being said, the initiator of the RfC, {{u|Serialjoepsycho}, who laid it out, put what struck me as a yes/no response in the last section for some reason. So I have to admit I don't really know, but I just thought I'd ask you. Anyway, perhaps the ping will bring them here to clarify.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:13, Wednesday July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge


Write back on your talk page?[edit]

So, are you a girl or a guy? ....what body part do you have? I don't know what genderqueer is...174.19.174.253 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello? :)[edit]

Plz write back if you can, its me Mr. T remember? I think I read you live in ohio and im in Arizona. Im the Christian guy who also likes sociology and stuff so plz write back k? =)174.19.161.167 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi I definitely don't live in Ohio nor am I Christian but I appreciate your message. I do enjoy sociology. Genderqueer means that one is neither male nor female, or are some combination of both, or are genderfluid or otherwise not fitting the binary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

Hi Rainbowofpeace. (I think you are familiar with this effort... but...) In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BACON?????[edit]

GO TO YTP ON YOUTUBE AND LOOK UP HANK HILLS AIRPORT APOCALYPSE LOLOLO!!!!!! =)71.35.21.213 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Rainbowofpeace. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Mssemantics (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So.....[edit]

Whats up? Who are you? I guess you say your both genders or something, which body part do you have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.213 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism[edit]

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

There is a proposal for a merge of certain information in the article Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) to the Steven Emerson article, and then deletion of the IPT article because there is no such entity. The article was created and includes information based on the pretext that the Investigative Project on Terrorism actually existed as a non-profit entity. It did not, and still does not. What did exist is Steven Emerson's think-tank, The Investigative Project, and Steven Emerson as a CNN reporter and later as an independent terrorism expert. He founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION years later - April 2006 - which is the only official non-profit foundation organized legally. Unfortunately, editors are trying to combine all of Emerson's past work as a CNN reporter, and individual terrorism expert (dating back to the Oklahoma City bombing and before) into one big hodge podge of inaccuracies in the current article, IPT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article. Thank you in advance. AtsmeConsult 18:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)