User talk:Crossroads

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Surnames

Regarding this edit: I suggest not calling explanations regarding surnames "pointless boring trivia". I feel it distracts from the rest of your argument, which doesn't depend on it. Thanks for your consideration. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll save my strong opinion on that for my talk page, heh. I revised that part and added additional clarifications. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't think knowing someone's surname is trivia, but I appreciate your removing the adjectives. Thanks for your co-operation! isaacl (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

RS, facts, opinions (uncontested or otherwise), and epistemology

Something you said in this comment at WT:WTW really approaches the realm of epistemology (which kind of underlies things like WP:V, but we finesse that at Wikipedia, as we inevitably have to, with WP:RS—but I digress...) and immediately reminded me of a great course by Steven L. Goldman called The Science Wars which was one of the most fascinating I've encountered. (Don't be put off by the prices at the website; they have steep discounts annually, and if you have a free Kanopy account (which you should) you might have free access to it when they run occasional specials.) Probably a lot more discussions or arguments at Wikipedia dance around this topic without ever necessarily bringing it up directly, but it's really core, and I wish it were more widely part of our curriculum. In any case, if you haven't delved into it, whether via Goldman or some other avenue, I think you'd really enjoy it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the recommendation. I appreciate it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your reversion on sexual intercourse

Oops! I seriously didn't properly consider what implications the word actually had. How stupid. Well thank you for your quick reversion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Transfeminine lactation

There was an edit conflict between https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_reproduction&oldid=1080417199 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_reproduction&oldid=1080417579 can we address whether any of what I added then is WP:MEDRS and how to move forward with this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Gonna comment on the article talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR archive page

Crossroads, I was disappointed (though not surprised) by your comments here, as noted here. You quite transparently applied one set of standards to sources supporting your position and a different standard to those opposing it, by excluding attributed statements using "transgender people" but including attributed statements and even quotes using "transgender issues". The obvious interpretations of this are incompetence or TENDentious behaviour, but perhaps you have another explanation (BATTLEFIELD motivation not really offering an excuse IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that you opened that section by claiming that Most sources don't frame it as about "people" because it wasn't directed at specific people or at trans people as a group, but was largely about policies or understandings of gender and gender transition, and related terminology. We now know that your main claim there is false not demonstrably true, but what is more telling perhaps is your "because" clause. If anyone else had said something equivalent to "because it wasn't directed at specific people or at trans people as a group, but was largely about policies or understandings of gender and gender transition, and related terminology" - without providing evidence - that would be exactly the kind of thing you would be calling "SYNTH" and "OR". But when you do it, apparently it is fine? I don't know how to characterize that behaviour on your part, but it certainly doesn't contribute positively to a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Replied here. If I was applying a double standard in bad faith to mislead I clearly would be pretty dumb in doing so because I did so with the quotes right there pasted by my own self previously. It's been a long, long discussion, and we're all busy. I went by memory in describing the 10, which I should have double-checked, and a lot of the sources are vague as to whether it's in their own voice or not. But clearly, to move forward we need to wait for draft 3. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think you were applying a double standard in bad faith to mislead. I think this was WP:BATTLEFIELD. I think that, at the time you opened the section, you believed both your major claim and your "because" clause were true. And when you provided your sources, you believed that they would be "better" (in terms of number, or quality, or being unbiased, or geographical representation, or whatever) than sources using "people". And when I provided a comparable array of sources that did use "people", as promised, your priority was on finding a way to swat some of them down, rather than making a calm comparison to the sources you had provided. I may be wrong, of course, but that's what I think happened. BATTLEFIELD. Newimpartial (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)