Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Useless topic headings

If someone posts a question headed "Question", we always change it to something more meaningful, something about the substance of the question, to assist people searching for it, now and in the future.

Now, what about a question headed "Untitled"? That is just as useless as "Question", imo. I've changed such a header on the Mathematics desk, twice now, and User:Deacon Vorbis has twice reverted me, saying the OP didn't want a title and it doesn't need one. This seems to fail the common sense test. What does the community think? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In either case (and I'm sure other examples could be cited) I think it's a good idea to specify the heading. The only additional thing I'd suggest (for the sake of the OP and others that might have already responded) is to add the original heading with Template:Anchor, right below the section heading. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "we", pale-face? In fact, there was no section header at all originally. I added one as "Untitled"...since there was no title, and to make sure the archiving bot wouldn't freak out. Searching the archives will work just fine without a section header. This was also a low-quality question that would benefit from not being found anyway. Why try to change what the desk regulars are doing? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard practice is to have a meaningful header. If you can't think of one, maybe recruit someone who can? As for the archives, the search mechanism sucks. Or should I say, it sucks "just fine." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been a desk regular for over 16 years. I know whereof I speak. As for "a low-quality question that would benefit from not being found anyway" - that is really contrary to our ethos of enlightenment. We never know who may wish to access the question at some future time. Otherwise, why have archives at all? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's a disconnect between:

• I added [a section header] as "Untitled"... to make sure the archiving bot wouldn't freak out. and
• Searching the archives will work just fine without a section header.

Can you clarify, User:Deacon Vorbis? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

One way to look at it is that the search mechanism is worthless, with or without headings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It is our "ethos of enlightenment" that matters here. Some say "It is not necessary to bring Talk pages to publishing standards". This is the Reference desk. We should have high standards. I think we should have high standards on Talk pages. "Untitled" and "Question" serve little purpose. It is not only archives that we have to be concerned with, but also present participation. It is a task devising an appropriate heading when someone else posed the question. But doing so can be seen as part of our "ethos of enlightenment". A slash, also known as a forward slash, can be used to separate the terms "Untitled" or "Question" from our newly-devised heading, although I would tend not to do that. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Every section should have a meaningful title, and "Untitled" is every bit as bad as "Question". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with something better than "Question" or "Untitled". Worse comes to worst, they can simply restate the first line of the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please continue fixing headings to be informative. If the person objects and wants to stick with the useless heading, then fine, don't press the matter. But it's unhelpful for a third person to come along and revert a useful heading to a useless one. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we have a consensus. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator's questions

It is my position that further questions by Freeknowledgecreator about whether specific foods are fattening or slimming should be boxed up or reverted. It is also my position that bullshit questions like the one about whether human blood is fattening should be reported as vandalism. Thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Seen in the context of the responses I see this as harmless. Bus stop (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Matt Deres, your proposals are an unjustified form of personal aggression. I do reserve the right to ask questions that other may consider "stupid" or may dislike. Do explain where the rule is that questions asked at the reference desk cannot be "stupid" or "bullshit". The concept of "vandalism" does not apply here. Per WP:VANDAL: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." None of the questions I have asked, including the one about whether drinking human blood would be fattening, remotely meet that definition. In effect you are simply trying to get questions you dislike labelled "vandalism", which is an abuse and a distortion of the term. If I had done something like adding a random string of characters - like "UISHRFUGEIUT 46w46w6" - at the Reference desk, that would have been vandalism, but even a distasteful or "stupid" question is nowhere near being vandalism. Like I said, if you see a question you dislike or disapprove of, the best and most civilized response is probably simply to ignore it. By the way, what on Earth is wrong with a question about whether or under what circumstances a given food can be fattening? These sorts of questions are of interest to many people and have considerable practical importance. Would you really ban them because you personally happen to dislike them? Alternatively, why would I be the only user whose questions about such subjects should be removed? Why the sudden urge to discriminate against me personally? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ten questions in as many days asking for dietary/medial advice, last about drinking blood? Given the very poor response above, best Freeknowledgecreator be asked to stop such postings and any more simply reverted rather than boxed up. I'll agree with this number and wouldn't call it vandalism.—eric 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

EricR, in the first place, not a single question was a request for advice or about my health specifically - they were general questions about the healthiness of various foods. I stated explicitly and very clearly that I was not asking for advice. In the second place, where is the rule about the maximum number of questions one can ask at the reference desk? If you think that such a rule should exist, then make your case, but why pretend that such a rule does exist when it doesn't? You might have a case if the reference desk were being deluged with an excessive number of questions, so many that people there couldn't handle them, but that's not even remotely true. If people who provide answers at the reference desk are content to answer my questions, then who, exactly, are you to tell them that they shouldn't? What gives you, or Matt Deres, the right to police the reference desk? I stand by my earlier response. All I see here is personal aggression directed against me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Listen, Dracula, every editor has the "right" to "police" the ref desks or anywhere else on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No one has the right to remove questions simply because they dislike them - or the person who asks them. The proposal being made was "further questions by Freeknowledgecreator about whether specific foods are fattening or slimming should be boxed up or reverted". No one suggested why either A) questions about whether specific foods are fattening are inappropriate or B) why, alternatively, questions asked by me about such subjects are inappropriate. Matt Deres has not ventured to explain why people other than me should be able to ask such questions. Also, his proposal to remove "bullshit questions" doesn't explain what a "bullshit question" is. Effectively, Matt Deres is proposing that, "Any question Matt Deres dislikes can be automatically removed." No thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is not to remove any questions. It is to remove your questions and that is perfectly within the guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 04:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is no guideline against me asking questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a WP:CIR problem in understanding what Matt has written. Also try reading WP:CONSENSUS. It has been applied numerous times regarding the ref desks. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no difficulty understanding it. It is a totally unreasonable, aggressive proposal directed against me personally, one that is in no sense necessary, and appears motivated by personal dislike or disagreement. At best one could consider it an over-reaction to a single question I understand some might find distasteful. I note again that there is no definition of "bullshit questions" and that all it can mean in practice is, "anything I dislike". No one other than you appears to be proposing that I be banned from asking any questions ("The proposal is...to remove your questions"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For someone who's been here since 2011, you seem remarkably ignorant about how things work at Wikipedia. More specifically, editors can be, and have been, banned from the ref desks, for any number of things, including asking trolling questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So, essentially, you think I should be banned forever from the reference desks, without warning and with no second chances, purely for asking one question that some people found distasteful? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You've been asking nutrition-related questions (except for the one about blood, which is clearly trolling), and you've been directed to sources for answers to nutrition-related questions. Yet you keep asking the same kind of question. That's what could get you banned from the ref desks. Kind of like the user who kept asking about the motives of characters in movies. He was advised to look for a fan forum. But the user kept coming back asking the same kind of question, and was eventually banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So the proposal is what, then? That I be banned from the reference desks for asking questions that are similar to each other? Doesn't that seem like something of an over-reaction? How different does a question have to be from previous questions to be acceptable? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop asking questions that have already been answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your response. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your failure to understand the obvious is one reason your competency is being questioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is personal abuse. I've written four good articles. That seems competent. If you make obscure comments, and someone doesn't see the point of them, maybe the best response is to explain yourself properly instead of accusing others of being incompetent for failing to see the point of your obscure comments? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How many of them were about vampirism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Then box it up. Just don't ask if the box is fattening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Box it up and ship it out? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, that answers the question in question: Human blood IS fattening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you all should lighten up. I agree it borders on senseless to contemplate whether human blood is fattening or not. I'm just not into penalizing people for senseless questions. But Freeknowledgecreator should take note of the pretty obvious reactions of several people that it apparently drives them up a wall to have the Reference desks used for senseless questions. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Lighten up? lol I refuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

One need not get a joke to laugh at it. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism/censorship

I recently asked the following question, "Is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" Baseball bugs first replied with an aggressive and dismissive comment ("Before you spout any more of your nonsense about various things, you should do some reading to eddycate yourself, maybe starting with LGBT stereotypes"), and then removed the question, and his response. The removal is an act of outright vandalism and intolerance. Per WP:RD/G: "The reference desk is not censored. No subject per se is off limits." The guideline states that, " Further, we never set out deliberately to offend, and we endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses."

Nothing in my question was "needlessly offensive". It was a perfectly calm, simple question, and was not posed in an offensive manner. Rather than attempt to provide a calm response, Baseball bugs removed the question, apparently simply because he found a calm and matter of fact question offensive. This is unacceptable. My question should be reinstated and Basebull bugs should be told to stop editing in a way that conflicts with the reference desk guidelines. Baseball bugs, let me point out that I didn't spout "nonsense" about anything. I simply asked a question, which isn't the same as expressing an opinion about the question subject. If in your opinion, gay men do not "tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers", then you could just have said so, preferably backing up your response with evidence. If your excuse for removing the question was that it is answered at the article LGBT stereotypes, let me point out that it says nothing about this subject. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing calm or matter-of-fact about your question - it's a reiteration of homophobic stereotyping, which is not allowed here. And it's a hundred times worse than your nonsensical question about whether human blood is fattening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My question was both calm and neutral. It was simply a question about whether gay men tend to remember their relationships with their parents in a certain way. I didn't state that they actually do ("homophobic stereotyping"). Why can't you make that simple distinction? You are 100% entitled to your view that gay men do not tend to remember their relationships with their parents that way, but not to remove a simple question because it offends you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My response to that question might have been simply "No". Because that's the true answer. But it really was a provocative question, reflecting stereotypes about gay men that most of us thought went out of fashion half a century ago. Perhaps you asked it in genuine, naive innocence, and perhaps you are still developing your social awareness, but it stood out to me as a very odd thing to ask. Before asking a question beginning with "Is it true that...", maybe you need to look at some of the relevant Wikipedia articles and Google a few other pages before leaping in here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The question was brief, short, and posed in an entirely calm and neutral manner. If some people feel that they have to remove it because it upsets them, then that's really bizarre. HiLo48's comment is a little more reasonable, but I note that it is also quite evidence-free. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Any statement that starts "Is it true that gay men..." is a blanket stereotype of all gay men. You might as well ask "Is it true that Mexican immigrants are criminals?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, once again, it is a question about whether something is the case, not a statement that it is the case. A very simple distinction, I would have thought. Also, I used the word "tend" in the question - I was asking whether there is a tendency for something to be the case. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a question for you. What made you ask your question? HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting to question to ask, firstly because it is not relevant, and secondly, because I obviously do not have to answer it. Generally, it is accepted that people can ask questions at the reference desk without being interrogated about why they are doing so. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Says who? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Too often these days, "Is it true that (minority group) [does/is/believes/says] (thing)?" questions are used as a form of JAQing off (particularly by alt-right trolls), especially when it's a stereotype or something politically incorrect. I am absolutely not suggesting that was the case with your question but am trying to help you understand why some people would react poorly to such questions and help you consider using different approaches in the future. For example, in addition to doing the prior research to see if it's a stereotype as everyone already has and will continue to suggest, once you do come here, consider asking "are there any sources on the history of this stereotype?" or more open questions like "are there any sources on relationships between gay men and their parents?" Don't ask "why do people believe this stereotype?" (because they're ignorant, end of discussion) or "where did this stereotype come from?" (because that's a form of JAQing off used to suggest that the stereotype is based in reality).

And remember, assume that anything you write will be read in the most stupid and hostile tone possible. Read what others write in the most pleasant tone possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Ian.thomson. I do not entirely agree with it, but it is the most reasonable response I have received so far. I will soon posed a revised version of my question, taking your feedback into account. I do hope that no one censors the reference desk by removing a calm, matter of fact question simply because they are upset by it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You should post it here first, so it can be discussed without anyone having to resort to edit-warring at the ref desk itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Try, "What sources are available that address the issue of whether it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you're just restating your original premise, which is based on nothing except stereotyping and bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

How about, "Are there any studies about gay men's relationships with their parents, in comparison with straight men's relationships with their parents?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, as I have pointed out repeatedly, my question was a question about whether gay men tend to remember their relationships with their parents in a certain way, as opposed to a statement that they actually do remember their relationships with their parents that way. You removed my question based on a blatant falsehood, and you have continued to repeat that falsehood. Your claim that I engaged in "stereotyping and bigotry" is simply false. The question you propose I ask is a censored, and pointless, version of my original question that hides what it is actually about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What IS it about? Gay men being in love with their mothers? HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Er, no. The question was, "Is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" It ought to be simple enough to understand what was being asked. It is too bad that a perfectly legitimate question gets removed because of a bizarre over-reaction from someone who considers asking a question like that "a hundred times worse" than asking "whether human blood is fattening". Again, can you say "over-reaction?" Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

*Begins waving a holy symbol at Freud.* Ian.thomson (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Facepalm You are just restating your question, with a "both sides" validation of a stereotype -- that's the problem. Just because you can't see that doesn't mean the problem is with everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason I should not restate the question, because it was and is a perfectly legitimate question, bizarre over-reactions to it notwithstanding. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion. You must have noticed that some people see things differently from you. Pause. Rather than repeatedly telling everyone else they're wrong, (they COULD be), go away and have a quiet think about why they may see things differently from you. And about how you might change their minds without simply telling them over and over again that they're wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

How can I change your minds? That is unclear, but perhaps I could remind you of what the relevant guidelines actually state: "The reference desk is not censored. No subject per se is off limits." If no one is prepared to stand up to the incredible intolerance and censoriousness that greeted my question, then that is regrettable, but it does not alter the fact that the guidelines have been blatantly violated. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines are not rules. And if someone asks a trolling question, it is subject to deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not ask a trolling question. I asked a question that happened to upset and offend you. I am sorry that it upset you, but there was, nonetheless, nothing wrong with the question itself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You have had every opportunity to explain why the question was inappropriate, but all you have responded with are false and misleading statements about the question and its nature. You have already proved my point for me, several times over. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Several of us have explained, you just don't want to hear it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The responses have simply indicated that people dislike the question, and are apparently happy to see the removal of something they personally dislike, even though that violates the guidelines. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Several of us have explained, you just don't want to hear it. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in repeating other people's comments. The issue has become moot, since it is clear enough that no one is actually able to answer my question, and that's really all the response I need. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that it's a trolling question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, the question was asked in good faith. It might have been true for all I knew that someone would have been able to give a sensible, evidence-based response to my question. Now that it's clear no one can, that's the end of the matter. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind is "true" about all members of a given group. Take your bigoted question to Conservapedia. They'll love you for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The question began, "Is it true that gay men tend to...". Note that word "tend". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Had you said "some" gay men, you might have been OK. But since the question implies all gay men, asking it without putting it in parallel context with straight men, it comes across as stereotyping and bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The question was, "Is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" It obviously does not logically imply all gay men, for anyone able to understand what the word "tend" means. "Is it true that some gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" would have been a completely different question, a pointless one that I have no interest in asking. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Your core premise is prejudicial and invalid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no. The only "premise" was that something might tend to be true of gay men, and that it was worth asking whether or not it actually was. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Of all gay men. Prejudicial. Homophobic. Stereotyping. Bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason why something might not tend to be true of a given group, and it isn't "bigotry" to simply ask neutrally whether it is. Your response is irrational. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Stating a stereotype as fact is not neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone want to express a view that doesn't blatantly misrepresent my question as being something that it clearly wasn't? I'm not going to keep up an endless series of exchanges with Baseball bugs. I wonder however whether anyone has anything sensible to say? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the comments of the others here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The question, "is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" neither states nor implies that all gay men remember their relationships with their parents in a particular way. If Baseball bugs believes it does, then he is misunderstanding how the English language works, and could use a refresher in logic and grammar. I therefore ask, can anyone explain why my perfectly legitimate question should not be restored? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: As I already said Too often these days, "Is it true that (minority group) [does/is/believes/says] (thing)?" questions are used as a form of JAQing off (particularly by alt-right trolls), especially when it's a stereotype or something politically incorrect. Another tactic they use is to insist that such questions are completely neutral. Another tactic is to insist that if anyone else is offended then it's their fault. Another tactic is to accuse anyone who doesn't want to play along with the question of censorship.

I'm not saying you're an alt-right troll, but you keep using all the same tactics I've seen them use in other articles.

Seriously, where has anyone defended the exact phrasing of your question? Where has anyone not noted that the phrasing is loaded? Where has anyone restored it? HiLo48 and I, both completely uninvolved, have pointed out the problems with the phrasing but you ignored it completely and keep using the phrase "perfectly legitimate" despite everyone explaining it isn't. If a new user behaved as you're behaving in an article with discretionary sanctions, they wouldn't be editing in that area for long. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You've ignored my accurate point that Baseball bugs removed my question based on a total misunderstanding, whether or not it is a deliberate misunderstanding, of what the question "is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" is actually asking. It is asking whether there is a tendency discernible among the individual members of that group of people called "gay men" to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers. It obviously doesn't state, suggest, or in any fashion imply, that all gay men remember their relationships with their parents in a particular way; if there were a tendency for gay men to remember having had such relationships with their parents, that would mean only that a significant number of gay men remember having had such relationships with their parents, not that they all do. However, by all means suggest a different phrasing, one not vulnerable to accidental, or deliberate and malicious, misunderstandings, if you wish. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I did. You took the first few words of it and then tacked the majority of the problematic phrasing right onto it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The only reason why the phrasing might be thought "problematic" is that someone might either a) innocently misunderstand it due to failure to understand the English language or b) deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent it for whatever unfortunate motive. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

c) the person asking the question doesn't understand that they're acting like an alt-right troll. I won't go into D for now. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe I should be accused of trolling for pointing out that someone misrepresented my question. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, I don't doubt that you asked your question in complete innocence of its likely impact, but an impact it has had. Please accept that reality, and try to work out why, WITHOUT criticising others. Have a really good read of Loaded question. It describes precisely what your question first looked like to me. Also please have a look at Naivety. I think it describes your position here perfectly. And that's not meant as a personal criticism. The best thing about naivety is that the cure is simple. It just takes time, observation,and being willing to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

An alternative question would be, "Is it true that gay men are significantly more likely than straight men to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Just as bad. Did you read those articles I linked to in my previous post? HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In calling that question unacceptable you are effectively participating in censorship. This discussion reveals an environment of extreme intolerance in this corner of Wikipedia. I don't have to read a Wikipedia article to know what a "loaded question" is, and you shouldn't need to be told that the question I proposed asking is not a loaded question (such as "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it WAS a loaded question. In fact, I said pretty much the opposite - I said it was "what your question first looked like to me", which obviously means that I figured out you didn't intend it as one. I have read and accepted your position on that, something you seem unable or unwilling to do in regard to others' comments. The fact that you failed to comprehend my point about a loaded question, along with many that other editors have made here, and won't read the information others point you to good faith, leads me to doubt your competence to edit here, along with YOUR good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If you object to the question, "Is it true that gay men are significantly more likely than straight men to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?", then it is up to you to clearly explain why you consider it unacceptable. So far you have made only some vague and/or confused comments about the matter. If you make vague and/or confused comments, then it isn't surprising if other people misunderstand you, and their failure to do so is not a sign of incompetence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that other people in general misunderstood me. Just you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That response is an irrelevance that doesn't explain why my proposed alternative question should be considered unacceptable. As I said, there is obviously extreme intolerance in this corner of Wikipedia, and de facto acceptance of censorship. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the links I provided yet? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You may be a teacher, as per your user page, but I'm not your poor pupil, and I won't be treated as one. Trying to condescend to me does not make your case. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I provided those links in good faith to assist you to become a better editor. If you won't read them, you are not acting in good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The original question from User:Freeknowledgecreator is rhetorical so it isn’t a conventional question capable of being answered; it is better described as a little speech presenting the questioner’s view. If I wrote “Is it true that people from Texas are more intelligent than people from California?” the answer is “No” but my question is so much more powerful as a statement of one of my opinions. If a person asks such a question there is a burden on the questioner to supply some substantiation of their opinion; there is no similar burden on the responder to supply substantiation of their objection to the question. Nobody has any evidence to support their rejection of my dumb question about people from various US states, and there would be a burden on me to substantiate the premise of my dumb, rhetorical question. Dolphin (t) 01:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This, 100%. If someone fails to understand this, they don't understand how context matters in English and have no room to accuse others (including two teachers) of failing to understand the English language. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I like the expression "JAQing off". I also hear the bark of sea lions in FKC's responses above. I don't have any AGF remaining (human blood, give me a break) and if DNFTT doesn't work then I'd support other interventions if needed. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)