User talk:Jimbo Wales

Omission and exclusion of African American subjects from Wikipedia

I'd like to follow up on this subject with you Jimbo. Where is the entry on Westfield, Alabama? Westfield High School (Alabama)? These are the type of communities and schools, the hometowns for people like Willie Mays, that Wikipedia excludes. Just today I got notice that a cemetery with several notable African American burial sites (Draft:Odd Fellows Cemetery (Farmville, Virginia)) isn't notable. We have room for every professional athlete who's ever played but not these subjects. It's not right. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's an interesting source. I should think that a community like this is definitely of interest particularly given the recent attention being paid (quite rightly) to Greenwood District, Tulsa as a result of the recent 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre.

Of course this is not a similar story in that it isn't about a tragic massacre. But it is related in that the destruction of the Westfield community in 1963 is another example of "a stable community where African-American parents pushed their kids to work hard, study hard and do all they could to make better lives for themselves" being wiped away.

With a bit of research (beyond a paywall at this newspaper archive, I found a story about A. G. Gaston being named Entrepreneur of the Century by Black Enterprise Magazine in 1992, a fact not mentioned in his Wikipedia biography by the way. It says "His second civilian employment upon his return, was as a labourer with the Tennessee Coal & Iron Co. in Westfield, Alabama where his interest in entrepreneurship began to surface." (The Weekly Gleaner, Feburary 6-12, 2003.)

One issue on places (and schools) like this is a paucity of sources that will take some effort to overcome. But I also think we should not demand or expect that entries on places like this will be lengthy - if only a few things are known in reliable sources, then only a few things are known.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: It occurs to me in looking at the rejection of your draft on Odd Fellows Cemetary, that a serious look should be taken at the question: do rules against what we used to accept as 'stubs' (well sourced, uncontroversial, but short entries that have little prospect of being expanded) disproportionately and negatively impact minority-related subjects. It is quite clear that for reasons having nothing to do with contemporary encyclopedic validity, a black community being destroyed in segregated Alabama in 1963 would not receive the same kind of press coverage as even a rather pointless debutantes ball in the white-owned and white-dominated newspapers of the era. There are parts of the historical injustice that we can't fix - to a large extent the ordinary goings-on in Westfield are lost forever, while the ordinary goings-on of other communities will be preserved forever in history. But there are parts that we can fix - by at least covering in a factual, neutral, and reliable way whatever actually is known - which is often not zero.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• U. W. Clemon is also from Westfield but you wouldn't know it from his Wikipedia entry. As is often the case with African American subjects his hometown and high school are excluded.

• Even Oberlin Academy took extraordinary effort to get included. It was deleted and redirected repeatedly. We face the same trying to include films made by and starring African Americans.

• Shouldn't we call it what it is? Systemic racism.

• Is a cemetery where notable African Americans are buried notable? Their high schools, many of which were integrated out of existence? Their communites, many of which were paved over or "redeveloped"?

• The excuse that we are somehow beholden to standards we impose on ourselves to exclude these subjects is abhorrent. These are OUR standards. We've deemed every athlete who's ever played professionally notable and almost every high school that served African Americans, their destroyed communities, their films, their community leaders not notable. That isn't society, it's us. It's Wikipedia editors and it's our leadership. We can and must do better. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you will have success with this approach: "It is appropriate for Wikipedians to be aware of, and work to correct for, systemic racism in society." I think you have received a lot of pushback in the past for statements that seemed to be accusing other editors here of systematic racism. Let's work together to build up a network of allies to work on these issues. Those who actually are racist (quite rare among Wikipedians I think) will decline to participate. But allies will help us make significant change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's be honest, I've received a lot of pushback for creating entries on African American subjects. I was blocked by a sitting Wikipedia arbitrator for pointing out that a former arbitrator insisted on referring to a murdered African American legislator as a scalawag in his Wikipedia entry's opening paragraph. Confronting racism ruffles feathers.

I notice you didn't answer my questions Jimbo. Are African American communities, schools, films, and cemeteries notable? Should we continue to omit and exclude them? Does doing so present a white supremacist version of history? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I did answer your question, in a great deal of detail, including going out to do some research on the particular question you asked me. As you are already well aware, my answer to "Are African American communities, schools, films, and cemeteries notable?" is that some of them are, of course, and some of them are not, of course. I have gone further to say that we should examine our policies on notability and sourcing to ask ourselves whether the policies are consistent with our goals and in particular whether they may have a disproportionate impact on minority-related subjects. I'm sorry if you don't find that answer satisfying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if there is a Wikipedia editor interested in writing about topics, than it is likely there are also historians and writers, who have demonstrated an interest. Perhaps, contact departments at HBCU's, AAS departments, archives, and historical societies/organizations (like AASHLH but also local) for help in identifying such sources. It is a constraint that Wikipedia is not an original publisher, so we need to find the work of others, and rely on it. (Your notability question suggests a view that it is an inherent quality, but it is rather a test for the existence of sources). Also, if the topic is proving difficult as stand alone article, consider a wider topic focus that can include the smaller, and perhaps over-time more information can come to light, and there can be a split (see also, WP:SAL). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Always a lot of excuses. Which historians or scholars wrote about Jimmy's high school? I don't see their work cited. Where have I included original research in the cemetery's entry? Or the school entries? Or films? The sources are never quite good enough Alanscottwalker. Or it's my approach, citation style, copy-editing, something else.. There's always a VERY good reason for us to exclude these subjects. Let's be clear, the Wikipedia standard is to exclude African American subjects and attack editors who seek to fix the situation and point out the problem. I'll answer my questions for you, the cemetery, community, and high school noted above are all notable. It's important and overdue that we include them and subjects like them. We need to move forward in doing so.Wshile it's worth considering how best to include them, making more excuses for their exclusion is not acceptable. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: Bearing in mind your last two short-term blocks, the language of the last two replies are heading very much in that same direction. I strongly urge you to drop the stick along the line the lines that WP is trying to "a white supremacist version of history" as it has been explains multiple times over and over how external systematic bias related to poor sourcing in the area of African-American topics makes it difficult for us to cover them. Both Jimmy and ASW have given net positive advice that works around this; I suggest that you take it. --Masem (t) 15:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained above, Wikipedia sets its own standards for inclusion and we are responsible for our systemic racism. Let's focus on fixing the problem instead of making excuses for it and continuing it. It's not difficult for us to include these subjects. In fact it takes lots of excuses and finger pointing to find ways to keep them out, as we see in the discussion above. The solution is to stop discriminating against notable subjects related to African Americans and to start working to include them. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me respond in this way: "Let's focus on fixing the problem instead of..." laying false accusations on other Wikipedia editors who would be eager to help you. Please, drop the stick, and let's launch a positive initiative to work on the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody had made excuses. You have been told why some of the topics you have created as drafts/AFC can't be accepted and that's due to lack of sourcing. That metric - lack of sourcing - is not being internally biased against your articles or articles related to African-Americans; its a metric applied to all topics equally. But because of the external systematic bias (not Wikipedia's) of documenting this area, it appears to disproportionate against African-Americans. That's unfortunate but that's why we absolutely know it exists and have suggested as many means to encourage ways to find more sources to fix it. Wikipedia just cannot magically correct the outright lack of sources. As a suggestion I would look at the history and work of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, a group aiming to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia, which have the same external systematic bias problem. They're not going out "we need to change how WP includes things" to make it work, but instead going out to do the research, work with historical organizations and the like to get the material that has helped bolstered coverage of historically important women. The project as a whole wants to do better to fight the external systematic bias, we're not trying to work against you, so that's the problem when you continually carry the chip that we're institutionally racist or the like, and why continuing on that line of thought will likely see another block in the future. --Masem (t) 16:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(Noting that I'm here after reading about this conversation at ANI). If our policies and guidelines are resulting in inequitable outcomes, even if it's at least in part resulting from bias outside of Wikipedia, certainly we should at least consider the possibility of changing them rather than saying "not our problem". The notability guidelines are so fundamental that I think sometimes it's easy to forget that they weren't handed down from on high, and that they're mutable. I don't pretend I have any brilliant ideas of my own to amend the notability guidelines that would give a more equitable outcome without introducing opportunities for spam etc., but we should at least allow room for those ideas.

The argument that That metric - lack of sourcing - is not being internally biased against your articles or articles related to African-Americans; its a metric applied to all topics equally. reminds me a bit of voter ID laws. The law is applied to everyone equally regardless of race, but it results in inequity because for various reasons racial minorities are less likely to have IDs. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the laws, even though it stems from a different issue.

WP:WiR does excellent work creating articles within the bounds of existing policy, but they certainly also engage in discussion of the systemic, structural issues with Wikipedia that result in inequity: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 37#Systemic bias in notability, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 87#Sourcing guidelines hindering coverage of marginalized communities, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 40#"Wikipedia's community is 85% male, and founder Jimmy Wales isn't sure how to fix it", to link a few. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, GorillaWarfare. To be clear - I think there is a strong case to be made that "lack of sourcing" is being applied in a way that likely is biased against articles related to African-Americans, particularly with respect to one of the specific topics we are looking at in this conversation: high schools. I am not calling for a relaxation of sourcing standards - we would not be doing any service to a more neutral agenda by allowing people to just come and write whatever random thing they want without sources. But I am calling for an examination of whether or not a reasonably well sourced stub - containing, with sources, all that is known about a place like Westfield, Alabama should be allowed to live. I can't think of any principled reason why not - and I am not in general a radical inclusionist. As I said in my original extended answer here, I think Westfield is interesting. Let me walk everyone through a potential reader's journey to show what I mean.

I'm from Alabama, and so is Willie Mays. Let's imagine I go to read Willie Mays. I see there this sentence: "Willie Howard Mays, Jr., was born on May 6, 1931, in Westfield, Alabama, a primarily black company town near Fairfield.". I think that's interesting - a primarily black company town. I don't know much about company towns really, and it's interesting that it was primarily black. I'd like to click on it and if the article existed, I'd learn that the town was destroyed a few years later and that there's a documentary film about it. That's amazing, that's the sort of thing I love to come to Wikipedia to learn. Why don't we have it? If the answer is "We apply our standards equally to all places in terms of having sufficient sources" then we might get this one wrong - it doesn't have all that many sources (that I've found so far!) for the exact reason that it's historically interesting: it was a primarily black company town! As such it was almost certainly neglected by local white newspapers for racist reasons but also, I'm just guessing here, when there's a "company town" the company probably isn't typically particularly all that keen on independent outside reporting on conditions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick google and this is the first source that came up: [1], it's in the larger topic of Fairfeild, but you'll find some context and background on Westfield. Westfield was a segregated company town around the steel mills. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is still the community-determined aspect that one of WP's functions is to serve as a gazetteer and thus there is likely no reason why we should not have an article on Westfield as long as it describes it as a former town and can be documented at a minimum level (not the same as notability) as such (which we know it can). We did have one at one point but the extent of its content before deletion in 2009 was "Westfield Alabama is the birthplace of Hall of Fame Outfielder Willie Mays who played for the New York Giants(Baseball) and the New York Mets in his Major League career." -- which yeah, wasn't going to fly for a stub article. I have seen that since this thread FA has started draft Draft:Westfield, Alabama and it has sources, but it does just need a bit of structuring like any other town article. In terms of high schools, I will point out that community opinion has changed that not all high schools are inherently notable around a 2017 RFC (Schools now are expected to meet NORG) but we haven't gone through to prune the less-notable ones out/redirect them to their appropriate city/town pages, so there is going to be some apparent inequitability in the interim. But as FloridaArmy has hinted here, they will want the Westfield school redirected to the Westfield article once it is completed and added to a disambig page, so that's all good). (I am surprised at the lack of general information absent the connect to Mays on the town, searching additional sources, but there's clearly a bare minimum to have the article).

Also, to add onto GorillaWarfare's point as a fact to keep in mind: Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and editors edit was interests them. I have no idea of what our numbers actually are, but I suspect we are dominated in the "white male" category (as most tech areas), and thus topics in African-American history are likely to be absent from this area - not because we're disallowing them but because volunteer editors don't want to cover them. And because it is a volunteer project, that makes it difficult to coerce editors to fill those gaps. Hence again why type of coordination like Women in Red to find the gaps and work together to fill them can help. --Masem (t) 14:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding, [2] this seems promising for at least finding sources on Westfeild, incuding, Marjorie White, “TCI-U.S. Steel and Ensley,” The Birmingham District, An Industrial History and Guide 97

(Birmingham Historical Society, 1981).

4 JAMES S. HIRSCH, WILLIE MAYS: THE LIFE, THE LEGEND, 13 (2010) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Masem, I understand the point you're making, but I want to push back a little bit on the blanket statement "volunteer editors don't want to cover them". That might be true of some volunteers, but in the last 24 hours I have made edits to Nicole_Enabosi, Micaela Kelly, Jaylyn Agnew, Jasmine Walker and more. Curiously, I didn't know the race of any of those people. I'm working on improving the article before I reach out to schools to see if I can get a photo, but I did a cursory image search and I think each of these qualifies as black. I don't disagree that the demographics of Wikipedia editors helps to shape its content but I'd like to make sure we characterize it accurately. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I get you. I'm big into video games and consider that my "volunteer" area. I could care about who the people are in that, white, black, male, female, etc. and so if I catch a name that looks like we should have an article on, I will do so. But the video game area is white, male dominated in general for the most part. I am not intentionally ignoring the under-represented groups in my editing, just that the systematic bias in this area happens to affect the ratios of articles I work on. I expect volunteers that work in topics not specifically related to biographies but involve documenting important bios in that field are similarly "gender/race/etc." blind as you describe but are affected by any systematic bias in the field. What I did mean is that if we are specifically talking biographical areas of underrepresented groups (eg "let's bolster our coverage of African-Americans", it is usually difficult to drive solitary volunteers to do that, while projects like Women in Red show that a solidarity type effort (with editors helping other editors editors) is a better means to gain more volunteer support. --Masem (t) 00:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Masem, I was half tempted to suggest, given Women in Red" (which is very clever) to start a "men in black" initiative, but I don't think it quite works. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I said historians and writers, I did not insist on scholarship but see no reason to be averse to doing the work to find that too. This is a do it yourself research project but go talk to people who know these subjects, and remember there are many ways, besides a stand alone article to put information in the pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: I don't think your polemics are helping you find able talent in your quest to improve African-American history-related content in the South. I think Jimbo is spot on in suggesting that "Are African American communities, schools, films, and cemeteries notable?" should not elicit a yes or no "gotcha" answer. I've written a lot about undercovered subjects—mostly African, but also some African American and Native American—and what I've found is that the more time spend denouncing fellow editors means less time curating good content. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well said - and I will only add as well, less time spent curating a community of interested Wikipedians to help with the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Added comments

@FloridaArmy. Here is an example of issues with your current outlook and wording. I am a middle-aged (alright a little more but hope to live a long time) white male from the deep south. I also visit AFC in spurts as a reviewer. I seem to recall you and I have had some interaction and I don't think negative. By association, some of your comments would put me in the same category you mention. I am from a poor family (resulting from the Great Crash), have an interracial family, and had never considered if my epistemological expectations are biased.

I have not only edited minority articles (just added content to Toledo Bend Reservoir that involves being "integrated out of existence"), but having created around a hundred articles, these include Alejandro Posadas (minority), and Abe Hawkins, a slave jockey and arguably the best of his time (considered second behind a white jockey he beat "before a crowd of 25,000 in New York"), and one of my first three was Beauregard Parish Training School, I think a good start article about a school for the education of black students and for the training of black teachers, and even Central Children's Home of North Carolina also known as Grant Colored Asylum. From a percentage point of view, only, my editing could be considered biased. I have never considered that I "must" equal out my articles to not be considered biased or a white supremacist or not create articles on lighthouses and wildlife management areas because it would skewer any balancing of bias. Your comments on systemic racism or white supremacy ("Shouldn't we call it what it is? Systemic racism.") are alarming. You are correct that "We can and must do better". A reply you deemed inappropriately answered, so callously replied back negatively, I considered very good.

I cannot correct any systemic racism in society. I (and many, many others) edit Wikipedia in areas of interest. My contributions towards eradicating any bias may seem minuscule to you but are "my contributions" to Wikipedia not an attempt to right great wrongs.

I hope you can see how some of your comments are not only insensitive but hurtful. I should not have to justify my life standing because of my race, place of birth, and choice of living (absent proof otherwise), because I am lumped into a group that you may deem as wholly contributing to systemic bias or your other choice of "systemic racism". As a contributing editor to WP:AFC (didn't look to see if I have declined one of your articles) I stand by we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources. Within those guidelines, per policies and guidelines (certainly including WP:BLP's) I gauge if an article will likely survive at AFD. To suggest or ask me to lower the standards for a certain subject area, because the area lacks recordable coverage, would be an insult. I consider myself to be a trusted editor (autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, patroller, autoconfirmed) and can create articles without review. That is a minuscule achievement since I have been inadvertently IP range blocked twice. The second time (globally) was very hurtful as my talk page was blocked. I suppose I could question why I am still not trustworthy enough ("yet") for a block exemption since I have tried. It is a future goal and not a reason to question the powers to be (a crusade) or to stop editing.

The agenda you are on is commendable but I fear if you cannot figure out a better way than your current approach, you may be considered what I have read as a "net negative" and maybe even here to harm Wikipedia. You cannot include "us all" as being involved in a conspiracy when it is simply not true. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Heck, this ol' Tennessee cracker boy is damned proud to have crafted a Wikipedia article on the segregation high school in my home town, as well as several articles on black state legislators, the first three non-white state legislators in Wisconsin, and lots of similar topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And I am sure this page would be filled with like examples. Editors should not have to join a list or be scrutinized because of a lack of purposefully editing to correct the wrong we didn't start or have anything to do with. As much as I support that "Black Lives Matter", being raised on "the wrong side of the track", I am still an American and cringed when a person stood on a podium and turned around, supposedly in support of a cause, when I feel that place, at that time, was not appropriate. I understand the reasoning but think there are a whole lot better ways to advance a cause than the blanket alienation of others. I see lots of issues in the world and even on Wikipedia but I have to figure a way to raise the issue with support and not as a lone crusader being me against "the others". By-the-way, under no circumstances am I advocating that F/A be anything less than committed to the cause. I would otherwise (I am part of the problem scenario) fully support and maybe even join a worthy cause. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think your idea that a discussion of systematic problems should be all about you and your preferences / biases / background / whatever is wrong and unhelpful. (This would also be true if we substituted any other individual in place of you.) --JBL (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Who are you (JBL) replying to? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Not only are African American subjects like all three Langston High Schools omitted from Wikipedia but even trying to include them on a disambig page is obstructed

• See Draft:Langston High School. This is what editors trying to inprove our coverage face. We are discouraged from working on the high school entries. And discouraged even from noting their existence. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly I don't see where Devonian Wombat is trying to erase mention of these high schools because they are named for African Americans, as you seem to suggest. Disambig pages are supposed to be useful (hence the standard for actual articles on the disambiged subject to exist and be linked), and you seem to be trying to create this as a substitute for a WP:List. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that regardless of the topic, just because (notable/famous person) was born in a place or attended a place or worked at a place, does not make that place notable. We do not have inherited notability. This is irrespective of the person's gender, race, nationality, etc. And to that point, we definitely would not include them in disambig pages if the only element to associate with the place is the tie to the notable person. --Masem (t) 23:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• (ec) I am also having difficulty finding coverage or an entry on Fred Alexander who was burned at the stake by a mob. Seems to have been a significant event that received fairly widespread coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @FloridaArmy: I'm confused, how can you have "difficulty finding coverage" on "a significant event that received fairly widespread coverage"? If you find more info on the event but not the person, then you can write an article about the event with a small paragraph about Alexander. Such is common on "Murder of Jane Doe" articles. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There's coverage of it on the page where it took place Leavenworth, Kansas. The disambig page Frederick Alexander probably can deal with a link to that as I can validate a handful of acadaemic sources covering the 1901 event. --Masem (t) 23:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    Also, add to List of lynching victims in the United States. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    Done as well. --Masem (t) 23:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the above demonstrates a much more positive way of addressing our weak spots. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The (well, an) African-American flag. A lot of people fly flags here. Irish flags and whatnot. We can fly this one too if we want to.

As far as schools specifically go, since 2003 and at least into 2017, it's been practice to always keep high school articles, with only independent proof of existence required. In 2017 the guideline noting this was changed on the initiative of some editors altho no one was calling for this, and they managed to make it stick (it's complicated), so I don't know what practice after 2017 is; hopefully it hasn't changed.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that this change was stuck at least partly to prevent a feared horde of articles about high schools in "third world" countries, particularly but not only India. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether it is just coincidence that third world schools are populated by... well... third worldy people, and there's no way to prove it either way, but I know what I think.

Anyway, I certainly wouldn't be shocked to find this rubric expanded to include traditionally-Black American schools also. I think that ought to be fought on more than one principle, and proper Wikipedians should lean over backwards to find a way to include such articles. Herostratus (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The reasons schools were kept prior to 2017 was due to bad circular logic: schools were listed on OUTCOMES so they had to be kept at AFD, and OUTCOMES couldn't be changed to remove schools because schools were kept at AFD. The 2017 discussion was a coming-to-Jesus type discussion given that many attempts to codify an SNG for school notability (beyond the GNG) kept failing. We just can't have circular logic applying to topics like that when it coms to AFD. It also didn't help that we were getting for-profit schools finding their way into WP using the "have to keep it" logic. There's no reason we can't cover schools that aren't independently notable on the pages of communities where the schools are located, including all necessary redirects. That would have the same external systematic bias (first world schools are more likely to be independently notable over 3rd world) but would still deal with the means to include every school regardless of location. --Masem (t) 00:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. The problem is, literally everything you say is wrong. It's fine, because you're not expert on the matter. I am, having spend a whole honken lot of hours analyzing the case, here: User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I'd be willing to educate people about this, but nobody is prepared to digest that level of detail, and anyway, almost all people are of the mind "Whether the process was corrupt I care not, as long the outcome was pleasing" (not just here; people are like that generally). It's not worth arguing about, because it's a side issue, and nobody's going to change their mind. Herostratus (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your writeup is that is takes a very much one-sided view of the issue and ignores the weight of discussion prior to 2017 related to the circular logic of OUTCOMES, the failure to form any school sub-notability guidelines, etc. And I've very much aware of this situation due to my involvement in notability discussions (as your statement below about trivial topics is way off base and glosses over many details about presumed assumptions of notability), as well as the fact that we have determined one of WP's functions is to serve as a gazetteer and thus have articles on every recognized town and village. For the rest you list - the GNG does apply - but we also have the sub-notability guidelines that create the presumption of notability based on criteria to give authors time to find sources and improve. Passing a sub-notability guideline does not assure we will keep that article forever if there's no way to expand the article further. This means that we may appear to have articles on trivial topics, but they eventually have to prove themselves out, and that is true for schools now based on all the discussions leading up to and past the 2017 RFC. But I stress again: because we have articles on every town or village due to being a gazetteer there is almost no reason that every secondary school cannot be at minimally mentioned within that article and redirects given, so that every school is at least searchable. --Masem (t) 05:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. We're somewhat off topic. But whether it was all done on the up-and-up, I think that the intent do a degree and in part was to prevent hordes of third-world-highschool articles. That was anyway the effect I think. There was no intent to do anything to mostly-Black American schools I think, but there has probably been that effect to some degree -- after all, we're seeing complaints about it right here. Even saying for the sake of argument that it wasn't a fiat coup, it's still had a bad effect at least in that sense. That's all I'm saying. Herostratus (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If GNG were stringently applied to secondary schools, I actually think (aside from those on historic listings for their architecture) we'd see a disproportionate amount of historically black schools or formerly segregated white American schools, because such things have given rise to secondary literature (desegregation battles made their way into the news back in the day and presently are in the issues of historical journals). -Indy beetle (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That's... wrong. There are hundreds upon hundreds of mostly-Black high schools in America, and thousand and thousands of mostly-white ones. The white ones tend to have more coverage. Secondary literature about desegregation as a general thing doesn't have a lot to do with coverage of most schools, which consists mostly of football teams and town meetings and local controversies and whatnot.

GNG is not applied to most of our articles -- well under 50%. This is how we are able to have articles on extremely obscure geographic features, extremely obscure baseball players, extremely obscure tiny villages, extremely obscure railroad stations, extremely obscure funguses -- and extremely obscure high schools, at least for most of our history and still now I hope; while meeting the GNG is sometimes not enough, if the subject is considered ephemeral, trivial, or low-class enough. So "I'd like to keep info on these Black schools or these other Black subjects, but muh GNG" rings pretty hollow. Per WP:1Q, you could keep them if you wanted to. Herostratus (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• High School of Charleston is certainly more notable and historic than most. But draft declined.
• Bancroft, Louisiana which had a "colored" school doesn't exist on Wikipedia.
• The first African American architect licensed in Georgia who was also an influential professor at Tuskegge Institute and helped design buildings there and a historic church on the NRHP in Athens, Georgia (Draft:Lewis Persely), I'm told he doesn't meet GNG, and of course the church doesn't have an article either.
• Pleasant Hill neighborhood in Macon, Georgia? Its historic Linwood Cemetery? Nope.

The list goes on and on. Instead we get examples of articles on a Spanish guy in Argentina, a single sourced segregation academy, and WNBA players as examples that we're inclusive. It's pretty shocking frankly. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Arad Simon Lakin is an interesting one. Minister from Ohio who was denied the presidency of the University of Alabama because of his advocacy for African Americans. We're told he's not notable because he wasn't UA's president.

I get this often with African American politicians. Because they were ousted or denied seats I'm told they aren't notable. Doesn't that make them more notable? Let's be honest, state reps are a dime a dozen but it took real effort to oust the African Americans elected to those offices and to keep the out for decades and decades. Shouldn't we include coverage of that history on Wikipedia and the people involved? Aren't they more notable than every Welsh gymnasy who conpeted at the Olympics? Why is it our standard to omit these subjects??? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocking users for the Palestinian flag

Dear Jimmy Wales,

A fawiki admin has blocked me for placing a Palestinian flag on my userpage. They asked me to remove the flag from my userpage and when I politely refused their request, they blocked me and removed the flag themselves! What does this mean? I'm flabbergasted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

this fawiki admin is pressuring me now to remove the Palestinian flag from my userpage. Shiasun (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My view is that Wikipedia user pages are not the appropriate venue for political advocacy, but I also know that this is not enforced uniformly. As I am unaware of the particular policies within fawiki, I'm unable to comment in detail. I will say this: to the extent that users are not allowed to engage in (legitimate) political advocacy on their user pages, the rule should be uniformly enforced without regard to what the advocacy might be. I say "legitimate" because there is a big difference between the display of a Palestinian flag and statements/symbols that are actually hateful. Obviously drawing the line can be hard, but drawing hard lines is something we do all the time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

they blocked me and removed the flag themselves now too!!! Shiasun (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the said flag:

As you can see, there is nothing hateful or controversial about it. I may be connected to that land (but I don't want to out myself), and I may be proud of that and showing this pride makes me feel better when I edit Wikipedia as a veteran editor. This is not political advocacy.

Regarding policies, fawiki has failed to develop its own policies and completely relies on the English Wikipedia policies, so you can safely use enwiki policies and guidelines. Thanks again for your time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As I do not speak or read Farsi, I am really unable to comment more. I'd be interested to host (in English) a discussion of the issue with the admins but of course I'm not going to question or reverse their decision - that's not my place to do. Or perhaps you can tell me more about the reasons given for removing the flag? In my long experience, it is not rare for someone to present a dispute to me in a very one-sided way, carefully neglecting to give the full context. Is it possible you could explain further?

For example, you presented this as "a Palestinian flag" but it's clearly not just the flag, but an illustration of a real-world image which features the flag. The original image, as far as I have been able to determine so far, originated in a tweet with a slogan that is widely regarded as anti-semitic. (The image itself clearly isn't, though.) Is that the problem?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has since unblocked me and I have reinstated the flag onto my userpage which gives me positive energy to create another dozen of quality articles. But the other user (Shiasun) is still blocked.

As far as I understand this is the picture of Golriz Ghahraman and there is nothing anti-semitic in her tweets or pictures. According to [3], another Green MP named Ricardo Menéndez March has been criticized for their tweets. I don't follow the politics of New Zealand, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the context that led to my blockage, I will ping the blocking admin Samuel T.Owen so they can provide their side of story. There was no context as far as I know, and this admin came out of the blue asking me and Shiasun to remove the flags because "political campaign" is not allowed on Wikipedia, while fawiki hosts many radical political userboxes[4]! 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

this image was on my userpage when they blocked me. Did the name of this image also originated from a tweet? unfortunately, fawiki admins is getting weaker day by day. thats why fawiki suffers a lot. Shiasun (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

He made a good block iranians are divided over this war user pages shouldn't divide people bi (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Which war? This picture has nothing to do with any war or conflict. It only shows that I'm proud of my potential Palestinian heritage. According to your logic, nobody should raise an Afghan flag because that poor country is war-torn for more than 40 years! 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a flag itself should not be the basis of the judgement and it should be considered in context. If the subsequent behavior of the user--such as the way to respond to the request to remove the flag, or the way they react to the block--is also filled with politically motivated statements, that clearly shows the user's motivations were indeed political advocacy, and not just a gentle display of beliefs. huji—TALK 22:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is weird. So you make illegitimate requests to remove innocuous pictures from userpages and actually block the users, then see how they react to the block subsequently, and finally decide if they are politically-driven or not! This is a textbook example of "shoot first, ask questions later."

Speaking about myself, I have made no contributions about Palestine or any conflicts related to Palestine so far, so you can't read my mind or ascribe political motivations to me.

And let's not talk in a vacuum and avoid hypothetical scenarios, because we have an actual incident at hand. I have made no "politically motivated statements" when I got blocked, but only called Palestine as "my dearest Palestine."

Seems to me this user is just trying to save face for the Persian Wikipedia avoiding a possible fiasco. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, is that a response to me or someone else? Because you said "you make illegitimate request to remove ..." but I certainly made no such requests.

Seems to me that you are willing to do anything (including making a false attribution about me) just to make sure this situation is seen as a "fiasco". huji—TALK 21:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read generic you. You means a typical admin of fawiki whom you seem to be defending. Otherwise, you wouldn't make such a weird suggestion to analyse the subsequent behaviour of the blocked party and implying that I have made "politically motivated statements"!

I had already made it clear that the blocking admin was Samuel T.Owen. Mr. Wales wanted to know their side of the story, so I pinged them and I'm certain they can write in English. If you are indeed neutral here, maybe it's better to let them speak for themselves. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The blocking admin Samuel T.Owen. told me at fawiki that they wouldn't provide their side of the story and were content with what had been said in this thread.

Dear Mr. Wales, now that you know there was no context for this incident and that this admin came out of the blue ordering me and another user to remove the innocous picture depicted above and blocking us over it, is this really how Wikipedia treats its veteran editors with years of service and thousands of contributions? 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your reasoning above is just as dishonest as the way you describe yourself. You are not just a "veteran editor with years of service and thosuands of contributions". You are also a known LTA sockmaster with many socks, multiple blocks, and only welcome back to the fawiki community as a clean start.

Note that I am not defending that block; and in the phrase "typical admin of fawiki whom you seem to be defending" I don't think "you" is generic you; it is directly at me, so you are making an incorrect claim about me yet again.

So, again, I am not defending that admin--or any fawiki admin, for that matter--and only want to make sure you don't present a lopsided set of arguments here. Something you repeatedly did. In other words: I am not here because of you; I am here because of Jimbo and the knowledge that he likes to hear all sides of a story. huji—TALK 22:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Calling me an LTA is just a serious personal attack; funny that you once supported the adminship of an "LTA". And my clean start had nothing to do with my presence at fawiki. I was in good standing when I did a clean start and that is the right of every Wikipedian. Clean start is not something with which you shame users. And yes, if the admins of a project block and unblock users over issues as frivolous as raising a Palestinian flag, no surprise that users lose their clean block log.

That generic you is just a misunderstanding by you. Why would I want to involve you in this story? You made a weird suggestion to consider the subsequent behaviour of the blocked party to determine if they are politically-driven or not, and I used generic you to demonstrate how bad that idea is.

And let's not forget that another user has also been blocked in this incident. Can you discredit them too? 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair; assuming good faith, I will let the "generic you" discussion pass as a misunderstanding. I also redacted the term LTA above and replaced it with a more objective word. huji—TALK 20:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As has been said, this is not a Palestinian flag, which looks like this. You need to tell us who created this flag and what the text means. No one disagrees that any editor may display a Palestinian flag or one of any other country. An administrator has decided that there is a problem with this flag and it is up to you to explain why it is acceptable. Don't assume that we are against Palestine. TFD (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I created this flag myself. All details have been provided at File:Free Palestine.svg. The file only shows the word Palestine in both Latin and Arabic script. The burden of proof is on the fawiki admin to let me know what is wrong with this flag. I don't assume you are against Palestine. Indeed, I have come here from fawiki to ask your help. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

YouTube

YouTube videos posted by broadcasters now provide a description sourced to Wikipedia. For example, BBC videos now have posted below, "BBC is a British public broadcast service. Wikipedia"[5]

Wikipedia articles however are not reliable sources and it does not guarantee the accuracy of every article.

Is it possible to ask YouTube to stop doing this?

TFD (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly possible to ask them. Given however that YouTube is owned by Google, and that Google has taken no notice whatsoever of repeated requests to stop claiming that Google Knowledge Graph content that they have found elsewhere is sourced to Wikipedia, I doubt they'll take much notice. I suppose the WMF could always threaten to stop taking donations from them. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to find any source that guarantees the accuracy of every article, and in general our more prominent articles are as accurate and complete as most other sources or more so. I think we should take it as a compliment. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's stated somewhere that companies can use WP however they want, as long as they state that they are doing so. But of course it's possible to ask them not to. This particular case could lead to more editors, constructive and not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any doubt whether "BBC is a British public broadcast service"? Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

To fill in the gaps: Google and Facebook trust Wikipedia to sort out disinformation, conspiracy theories and fake news. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, The Four Deuces, I don't think we should ask. Wikipedia has internal rules about sources, and our rules preclude the use of Wikipedia as a source, but we don't have the authority to impose our sourcing requirements on other organizations. We also have rules about the re-use of our material and YouTube is complying. I don't see any issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia has no authority to impose sourcing requirements on third parties does not mean it cannot advise them. Wikipedia:General disclaimer for example advises readers that it "cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here." Of course that cannot stop some readers from doing so.

Why I think this is important is that articles are supposed to report conclusions found in reliable sources, not to provide its own conclusions.

TFD (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I propose that the deprecate the term "reliable sources" and its shortcut "RS" in favor of "generally reliable sources", shorted to "GRS". Most experienced editors know that some of our gold standard RS contain many errors, and say "reliable sources" while meaning "generally reliable sources", but our insistence on excluding the qualifier may lead readers to assume we can actually deliver more than we can actually deliver. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I wish that more, softer, antivandalism tools be developed, such as adding a delay to IP/newbie edits to make things more reliable. Especially for BLPs and others, such protections are very much necessary. Also, even Google already rely directly on Wikidata for their side bar on searches, so a delay for newbie edits is very much needed. - Vis M (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Have we tested to see how fast a change in WP propagates to these other sources in terms of issues around vandalism? I do not believe these are anywhere close to true real time, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of near real time (eg within a day) propagation to occur. Any delay more than a hour would likely not be something to worry about (we catch vandalism that fast for the most part). --Masem (t) 00:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Any request to "don't use Wikipedia as a source of information" is as absurd and contrary to what we are. Our wp:ver requirements precluding using Wikepedia as a source are an effort to make our info as good as possible. They are not to preclude using the result as a source of information. North8000 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So if a vandal changed the BBC article to say that the BBC was the British equivalent of Der Stuermer and it got picked up on YouTube, you would be happy with that because it would be absurd and contrary for them not to say that?

AndyTheGrump, it would be interesting if the Foundation put that in a YouTube video and ended up being de-platformed.

TFD (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No, of course I would not be fine with vandalism of the article. But I would be fine with someone having a practice of using Wikipedia as an information source, including the acknowledged risk that it might be wrong. North8000 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, One trivial solution, that citers rarely use, even though it should be ubiquitous, is to cite the permanent link to the version the citer reviewed. I have seen this occasionally in legal documents, but rarely in other contexts. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia gets cited for all sorts of things, in all sorts of contexts. Not just notes on YouTube, and Google Knowledge Graph content, but in more deeply problematic contexts too. For example there have been many well-documented examples of Wikipedia articles being cited as evidence in courts of law. The mere existence of a disclaimer doesn't absolve Wikipedia of the responsibility to at least attempt get things right, since people are going to treat it that way anyway. You can't legitimately call something an 'encyclopedia' and then deny all responsibility for people taking you at your word.

In as much as Wikipedia can do anything about the issue at all (it is a reflection of a much broader problem, at least in part due to failures in educational systems, which tend to discourage critical analysis for all sorts of reasons, some more legitimate than others), probably the best that can be done is to try to make it clearer to article readers how Wikipedia works, how content is arrived at, and what the inherent flaws in the way it does it are. Perhaps the best solution would be to come up with a Why you shouldn't trust Wikipedia document of some sort, and then provide a prominent link to it at the top of every article. A small-text link to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer on the main page clearly isn't adequate to the task, and the disclaimer itself reads more like the lawyer-speak it clearly is than an actual attempt to encourage readers to be less trusting of Wikipedia articles, or of any other single source. A little less emphasis on imparting 'knowledge' through isolated 'articles', and a little more effort into encouraging readers to ask questions about what 'knowledge' really is, and how you learn how to acquire it and refine it, or even reject it, as you subject it to further scrutiny, might not go amiss. Though no doubt that would seem like too much effort to most contributors, who would rather keep up the pretence that imparting 'knowledge' merely involves regurgitation of 'facts' from 'reliable sources' - one of the numerous convenient falsehoods that keep this project functioning in the way it does, warts and all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Well-said. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Well-said. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation statement on the passing of Boryana Straubel

Do you personally have a statement on the passing of Boryana Straubel? ("She became vice president of talent and culture at Wikimedia Foundation in 2015") Did you know her? Therapyisgood (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The article looks like a reprint from the New York Times, so here is the original link. Philbert2.71828 22:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a sad thing. Unfortunately I didn't really know Boryana personally, although we may have met. (Because I'm a volunteer and don't work at the WMF and live in England, I unfortunately can't get to know as many staff members as I would like.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

They/Them

Sir, when I let my mouse hover over usernames on my watchlist, a little box pops up with information about the user. I noticed that some of them identified the user as "he/him" (Cullen328) or "she/her" (Valereee). I didn't get that for my own username. So I looked at my preferences and found where this could be changed. The default is "they/them". As a test, I changed it to "he/him" and I got "he/him" when I hovered my mouse over my username. I changed it to "they/them" and I got nothing. How are users meant to know if someone has deliberately chosen the pronouns "they/them"? I know that Guy Macon was recently blocked for not referring to another user by pronouns of their choice. Sir, I feel that the default choice should not be "they/them" but it should be "unspecified". "They/them" should be a separate choice for people who do not identify as male or female. Thank you. Pack My Box (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, using singular they is just fine when referring to editors who do not express another preference. "They/them" should not be reserved just for people who do not identify as male or female. Many editors prefer complete anonymity here on Wikipedia but may well use traditional pronouns off Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Seconded, I usually use the singular they when referring to other editors simply because its vagueness denotes politeness (it doesn't disrespect someone's preferred pronouns by necessarily contradicting them) and frankly, it keeps it impersonal. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but there is no option that shows "they/them" as a deliberate choice for people who do not identify as male or female. If people do not want to choose that is fine, but that is not the same as making a deliberate choice that other editors can see. You want people to know that you are "he/him". Some people want others to know that they are "they/them". Pack My Box (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Then they can state so on their user page. Personal pronouns, as far as Wikipedians are concerned, are simply a part of editor communication. The choice to use certain pronouns shouldn't necessarily be seen as a large statement tantamount to waving a banner loudly proclaiming ones gender identity, whether someone wants to be known as he, she, or them. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sir, are Cullen328 and Valereee waving a banner loudly proclaiming their gender identity? Why should they have choice that shows their gender to other users but some people do not deserve that same choice? Pack My Box (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

For the record, there are some people who identify outside the gender binary but still use masculine or feminine pronouns. That's not very common, but I'm trying to stress that editors should not be focusing on others' identity, they should be focused on communicating politely so they can better create content. You pose an interesting question but I don't think it's of too much concern that the options say (they/them, genderqueer/nonbinary) verses (they/them, vague). -Indy beetle (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not telling anyone to use any pronoun. All people should have the same ability to choose "he/him", "she/her", or "they/them". Not "he/him", "she/her", and blank. People can not choose to show "they/them". That is what I am saying. Pack My Box (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen and Indy beetle that "they/them" is appropriate for users who have not specified another option. We need some gender-neutral pronoun terms in English, and they/them are the best we have. They're infinitely better than "he/she", for which we unfortunately still have a template that aids users who use trans-exclusionary language.

I wasn't able to replicate the hovering effect in my watchlist. Are the pop-up boxes tooltips or something else? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If someone's gender is unknown then it is appropriate to refer to them as they, but that is different from a user who has chosen to be called "they/them". The preference is called "gender neutral" which is very different from not identifying as male or female. Their gender is "they/them" it is not "gender neutral". I have turned n popups. Pack My Box (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that we do not have an option for users to choose a gender or even pronouns on Wikipedia. We allow users to select how they want to be addressed by the software. It's a 'use language in this way' setting, not a gender choice. In terms of it being displayed in the way you describe, you are probably referring to what the community maintained tool Navigation popups (not part of the official software) is doing with this information. They have a talkpage to discuss the functionality of the tool. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I strongly support that people should be called by whatever pronouns they prefer. Singular they/them as a stand-in for "don't know" is becoming more and more standard in English, although the singular/plural thing is grammatically harder in some cases and I personally do find it difficult in speech (not particularly difficult in writing, since there's time to pause on it to get it right). As to the question of whether it's important to know that someone *choses* they/them as their pronouns, as opposed to it meaning "I'm not sure" - I don't have a strong opinion right now as it isn't something I've ever thought about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be the Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups gadget, but that is non-default so that a "brand new" editor has enabled the gadget, discovered this tiny setting, and came to complain about it on this page with references to other editors they have never dealt with is making this a bit hard to follow over all the quacking..... However, AGF see MediaWiki talk:Yourgender for more on this topic, especially how language settings are not meant to be the same as a gender or sex parameter. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I use navigation popups. It was suggested on one the editing help pages. If the preference is not meant to indicate gender identity, why does popups show it? Pack My Box (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose I could just let this go, but this page is watched by a lot of people. The OP's description of my block of Guy Macon - which they use as one reason to need to know what everyone's preferred pronouns are - is an extreme oversimplification; there was a lot more going on there. Admins do not go around blocking people for accidentally getting pronouns wrong. No admin does that, and that is not what happened here. It's somewhat annoying I've had to clarify that a half dozen times now in various places. Also annoying that an editor gets to use a throwaway account to repeat that claim with no consequence, when I'm willing to bet they know better, but Jimbo seems to tolerate obvious socks all the time, so I guess I'll have to suck it up. At least the rest of their post is an interesting, legit question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I am sorry I didn't say anything about the claim about the block of Guy Macon. I didn't look into it, but it is absolutely quite common that people pop around here and tell stories incorrectly or only give me half the story, so I didn't actually walk away thinking "Oh no, admins are blocking people for accidentally getting pronouns wrong" as that's obviously absurd. I'm just guessing, as I haven't seen any particular cases, but I imagine even deliberately misgendering someone once or twice is just going to get someone initially told to knock it off and it would take a little bit more (not a lot more, though) to actually say: ok, look, that's just being harassing, so you're blocked.
  • And yes, the rest of the post is an interesting and legit question. :) I try to just answer those, although of course I misunderstand and get something wrong and answer something that's actually not all that legit or interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I don not think anyone "needs" to know someone's gender, but if we are giving men and women a way to show their gender we should also give that to people who do not identify as men or women. Sir, I am sorry if I misunderstood why Guy Macon was blocked. Pack My Box (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Frankly, I find the imposition of the singular they on myself by Wikipedia an outrage. I was forced to remove the talk header template from my talk page because it was changed to refer to those without a specified gender as such. Merely because I am of unspecified gender does not mean that I accept being referred to with the singular they, and if anyone does so in future, I will be sure to give that person the what for. RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  @RGloucester, you don't want to specify what pronouns you prefer, and you don't want to be called "they". Does that mean it's okay if I default to "she"? —valereee (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I am prohibited from discussing what pronouns I would prefer be used by a topic ban, so, sadly, I cannot specify such here. However, as long one doesn't refer to me with 'they', I am unlikely to get cross. RGloucester — ☎ 15:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't "they/them" show up by default, though? What would it hurt? Those who actively want to use "they/them" as their pronouns would be happy. Those who simply want to avoid using "he/him" or "she/her" for privacy would be happy. Those who didn't think to specify "he/him" or "she/her" would be reminded "Oh, yeah, I need to specify so that others will use the right words". And it would tend to discourage people from making assumptions based on how they interpret the name. If we're going to have something that displays pronouns for users, it should display them for all users. --Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you did not read my comment just above. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between not specifying a gender and choosing to be referred to as "they/them". Users are not required to identify their gender and should not be required to do so. RGloucester has not specified their gender and has stated that they would not wish to be referred to as "they/them". Some users may not wish to specify their gender for personal reasons. Having four choices ("unspecified", "they/them", "she/her", "he/him") should accommodate most people. There may be other options like "xe/xem" that could be discussed. Pack My Box (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like some of the explanations linked above are being overlooked. The gendered-language user variable literally only accepts 3 values, "unknown", "male", "female". The interface lets you know some examples of how you may expect to see messages that make use of pronouns. The interface is very much not asking you "what is your sex", "what is your gender", or "what are you preferred personal pronouns for use in discussions"; the interface example is just illustrative. Depending on the the specific interface message, this value can be used to output a different text (notable, most system messages don't make use of this value at all). On some other language projects where gendered nouns are the normal language convention, value may be used to specify things like your userpage name (Userio:Jimbo Wales vs Useria:Jimbo Wales). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The interface itself seems to have changed at some point. At the time I pressed the 'unspecified' button, which was almost ten years ago now, it did not indicate anything about that choice having an impact on the pronouns displayed. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The interface, like most of our software and content evolves over time, hopefully for the better! Our current selection is:

The software uses this value to address you and to mention you to others using the selected grammatical gender option. Your selection will be publicly visible to others. Gender used in messages:

• Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions") (default)
• Use feminine terms when possible (e.g. "her contributions")
• Use masculine terms when possible (e.g. "his contributions")

This value is rarely used here on the English Wikipedia. Here is an example of one such rare use: when an admin wants to reset a user confirmation status from the edit filter - but a reset isn't needed the admin will get the error response from MediaWiki:Abusefilter-reautoconfirm-none - which will respond: That user has not had {{GENDER:$1|his|her|their}} autoconfirmed status suspended.. If the uservalue is the unknown option, the word "their" will be output. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is also a value that people are likely to set globally, and it does help (especially for females) on gendered language projects (so that females don't see themselves getting called "userio" instead of "useria" constantly if they don't want to). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, but a proper 'unspecified' (rather than 'gender-neutral') option would be appreciated. This previously existed, and it's a shame it's been taken away. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@RGloucester: please feel free to help workshop this a bit more over at MediaWiki talk:Yourgender; if we can get something that most people will agree with for this language value - we can probablly backport it to the core message file (so long as it is still clear that the purpose of this specific setting is to style messages of the interface). If you want to actually have a value to store a user's sex/gender/etc - that would be best as a new field and should be requested over at phab. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)