User talk:EvergreenFir

Reversion of antifeminism page: specific and general problems.

Hi there! I’m going to be blunt, but as precise as I can. Please forgive my getting right to the point. The antifeminism article is biased to the point of being totally one-sided. My strongest evidence of this is that the articles (only?) sources as to the nature of antifeminism are feminists. In my perusal not only did every “authority” turn out to be a gender studies professor or sociologist associated with feminism or in some other way an obvious feminist, but of course the other side of that coin: no antifeminists are cited. Now while it might be more understandable that the feminism page, say, only cites feminist authority, never quoting an antifeminist, to have the SAME state of affairs on the ANTIFEMINISM page is so slanted it cannot be overstated.

The entire page needs massive rework, of the likes I am not completely competent to perform. What I *could* do would be to help the page in some small ways to reflect the views of an actual antifeminist. But that can’t happen if any change I make to reflect a more authentic view of what antifeminism is all about is immediately reverted because the “mainstream” view of the majority of academics happens to be feminist (and therefore confused about what antifeminism actually IS).

It will be sad if in the end my suspicions prove correct that the reason the page is as atrocious as it is is that antifeminist scholars *don’t bother trying to correct it.* I know for a near fact that the two leading authorities I know of, professor Janice Fiamengo and Karen Straugan would be more than happy to write or at least be cited on the Wikipedia article purporting to explain what THEIR PHILOSOPHY means.

Unfortunately my best guess is that this letter will be summarily dismissed, maybe with grand excuses, maybe not, but either way I will have learned the lesson:

The feminist perspective gets a monopoly to the point where *its* exponents get to write the article on what *their opponents* supposedly think and stand for.

Imagine, if you will, letting the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer or the American government be the sole sources of authority on the page describing what “anarchism” means. Imagine that and you’ll be getting close to how the anti-feminism page reads from the point of view of someone who actually takes the view of the antifeminism.

To say the least it’s hardly up to Wikipedia‘s normal standards let alone it’s self-image. Destrypants (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Destrypants: I assume you are referring to this edit I reverted? I will be direct as well: Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources on topics don't always match what individual editors consider the "best" source. We could get into a Foucaultian discussion on power and truth, but that honestly won't change Wikipedia. The edit in question was reverted because (1) it did not accurately summarize the article per WP:LEAD, and (2) was an apparent insertion of one editor's opinion. In the definition section there is some discussion about how some scholars take issue with specific tenets or ontological stances. But the term is by-and-large defined by the history of political opposition to feminist social movements (e.g., Phyllis Schlafly).

You comparison to the white supremacist group Proud Boys is offensive, a false parallel, and incorrect. We allow fringe organizations like the Proud Boys to define themselves, but we (Wikipedia) note that the definition is their own and that reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize them differently. Further, they do not get to define anarchism because they are a fringe viewpoint. Wikipedia is admittedly a reflection of the hegemonic discourse. If you are here to "fix that", you will be disappointed.

You are of course welcome to discuss your WP:BOLD changes on the talk page (see bold-revert-discuss cycle). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

“Wikipedia is admittedly a reflection of the hegemonic discourse. If you are here to ‘fix that’, you will be disappointed.“ At least that one part is correct.

The comparison was not offensive it was a mirror analogy. The degree of extreme difference of opinion is analogous. And then allowing someone who has that extreme difference of opinion to define the “other” is the point of the analogy, which happens to be perfectly within the realm of basic accuracy. An anti-feminist being defined by feminists is perfectly analogous to letting the ideological opponents of anarchism define anarchism. This is a very simple comparison, very straightforward, nothing offensive, at least to reasonable people.

The above quote from you is the closest you come to a substantive reply, actually quite accidentally honest. I agree. The rest is quite ideologically convenient red tape of the sort that would’ve probably made the Soviets proud.

I wonder if one day the bulk of those in charge of gatekeeping at Wikipedia will wake up to their liberal, slanting toward neoliberal bias.

It is the opposite of science. And of course you also made my point for me: even the proud boys get at least a soundbite or two on the proud boy page, at least so you claim. I’m sure it will be years, if ever, before an actual antifeminist philosopher in the modern era is quoted on the page purporting to explain her views. Destrypants (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not accidental. It's my assessment of how Wikipedia works after years of editing here. To edit here constructively, one must accept that they are working to narrate the hegemonic discourse of the day. I've accepted that. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. And ironically honest. Or maybe not ironic coming from you since we are discussing pages not editing them. Your model would predict that if I tried to edit the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia to more honestly reflect what it reflects I would fail. Because Wikipedia is currently perceived not as a description of the hegemonic discourse of the day but as an attempt to offer descriptions of objective reality.

In fact as a mainstream media source Wikipedia reminds me more and more of Chomsky and Herman’s theory about the media, particularly that their “propaganda model” will never be accepted by or even comprehensible to the mainstream media culture it describes.

In fact after publishing my last rant above I consoled myself and felt a calm when I realized that even Chomsky himself has probably rarely if ever attempted to edit an article here, understanding it to be futile. He’ll write on Quora or answer emails or talk endlessly. But no point ever bothering to try and correct the official record.

It’s a Sisyphean task in an Orwellian reality. Destrypants (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, one of the links you provided lead me to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary, and I have come to the view that your reversion is not, in my view, in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia: bold edits are encouraged, unnecessary reversions discouraged. My good-faith edit may not have *helped* the article substantially in your view, but it does little or nothing to *harm* the article, and was certainly not vandalism. If anything it merely restated in words of a different tone without adding or subtracting any real data.

As I don’t think, in my view, that you should have made the immediate unilateral reversion of an edit that was merely of *questionable* value (but very clearly not a serious or substantive disimprovement), I am re-reverting in good faith.

Also, my apologies for my above rancor. I found your keeping-of-your-cool admirable.

Sincerely Dp Destrypants (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Blaire White

Excuse me, but I am not sure I understand your insistence on prohibiting the use of "transgender woman" in the Blaire White Wikipedia article. I know that you desire users to "gain consensus" first on the Talk page (though the consensus is a relative measure and has no holding on anything), but I see two issues with that. Rather than just flat-out block/ban me, I'd appreciate it if you'd spare me the grace of engaging in respectful and intelligent conversation on the matter first. I know I am just some random, no-name account with no fancy embellishments or degrees to show for, and I may not be as "woke" others, but I still am a sentient person with an opinion.

• Firstly, a quick browse of White's YouTube content will reveal that her identity as a transgender woman has a large place in her career as a content creator. Furthermore, it is something that is important to be aware of when viewing her content. As such, any person who does an internet search of "Blaire White" will surely find the Wiki. Since it is relevant information, I would say that it should be included in the introduction paragraph.

• Secondly, I assume that the reason you do not wish Blaire White to be listed as a transgender woman is that she doesn't conform to the political and social views that one would expect a transgender person to follow. Very little research will reveal that many LGBTQ-identifying, left-leaning creators online tend to disown White as a transgender woman, blatantly refer to her as a man, and overall try to erase her opinions from the LGBTQ community. Furthermore, and I mean this in the most polite way possible, I do believe you are doing the same thing.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Blaire White makes a point to refer to herself as a transgender woman. Not even just a "woman," but a transgender woman. Regardless of how she politically aligns with others, she has medically transitioned just shy of bottom surgery, socially transitioned, and lives her life with the identity, "transgender woman." From a moral point, there is no reason to disallow that identity to be represented in the article covering her career.

So, I am curious as to why "transgender woman" isn't allowed. May I be enlightened, please? Or perhaps may I be allowed to add two relevant words, one relevant detail, to the free encyclopedia for the betterment of free information for the people of this world? EMW23 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EMW23: I honestly don't know anything about this person and cannot comment on White's online presence. For me (and other admins) the issues are (1) there's been discussion on this in the past and the apparent consensus at the time was not to include it and (2) we require reliable sources, especially for issues around gender identity. To me, the latter is far more important. WP:BLP is close to supreme law on Wikipedia and, for marginalized groups, labels for self-identity must be strongly supported by sources. For stigmatized labels (e.g., addict), we prefer self-identifying sources by the person themselves. If, for example, Blaire White has a verified Youtube channel or Twitter and clearly states they identify as trans, then we should include that.

FWIW, the templates and warnings were more a response to your "sucks to your consensus" in your initial edit summaries. For me, it has nothing to to do with the subject's politics (c.f., Caitlyn Jenner). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah, well I do sorely apologize for misreading your intent. I have had too many similar conversations and am left with an overall very bitter outlook I suppose. White does, in fact, have a verified Twitter and verified YouTube. While, as of right now, neither's bio says she identifies as trans, she states it in nearly all of her YouTube videos and various Tweets as well. What would be the appropriate way to cite this information then?

The condemnation of sex drive in Christianity

Hi. For what reason? --Puszczanin (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: For "no original research". You need to provide a reliable source that says "Christianity views sex drive... [blah blah]... verses highlighted are used to justify this view...". You cannot make that claim on your own. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What the hell WP:OR if I adduced quotations? I can also add "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Co:7:1) etc. Is a quotation from the Bible "original research"? --Puszczanin (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: It might sound silly, but you need a reliable source to say that bible passage is about sex drive. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You must be joking. It's a well-known fact. As an example, take On Exhortation to Chastity. by Tertullian or On Marriage and Concupiscence. by Augustine of Hippo. Everybody knows that sexual desire is a sin in Christianity. It's known even to the reader unversed in philosophy and theology. Is Wikipedia engaged in censorship that suppresses Christian views on sex? --Puszczanin (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: I doubt my Japanese friends would consider that a "well-known fact" that the verses you quoted were illustrating that "sexual desire is a sin in Christianity" (it's not WP:BLUE). Wikipedia does not only cater to readers raised in Abrahamic religious societies. If it's well-known, a source should be easy to find, and the WP:BURDEN is on you. I know it's frustrating when something we as individuals consider completely obvious is challenged as needing a source (I know this personally when it comes to my area of scholarship), but it is unreasonable to twist that frustration into suggesting censorship. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added some sources. Yet it seems to me that you're cavilling at words because of following information in the article: "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sexuality is noble and worthy" (Human sexuality#Roman Catholic Church). --Puszczanin (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Puszczanin: it's generally good practice to not try to surmise motive or worldview of other editors. If you are suggesting I am asking for sources due to being Catholic, I suggest you look at my user page where I make my stance on religion public. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

February flowers

... for what you said to Flyer22 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! I love hellebore (Lenten Rose)! Though ours are covered in a couple feet of snow at the moment. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I returned to the place today, and they bloom! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Urbina spamming

You might like to check these users Nicole Hartman, JoeyMaxwell, Gary Oakman and Holla92211. Lyndaship (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Oh boy! I'll take a look. We'll likely have some results by this evening. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

can this IP be blocked?

Hello, can IP 2600:1017:B0A8:3B08:248D:F498:3CFF:B59F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) please be blocked? They are evading the block of some blocked user, self-confessed and are making personal attacks. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile:  Done EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 18:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking vandals!

I'm seeing my watchlist light up with you blocking all these people I'm reporting. I appreciate the quick response to the reports. Thanks a ton! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

sources

sources