User talk:TillermanJimW

Welcome TillermanJimW!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,430,614 registered editors!

Hello TillermanJimW. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to Welcome:

@Walter Görlitz: Hello Walter,

Thanks muchly for the welcome; appreciate the list of links. Looks to be quite a learning curve.

Sorry for the delay in responding; took me some time to figure out the correct syntax for the "Reply to" template.

BTW, I had put my signature in square brackets which didn't work; standard curved ones seems to.

Regards, Jim (TillermanJimW (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC))

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huashang, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here.

Template:Z33 Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Laurel Hubbard, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Your comment has been removed per WP:NOTFORUM and because it appears to be a dispute with the MOS:GENDERID guideline. It has been suggested that you can bring your concern to WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. And because you asked "How many undos do I get?", please review the three-revert rule. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, per WP:OWNTALK, and due to the nature of the message you left on my Talk page, I am moving your comment here. I have watchlisted your Talk page and I apologize for not making that more clear in my message above. If I have more to say, I can reply here. The message you left on my Talk page is as follows:

Hello,

Thanks for the information about the GenderID, NotForum, Fringe, and VillagePump tags. And about the three-revert rule, all of which I’ll look into.

But while I’ll hang-fire on using up my third reversion, at least until I’ve looked into those tags, I will have to see about kicking the issue up the food chain, about deciding which will be the most effective use of my time & Wikipedia’s.

However, I rather object to the Fringe characterization. If you or the other editor weighing in had bothered to look at the substance of the section I’d added on the Hubbard article page then I think you’d see that the definition of “female” as a sex – and not as a gender – is anything but “fringe”. While I’ve justified that rather extensively in that added section, you might also do a Google search for “female definition”:

Over 3 billion hits, the top one of which is apparently a definition from the Oxford English dictionary, many others of which say the same thing as does the OED, and the bulk of which is:

female, adjective: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

If you do decide to follow the link then might notice that, on my search results in any case, there’s a post & quote also at the top of the page of a Wikipedia article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account.

However, I will also more or less concede your point that I am in effect at least raising a question as to whether the GenderID guideline is in fact consistent with Wikipedia’s own NPOV guidelines. But it might be a reasonable question to pose for the folks at the VillagePump whether that guideline or the NPOV policy is to be trump.

But it may also be of some benefit if you were to take a closer look at what I’d posted and give some thought to that question yourself. And consider reverting my added section yourself.

Thanks again.

TillermanJimW (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not raise WP:FRINGE, i.e. [1], and while I think it is an important consideration, I think the priority at the moment is to consider WP:NOTFORUM and how it relates to the constructive use of an article Talk page. I appreciate that you recognize how your interest in editing the Laurel Hubbard article appears to reflect a dispute with a guideline and policy, and therefore appears best suited for another forum. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr Not quite sure why you decided to move my response particularly as you had said I could respond to you on your own Talk page - as others have done. And not sure about the necessity for pinging you. But you're right about the Fringe tag - my apologies; hard to keep track of who's saying what, particularly when someone is just starting the learning curve.

However while I agree that the substance of my efforts to improve the Hubbard article is based on my view that there's a conflict between the Gender guideline as it's implement in that article and the NPOV principle, I'm most certainly not agreeing that the debate is better suited to another "forum", or article page. That article is where the rubber meets the road, where the gun is still smoking, where the evidence is, I think, manifestly obvious that that conflict is germane to the question of improving that article - presumably Job One. Sending me off to another article page looks like moving the goalposts, like not really very much committed to an NPOV.

Thanks. TillermanJimW (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of clarity with regard to why I moved your comment - I had considered whether to edit the original template I added to your Talk page to modify the text to say you could reply on your own Talk page, and explain that I would be able to see your reply without a ping. After I read the message left on my Talk page, I decided to move it for several reasons, including because some of your comment relates to an issue I did not raise, and it includes the line If you or the other editor weighing in had bothered to look at the substance of the section I’d added, which I feel does not assume good faith by myself or Newimpartial, and was something I did not want to keep on my Talk page.

I do empathize with the perspective that a guideline or policy can or should be challenged in an individual case, but if you tried to make your suggested edit, it would simply be reverted per the guidelines and policies. I'd personally also look more closely at WP:OR in addition to WP:FRINGE, but I think MOS:GENDERID is sufficient. Your proposed edit appears to be a dispute with the guideline because the guideline would need to change before your suggested edit could be made, and the guideline will not be changed based on a discussion on the article Talk page. This is why it is suggested that you bring your concern about the guideline to a more appropriate forum. I hope this helps clarify my perspective; I have pinged Newimpartial because we have mentioned them, and they may have additional perspective to share. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem on the moving of the comment - I can understand why you might want to do that. But one might reasonably wonder whether you actually read much of what I'd posted.

As for "challenging", I've had some reason to review Wikipedia's Five Pillars and article on the NPOV. Of particular note:

"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." Wikipedia:Five Pillars

"This [NPOV] policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Seems rather clear that the NPOV is trump, that the GenderID Manual of Style - which you seem to think is gospel truth - has to play second fiddle. You might note the fifth pillar about "no firm rules".

But further, I don't even see how that MOS section is particularly relevant - it says, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words ... that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification". But the convention, the standard point of view, the one subscribed to by much of biology and endorsed by most credible dictionaries, the one I had taken some pains to justify in exhaustive if not exhausting detail, is that "female" is NOT a gender - it is ONLY a sex. Clearly, if anything is a "fringe view", it is the idea that "female" is a gender. Doesn't much look like the Hubbard article took any consideration at all of "major points of view" in asserting that "Hubbard transitioned to female". Offhand, as I had argued, a more accurate phrasing might have been "Hubbard transitioned to a feminine gender and to a legal sex, at least in some jurisdictions, that is incompatible with her biological sex". Hardly perfect, but far closer to an NPOV than the original.

Finally, WP:NOR - (NOR BTW) looks like another red herring. Unless you're seriously going to argue that quoting Wikipedia's own article on Woman, and citing Merriam-Webster, Justice Scalia, the British Medical Journal, the OED, most of the other dozen and a half sources I linked to qualifies as "original research", that they don't qualify as "reliable, published sources". And, from the NOR article, it's maybe moot if that even pertains to talk page on the Hubbard article. But maybe if you'd read much of that section then you wouldn't have been making that argument.

In any case, time to call it a day; thanks for at least addressing some of my points. --TillermanJimW (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Just on I think you’d see that the definition of “female” as a sex – and not as a gender – is anything but “fringe” - the part of this that is WP:FRINGE is the part stating and not as a gender. Many, many reliable sources on sex and gender - including ones you yourself cited in your long Talk page intervention - observe that "female" is the term for a sex, and a!so a gender. Arguing that it is not also a gender label is FRINGE, and op-eds will never be reliable sources for such a claim. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, your reference to the article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account violates Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Don't do that. Substantively, since female is a term for gender and since Hubbard unquestionably has a female gender identity, your statement is also factually false on both counts, as well as being uncivil. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Finally, literally right under the gamete definition of woman in the dictionary I see Relating to women or the female gender - the claim that female is NOT a gender is certainly not proven by the sources you offer, which is a good thing because it is, in fact, false according to the overwhelming weight of Reliable Sources available, Which, in fact, the Wikipedia article on Woman also reflects, as it discusses both female sex and female gender. Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Many, many reliable sources on sex and gender": Which ones? Where?

"observe that 'female' is the term for a sex, and also a gender": Where's the quote of them saying that "female" is a gender? And where's their definition of what it means to have a gender in the first place? Along with the evidence to support their contention? You might note that the Wikipedia Female (disambiguation) page, right at the top of it, says "Female is the sex of an ovum-producing organism." Absolutely diddly-squat about anything at all pertaining to or referencing the concept of gender.

"violates Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people": How so? Which specific part of that BLP article is relevant and you have in mind? If the article had said, "Hubbard transitioned into the Queen of England" then do you seriously think that if I'd then said, "I rather doubt she qualifies on any account" that that would be running afoul of that BLP document? If people make claims to being members of particular categories - and "female" is clearly defined as a sex category - then there's some justification to ask to see their membership cards, that they've paid their membership dues, that they possess the properties, the necessary & sufficient conditions specified in the definitions, that qualifies them as referents of the terms in question.

More particularly on the category department, try looking at and thinking - start off with a NPOV in thinking - about how definitions work, particularly relative to the standard definition for the sexes; here's the Oxford/Lexico one but the Google/OED one I'd quoted earlier says exactly the same thing:

"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

And Lexico then goes on to define category thusly:

"A class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics."

Which raises the question of which particular "shared characteristics" qualifies any organism to be a member of the "female" category. And both the Wikipedia female disambiguation and female pages clearly indicate that that shared property is "produces ova". And that Wikipedia article on intensional & extensional definitions clearly indicates that that is the way intensional definitions work: a specification of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as referents of the terms in question. If an individual does not produce ova then, ipso facto, they are NOT members of the female category. At least the female sex category as I doubt you or anyone else has much of a clue as to what might be the "necessary & sufficient conditions" to qualify anyone as a member of the "female gender" category - if such a thing can even be said to "exist".

But consider an analogy - put on your NPOV hat - of the definition for, say, "teenager": "A person aged between 13 and 19 years." Absolutely diddly-squat about anything else; nothing at all about whether they're male, female, sexless, masculine, feminine, white, black, brown, or pink with purple polka-dots. Those are what are called "accidental properties", ones that are not essential to qualify as teenagers. The essential property - being between 13 and 19 - is the "necessary & sufficient condition" to qualify as a member of that category. Same thing with "female". You might - to exercise your NPOV - try reading the article on analogies and the one there at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - presumably what Wikipedians, at least if they have any sincere commitment to an NPOV, might consider as a "reliable source".

And pointing me to a bunch of 10 or 20 page documents and not specifying which point or section of a dozen or more is relevant seems not far removed from moving the goal posts, from strewing a boat load of red herrings on the field, from playing the Courtier's reply, from being manifest evidence of anything but an NPOV. Becoming more of a challenge all the time to see how either of you are arguing in good faith.

"... under the gamete definition of woman in the dictionary": Which "gamete definition"? In the Urban Dictionary?

"the claim that female is NOT a gender is certainly not proven by the sources you offer": It is NOT necessary to prove that "female is NOT a gender". It's implicit in the definition, in how intensional and extensional definitions work, in what is implied by the phrase "necessary and sufficient conditions". It's not necessary to say that Sally or Mike is not a teenager - if they're not 13 to 19 then, ipso facto, they don't qualify. It would be ridiculous beyond belief - not to mention impossible - to give a definition for "female" by listing all of the things that it is not: "female: the sex that produces ova, but also not cars, boats, trains, planes, rivers, mountains, electrical connectors, and most certainly not bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ..." There's a myriad of things that "female" is not, but there is, at least in a the context of biology, only ONE "thing" that a female is: "an ovum-producing organism".

"Wikipedia article on Woman also reflects, as it discusses both female sex and female gender": Where, exactly, does that article say "female gender"? That it discusses gender hardly qualifies as a definition of the term. Adult human females may have feminine or masculine genders - or any of the rather risible 50-odd that Facebook has apparently accepted - but those are NOT essential properties of the category "woman". See the above.

But sure don't see much evidence yet from either of you to justify any claim at all that you - or the Hubbard article in question - have much if any commitment to an NPOV. Which I might emphasize again is considered the second of Wikipedia's Five Pillars and that it is considered "non-negotiable, and [that] the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." --TillermanJimW (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what your WALLOFTEXT is intended to achieve here, but to start with the least reliable of sources you are directing us to, the article woman refers to gender roles and gender identity, while female observes that the term female can also be used to refer to gender. Your own Oxford dictionary source defines the word female as Relating to women or the female gender. You have made an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, and need sources to back it up that are both extraordinary and explicit in their support. The original research you are offering here (scholastic reasoning through categories) is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia, in both article space and, frankly, in Talk space as well. I see no need to humour this further.

Honestly, the vast majority of your text wall seems to be trying to demonstrate that "female" is a term that can refer to biological sex. No shite. But when we refer to human beings as "female", we are much more likely (outside the contexts of medical studies and reproductive health) to be referring to social gender. This is WP:BLUESKY, and you do in fact need to provide someone besides Justice Scalia in your corner if you want to argue the contrary and want your conclusion to look anything less than FRINGE.

And to A the most possible GF, what precisely did you mean by there’s a post & quote also at the top of the page of a Wikipedia article on woman which basically defines “woman” as “an adult female human”. I rather doubt that Hubbard qualifies on either account, particularly those last three words? Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

By the by, the way this edit deployed a (very much POV) hierarchy between a quite specific and entirely circumscribed definition from biology and a colloquial reference to a gender shows that you were not able to read with comprehension your own dictionary reference, presumably because of the great pressure of your own POV requirements. Competence is, actually, required. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? You have one? What exactly did I say in that Hubbard talk section - egregriously deleted by those not respecting NPOV stipulations and obligations - that you object to? Show your work ...

That that definition - in a subsidiary section (1.1) - says "Relating to women or the female gender." means pretty much diddly-squat. The primary section is all about "produces ova" as the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify ANY organism as a female. About the best one could get out of "female gender" is "the gender of human females or typical of human females". Still leaves hanging what is meant by "gender" in the first place - largely, though not entirely, a dog's breakfast, mostly incoherent twaddle.

The position of rather many sources, including the BMJ and Wikipedia's article on Gender, is that gender boils down into something that is little more than personality - a "range [AKA spectrum] of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity" - of which there are billions and billions.

You might note that Facebook accepted some 56 variations - depriving billions of their place in the sun - while the folks at "Gender Fluid" (Have you changed yours lately?) list over a hundred. Rather risible at best that claims to have a particular personality type undergird the claims of many transwomen to play in women's sports. You seriously think that a particular personality type should factor into qualifying for such? Bunch of people - including more than a few Wikipedians - need to give their heads a shake.

And dictionaries are hardly infallible; the first one wasn't brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses on tablets A through Z. Contradictions and inconsistencies are generally rife within even the better ones; of some necessity to use reason and logic to separate the wheat from the chaff. You might note another Wikipedia article, Principle of Explosion: - "from contradiction, anything follows".

But if people insist on conflating sex and gender - OED (3a) indicates that a typical use of gender is to make it synonymous with sex - by equivocating on whether the terms mean a sex or a gender then we'll have to qualify each and every use of the relevant words: "female (sex)", "female (gender)", "man (sex)", "man (gender)". Rather risible, and quite inefficient, doncha think? --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021 (round two)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Laurel Hubbard, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message here. I removed the NPOV template you added to because it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed per WP:WTRMT and the discussion here. It continues to appear that your dispute is with the MOS:GENDERID guideline and the WP:NPOV policy, and based on WP:OR. Please consider posting your dispute at WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Laurel Hubbard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So other editors aren't subject to the 3RR? Two or more can gang up on a single user? They EACH get 3 reverts of MY posts, but I only get 3 total?

Don't think any of you have addressed my points. Don't think you can reasonably remove the NPOV until that is done. Willing to discuss the issue but not as long as the NPOV tag is being removed. TillermanJimW (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW, since it's clear that you are aware of 3RR, can you please self-revert your violation of the rule at Laurel Hubbard? I can empathize with your frustration, but none of the above is an exception to the rule. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, how is it that others can gang up on a single user?

But you might note the 5 Pillars article: "Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time". Is that article and what I referred to a case of an abrogation of the NPOV or not? That's the question you have to be addressing first.--TillermanJimW (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the article is not a violation of NPOV. The point of view in dispute ("transitioned to female") is mentioned in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. There is no shortage of coverage referring to Hubbard as female or discussing her transition to female.

More importantly, believing you are right on the issue is not an excuse for edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion it's not a NPOV violation. But you really haven't shown that to the case at all; haven't even addressed the points & sources I quoted to justify my argument. But pray tell, where is it "mentioned in proportion to its prominence"? Where is the explicit reference in that phrase to those other perspectives? You seriously expect or think that causal readers are going to go on a hunt-and-peck search for extenuating circumstances? Where's the justification for using "female" as a gender? That it is often used colloquially as such is no reason to infer or to give the impression that Hubbard actually changed her sex - which what that passage is clearly doing. To do so is clearly manifest evidence of a bias in the article, a clear violation of the NPOV policy. Which is, if I'm not mistaken, actually trump - or a close to it as might be expected. --TillermanJimW (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJim, the {{tq|justification for using "female as a gender" is BLUESKY. Everyone does it, depending on context, even your beloved Justice Scalia. And not only in colloquial contexts, either - legal authorities and rigorous sources in the social sciences define and use "female as a gender" at all levels of formal diction.

Your idea that your own personal idea of what NPOV means in this context outweighs the perceptions of NPOV held by all other editors and embodied in community policy and guidelines, such as MOS:GENDERID, shows a quite remarkable degree of lack of competence; if you do decide to return after your enforced wikibreak, I trust you will be less persistent in trumpeting your ignorance and more willing to work with others on a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Everyone does it": And pretty much everyone talks about the sun rising and setting. Does it actually do so? Many people still apparently think that the sun revolves around the earth so one might argue that that ambiguity contributes to that confusion. Analogous to the confusion over whether "female" is a sex or a gender.

And "everyone" is basically so much ignorant moonshine; basically even your own "context" suggests it's often important to be clear on which sense is being used and is the relevant one; failing to do so seems a clear case of transgressing against NPOV policies. As I had indicated somewhere in the recent discussions here or the Hubbard talk page, the UK Courts have obliged their statistics departments to basically use "female" as a sex and not as a "self-identified" gender.

"guidelines, such as MOS:GENDERID": More horsefeathers. You might note a comment on an old Hubbard talk page by Crossroads that questions whether playing that card and a number of others by you and Beccaynr‬ was justified:

"Such discussion would have been better here so other editors can see it and weigh in. His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM."

You might also note that he acknowledged that I had "made an argument against" the phrase in question. Which you and Beccaynr‬ were rather clearly unwilling to consider by deleting my "NPOV Dispute" section - which the NPOV policy guidelines recommend as a preliminary - and the previous section which had attempted a more preliminary discussion of the issue. You might also note that he also said "it could maybe be reworded to something like "underwent gender transition" or "transitioned to female gender" as a clear indication of the importance in differentiating between the uses of "female" as a sex or as a gender.

Looks like a rather egregious transgression on the whole NPOV policy framework; I note that some other Wiki documents state that assumptions of good faith are not always justified. --TillermanJimW (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Re everyone does it: thanks for the WP:STRAWMAN. What I was actually pointing out was that the highest-quality sources available distinguish between sex and gender, and recognize that in most contexts to do with human beings, "female" refers to female gender.

Re the UK legal decision (described here), you have completely mis-described what is actually taking place as a result of the decision. The census questions still capture gender identity, as well as assigned sex, for people 16 and over. The change is in the more precise instructions for respondents to answer the sex question - the status of "self-identified" gender in the actual question on gender is unaffected by the ruling.

Finally, however, a point of agreement: you are well on your way to convincing me that assumptions of good faith are not always justified. Well done. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TillermanJimW reported by User:Crossroads (Result: ). Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Takes two to tango. Don't see that anyone has actually addressed my argument about the NPOV. As I've mentioned, it seems that that principle is trump. Though the idea seems to have fallen by the wayside of late.

"This [NPOV] policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

--TillermanJimW (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

gadfium 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Appealing a block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TillermanJimW (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances. While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider. And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute. But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document. Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM." Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something. In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard. However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances. But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly. Thanks for addressing these points. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is an arbitration enforcement block. As such no administrator can unilaterally undo it. It can only be undone if there is a consensus among uninvolved administrators. Please see the instructions for appeal in your block notice. Specifically you need to request that your unblock request be copied over to arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Please note requests there are limited to 500 words, I am seeing about 550 words here.

My advice is to wait out the block. If you do request a review at AE the most likely outcome is that the appeal will be declined. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Have to be a Philadelphia lawyer with 20 years experience at Wikipedia to deal with all of this arcana.

But how do I get the necessary quorum of "uninvolved administrators" to even address this issue, much less reach a consensus?

And can I now request that you copy this unblock request over to WP:AE? If so then I do so request - I see the A-R-E page says "not to exceed 500 words AND 20 diffs EXCEPT by permission of the reviewing administrator". As I have zero diffs, can you not justify 550 words? Or edit my unblock request or tell me how to do so myself? Though in passing it might be useful if it was clearly stated about the word limit in the unblock request - though maybe it's buried there somewhere.

But I notice that gadfium had indicated that I should include "Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard" in my request. I had tried to do that but when I did so the unblock template seemed not to work - the preview didn't show up correctly. Or there was something else in my file that caused that. But if that could have been included then that seems justification to ask for it now.

In any case, still think that the crux of the matter is that my POV template and response were deleted by several editors including the blocking administrator. Which few people seem willing to even consider, much less address. Hard not to get the impression that I'm getting the runaround, getting driven from pillar to post with a bunch of wikilawyering, all to evade dealing with the fact that the NPOV policy more or less qualifies as trump.

But thanks in advance for whatever assistance and advise you can provide. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay I will post it as is at AE. It is up to the clerks there to decide if you can have 550 words. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Your appeal has been posted: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, most appreciated. Took a brief look at the link provided and wonder whether I'll get a chance to present any further evidence there, but y'all might note the following from the POV template:

"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1)There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3) In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

Sure would like to see some evidence that ANY of those conditions have been met. Sanger - one of Wikipedia's co-founders - has at least some justification to argue that Wikpedia's NPOV policy is more or less dead in the water. When push comes to shove, sure a bunch of editors who seem ready to throw that principle overboard. --TillermanJimW (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You get 500 words, you have used 550. Instead of talking about your behavior you used most of your words to talk about the behavior of others. Now you want to add more about other people's behavior. I am not the one to enforce the word limit there, but I will say you are unlikely to be granted permission to extend your limit if what you want to post is about other people and not yourself. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Y'all are trying to bust my chops, send me up for 20 years to life, for throwing a candy wrapper on the sidewalk while allowing those "other people" to get off scot-free for raping and pillaging, for murder and mayhem.

Did those people remove that NPOV tag without justification or not? Was there any consensus on the Hubbard talk page that the issue had been resolved? I hadn't even been allowed to post the required justification for it before the tag was removed.

Don't see much effort or willingness to address the wider POV issue. Which looks to be a case of several editors rather egregiously exceeding the limits of their authority. --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try reading WP:NOTTHEM for content, and make an attempt at understanding why your unblock petition might have been somewhat off-target. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps y'all could read - or re-read as the case may be - the Wikipedia:Five Pillars essay and the related WP:NPOV essay. Of particular note in the latter: "This [NPOV] policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." And the related comment on the fifth pillar: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." Sure a bunch of editors here who think a picayune transgression - which I've explicitly conceded - of 3RR supersedes attempts to supersede that NPOV, that 3RR is in fact "carved in stone", and that the literal wording overrides those foundational principles. --TillermanJimW (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think one editor's interpretation of NPOV policy can be used as a bludgeon to trump (or Trump, or even Scalia) behavioural policies such as 3RR, WP:CIVIL and the discretionary sanctions system set up by ArbCom, then you simply do not understand WP as a project and will probably not be allowed to participate in it, unless you gain an understanding that goes beyond violent hyperbole leavened with sound bites of policy presented out of context. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't think you quite understand the word "interpretation": "to explain or tell the meaning of; present in understandable terms". That is not necessary with the NPOV, there's no interpretation necessary or allowed; it's there in black and white: "You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true ..." Were any of the conditions that follow met? Yes or no? Sure seems to be a rather large cat lurking about that has everyone's tongue when it comes to answering that question ... --TillermanJimW (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if you were entirely right about that - and I didn't revert you so I am largely indifferent on that point - it would not justify your 3RR violation, nor would it validate your choice to be confrontational with other editors in a DS area. TL; DR: you don't get conduct points for "being right". Newimpartial (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You reverted the very first post to the topic I made there - there was less than six minutes between the time I posted my "Gender Identity Guidelines; “Precedence to self-designation” and the time you reverted it. I hadn't even had time to make - boldly - the changes to the article that I thought were necessary to improve it. That clearly seemed to be running afoul of the NPOV guidelines:

This section generally starts as an elaboration on my forthcoming edit of the phrase “... she transitioned to female and became ....” into the more accurate (?), “... medically (?) transitioned to the feminine gender and legally (?) to the female sex and became ....” It largely follows from Justice Scalia’s analogy that 'gender is to sex as feminine is to female and [as] masculine [is] to male'

You might note that Crossroads (not Crosstalk), in one of the reverted posts, more or less agreed with that phrasing. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"it would not justify your 3RR violation": In any war there tends to be guilt on both sides, but one generally has the moral high or higher ground. Disproportionally penalizing the side with the lesser transgression with, hyperbolically speaking, crucifixion while turning a blind eye to the other side with the more egregious transgressions just calls into disrepute the whole adjudication process.

"you don't get conduct points for 'being right'": Not looking for any good "conduct points"; been some time since I was in Boy Scouts. What I'm looking for is a less hypocritical committment to the second of Wikipedia's Five Pillars and to the NPOV policy, for something that isn't just lip service to that generally credible principle. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Re In any war there tends to be guilt on both sides, but one generally has the moral high or higher ground. Disproportionally penalizing the side with the lesser transgression with, hyperbolically speaking, crucifixion while turning a blind eye to the other side with the more egregious transgressions just calls into disrepute the whole adjudication process - as long as you see things this way, you will not edit successfully on WP.

The thing you don't seem to understand about WP:NPOV is that the overriding value is not one editor 's interpretation of NPOV; it is the community 's interpretation of NPOV. Any editor who pits themself against community-wide consensus on this matter is always in the wrong, by definition.

Also, Scalia is not considered an authority on gender on WP. Perhaps you should consider contributing to a collaborative project that holds his personal views in higher esteem. Newimpartial (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"it is the community 's interpretation of NPOV";"community-wide consensus": what a pile of horse feathers. It's there in black and white in the WP:NPOV document: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

"Scalia is not considered an authority on gender on WP": Wikipedia's own article on Gender says pretty much the same thing: "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity." And: "although Madison Bentley had already in 1945 defined gender as the socialized obverse of sex. ..." Using the same words - "male" & "female" - to refer to members of entirely different categories is often just a pretext for equivocation in the aid of politically motivated ideology. --TillermanJimW (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

And who is to decide what counts as NPOV language for WP: the reptoids? The emerging singularity? The ghost of Justice Scalia? Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"who is to decide what counts as NPOV language for WP": That's something of a reasonable question. Which the WP:NPOV document discusses in some detail which I'll briefly address later.

However, that is something of a red herring as the crux of the matter is the rather egregious removal by several editors of the POV tag. Editors, one might emphasize, who, one might reasonably argue - not that anyone seems to be listening - had seriously exceeded the limits of their authority. There's a fundamental dichotomy that most if not all of you seem to be missing - or are trying to sweep under the carpet: on the one hand there's the discussion as to what constitutes "NPOV language" and, on the other hand, the non-negotiable policy that thou shalt NOT remove that POV tag without having met the stipulated conditions.

And one of those conditions is to actually discuss the relevant NPOV language and policy in the Talk section of the supposedly offending article. A discussion which y'all seem rather disconcertingly bound and determined against - not to say "pigheadedly biased against" - allowing that to happen.

In any case, as I said, there's likely to be a fruitful discussion possible on the question of NPOV language in general and relevant to the sex and gender issue in particular. As I had noted before, the OED definition of gender indicates that a common use is to see it as a synonym for sex. And noted "brain surgeon" and erstwhile HUD secretary Ben Carson clearly subscribes to that view - not a "reliable source"? But to wit:

"HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson dismissed the attacks lobbed at him by the Washington Post and other left-wing media because he believes there are two genders.

Specifically, Dr. Carson — a world-renowned brain surgeon — underscored that he has no issues with transgender individuals, but noted that you can’t “change” your gender simply by saying you’re a woman if you’re biologically born a male."

But Wikipedia has, one might argue as a Devil's advocate, clearly abrogated its own NPOV policy by commendably endorsing the "conventional wisdom" - which is often seriously wrong - that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Although I seem to recollect that the Wikipedia article on Gender acknowledges that "colloquial" (?) use is often based on a (mis)perception that sex and gender are equivalent.

But the point there is that the NPOV policy does not extend to describing or endorsing all possible views on a subject or issue - Wikipedia does subscribe to some fundamental premises and axioms and assumptions. Even if some of those may not be entirely tenable though that's a rather murky topic. But the point is also that, on some ubiquitous evidence, there is a great deal of common confusion about the dichotomy between sex and gender. Which is causing no end of controversy and substantial degrees of serious grief. Think that Wikipedia has something of an obligation to not contribute to that by not clearly differentiating between the two concepts - as has happened in the Hubbard article. --TillermanJimW (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please tone down your rhetoric, refusing to accept your particular point of view as neutral is not "raping and pillaging, for murder and mayhem". Such exaggeration rises to the level of personal attacks. Please keep such colorful hyperbole out of your arguments as they are not needed to make your point and are needlessly hostile to our other editors.

Also please understand that this appeal is about your behavior and attempts to justify your actions are probably going to have the opposite of the desired effect. What the administrators there are looking for is an indication that these behaviors will not repeat, attempting to justify the behavior indicates that it will continue. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at all a case of "refusing to accept your particular point of view as neutral". It's a case of whether those other editors did in fact abrogate and repudiate the principle in that NPOV document. Did they remove that tag or not? Had the conditions to do so been met or not?

And hardly a case of "personal attack"; it was clearly a hyperbolic analogy; y'all might read up on the topic. As for not repeating the "offense", I've explicitly said that I had done the dirty deed - I can not tell a lie; shoot me at dawn. And explicitly said I wouldn't do so again. Not sure what else you expect in that department - my statement in blood? Flashing neon colours? --TillermanJimW (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that you are blocked only for a technical 3RR violation. This is not the case. You are blocked for edit warring yes, but also for taking a very confrontational attitude in an area under discretionary sanctions. The attitude you are taking that you are right and thus can wield the might of the NPOV policy to trump other policies and the opinions of other editors is very much part of the problem.

I am well aware that you are using hyperbolic analogy, I am telling you comparing a user's actions to rape and murder is very much beyond the line defined by our personal attack policy. That policy recommends issuing a warning before resorting to a block and I have given such a warning. You can make your point without such comparisons.

You have found yourself in a hole and right now you are trying to dig your way out, but the first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging. At this point I find it very unlikely that your appeal will be accepted. I advised you not to make this appeal because I knew it was a good block and the appeal would be declined, I knew all it would accomplish would be to draw more attention to your behavior. You can see that more than one administrator there, including myself, is talking about a topic ban from the area if there is further disruption from you.

As you were informed with the notice on the 22nd the topic of gender and sexuality is under a more stringent set of rules, these rules are enforced far more strictly. If you feel we are being too strict this is why and you may find things more lenient in topics not covered by discretionary sanctions.

The best thing you can do is wait out your block and then either avoid the area entirely or change your attitude significantly. Specifically if other editors are complaining about your actions then listen to them and not insist they are wrong.

The current path you are taking will result in a topic ban from the area and if you continue further possibly removal from the project. Right now it is a simple block and it can end with that, it is up to you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"blocked for edit warring yes": So what? The difference between throwing a candy wrapper on the sidewalk and spitting on it. You all seem to be straining at the gnat - 3RR or EW - while swallowing the camel - POV transgressions - whole.

"attitude you are taking that you are right": Am I right that NPOV tags can not be removed without meeting the conditions to do so? Am I right that they had NOT been? Y'all seem rather reluctant to face let alone address those questions. The question on the table is my challenge that the editor imposing the block - and those I had been warring with - had seriously exceeded their authority. My challenge was right there in my opening sentence as to the reason for requesting a rescinding of the block: "For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances." Not sure how you can possibly answer that without considering the evidence I've posted.

"comparing a user's actions to rape and murder": Comparing is not asserting any sort of one-to-one equivalence. The analogy was to emphasize the disparity in responses and not, as someone once said about grammar-nazis, to suggest that they have imminent designs on Poland.

"talking about a topic ban from the area if there is further disruption from you": Some evidence that the the Committee is strangely reluctant to address the evidence I've posted, and thereby are rather biased.

"gender and sexuality is under a more stringent set of rules": Did those rules stipulate that they supersede the NPOV policy document? That POV tags can be removed without meeting the conditions specified in that document? Do tell ...

"will result in a topic ban": Kinda looks like a threat - more "punitive actions" - to evade facing the facts I've put on the table, to evade dealing with the questions I've raised. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay I am finished trying to help save you from yourself. Good luck with your current strategy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and I do appreciate that you posted my appeal. And thanks also for engaging in some discussions which may have shed some light on the issues. However, raising the issue of NPOV transgressions for discussion in that committee may have been more helpful than wishing me luck. --TillermanJimW (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is "but I think the current text reflects someone else's POV" listed at WP:3RRNO? No; no, it is not. So I don't think raising the issue of NPOV transgressions could have helped you in any way at AE. The whole point of WP's WP:EW doctrine is not to edit war over an issue even if you are obviously right, unless the issue falls under the very limited exceptions set out in 3RRNO. And "my own interpretation of this contentious area tells me that the current consensus text is wrong" will never be an obviously right statement, anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• @TillermanJimW: Your unblock appeal has been declined, diff. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Gender

Can you condense for me, in three sentences or less, the exact changes you are trying to make re: gender? The reason your POV tag was removed was because you did not clearly state an issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not the topic of Gender itself that is in dispute here. It's the Laurel Hubbard one.

The exact changes I'm trying to make re the latter are, as I put it in the Talk page, relative to a particular phrase:

The problematic phrases in question in that section are: “before she transitioned to female” and “Hubbard transitioned to female”.

And I DID clearly state the issue but the POV tag was deleted within minutes of me posting the tag and before I even had time to post the explanation. And the latter before I even had a chance to discuss what I had posted as an explanation. Try looking at the old revisions for both the article itself and the Talk page on it, and look at the related time stamps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laurel_Hubbard&oldid=1040196866

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurel_Hubbard&oldid=1040189137

Note the section 11 in the Talk page; so much moonshine to say that I hadn't clearly stated the issue - someone is feeding you a line if you've been told otherwise. The fact is, or my argument is, that several editors and administrators seriously exceeded the limits of their authority. With some quite serious consequences. --TillermanJimW (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

De jure, no one has more authority than anyone. An individual may remove a tag if it has been placed without good reason, or if it seems inappropriate. The burden of proof is on the tag placer to show a problem. Your problem as stated is not a neutrality problem, nor even a problem of any kind that I can see. It's the standard language around trans folks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The article just says "transitioned" now, rather than "transitioned to female", as far as I can make out. Tewdar (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar: But "transitioned" to what? To which of the 3 or 4 genders that are listed on the Gender page? Or to which of the 56 that Facebook accepts? The whole concept is more or less, but not entirely, meaningless. And thereby mostly quite useless - except to serve as a bone of contention.

Though that is somewhat beside the point of the removal of the POV tag. And one might argue that the "transitioned" is just as problematic and deserving of that tag unless it's clearly indicated that what's being talked about is gender, not sex. I see that the Wiktionary definition for gender (3) argues that its use as a synonym for sex is explicitly "proscribed". A proscription that really should extend to "male" and "female" - otherwise it leads to circular definitions or equivocation.

But changing gears somewhat - which may justify a new section here - you may not have seen this discussion on "Johnuniq's" talk page where I had referenced the discussion you & Newimpartial were having about the lead sentence in the Gender article. Of particular note is a graph I had posted of "joint probability distributions" that illustrate a difference in "agreeableness" between males (sex) and females (sex).

And apropos of which, you might also note that one of the links in the femininity article goes to a Google Books page which has this (page 281):

“The high degree of cross-cultural similarity in gender stereotypes suggests that the psychological characteristics differentially associated with women and men follow a pancultural model, with cultural factors producing minor variations around general themes. In our model, biological differences set the stage.... “

That "differentially associated" is exactly what joint probability distributions are all about, what they illustrate in clear and unambiguous language, that of mathematics. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek: De facto some have more than others or I wouldn't have been the only one on the "naughty step" for a week. Though we clearly need rules and those to enforce them.

As for "may remove a tag if it has been placed without good reason", you sure do seem unwilling or unable to face the facts that the POV template document clearly states:

"You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.”

Had those conditions been met or not? Yes or no?

And I, as the "tag placer", can't very well "show a problem" if what I've posted is deleted, and I'm blocked for a week, before I even get a chance to explain my argument now can I?

And your "It's the standard language around trans folks" is the crux of the problem: a rather ubiquitous attitude among too many editors here that the transgender conception of gender qualifies as gospel truth, that any claims from proponents of it to being "offended" justifies ignoring other points of view which have far more in the way of facts and logic to justify them. Anything at all but a "neutral point of view". A Wikipedia policy that seems to be more or less dead in the water, at least when it comes to any discussion or articles on gender. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Your tag was removed under points 1 and 2. That multiple people removed the tag indicates consensus against it (point 1). That your text was long, rambling, and did not identify a clear issue under the policies of Wikipedia is why point 2 also applies. As the POV template also says: An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The article used the mainstream view.

Gender articles are inherently very controversial on Wikipedia. Many battles have been fought over such policies. Thus we now tolerate very little, and are not going to have general discussions on the merits of certain parts of gender theory over others. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What absolute unmitigated horse crap. The POV tag was removed before I had even posted the explanation. And there hadn't even been any discussion of what I'd posted before some editors were deleting it. Rather risible to claim there's a consensus if the question isn't even allowed to be debated.

And your "did not identify a clear issue" is likewise as I explicitly said right out the chute, in the very first sentence that, "The problematic phrases in question in that section are: before she transitioned to female and Hubbard transitioned to female."

But your "tolerate very little" is prima facie evidence of an egregiously biased point of view. And the standard biological definition for female - which OED and many other dictionaries, and which Wikipedia itself, endorse as the primary definition, as the "mainstream view" - is "the sex of an organism that produces non-mobile ova". You seriously think that Hubbard can now do that? What makes you think that the "minority view" in the Hubbard article overrides that "majority" one? --TillermanJimW (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost nothing can be added to or removed from the Gender article without the agreement of both Crossroads and Newimpartial. And they agree on very little. Tewdar (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That may in some sense be true, but there are plenty of OWNers of these articles besides the two of us, as I have previously noted. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar:: Been some extensive additions and modifications since topic was created some 12 or 14 years ago. Wonder who has been responsible for the bulk of it.

But also quite a bit of confusion and controversy over the whole topic which I think, as mentioned, should be more prominently indicated in the lead section – as the Lead section in WP:BETTER argues.

Not at all sure how to address those, particularly without being subject to charges of “original research”, but I think the article and topic needs a better organization to clearly indicate “mainstream” views and more “fringe” views. Because that overview seems missing, there’s no criteria for inclusion of various subtopics which makes the whole article look disorganized and not as helpful as it might be.

Think there had been a section on or reference to a “gender taxonomy”, and there’s even a Wikipedia article that seems to be derived from material that had been posted then. However, I think it’s kind of going off into the weeds by, apparently, including a whole bunch of biological traits – chromosomes, hormones, & secondary sexual characteristics. Decidedly "antithetical" to the view stated in Merriam-Webster that gender is limited to "behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits". @CaptainEek: in particular might note the "In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex)".

But there’s quite a bit of information, analysis, & research on how to define and quantify various categories – and I think “gender” clearly qualifies as one of those – that should be informing and contributing to the debate on gender. See Taxonomy (biology) and this very good essay on the use of polythetic and monothetic categories for classifying viruses.

But I subsequently did some searches on the term, and one of the better or more specific is an article in the Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality which argued in favour of “new taxonomy” based on “an explanatory framework for conceptualizing gender subtype differences”.

The more scientific and logically coherent concept of gender seems based on the recognition of sexually dimorphic traits – quantified, as I mentioned before, with “joint probability distributions” – particularly in the area of psychological profiles (The Big Five).

But the more fringe conceptions seem based on “self-identification”. However, as those are largely if not entirely subjective, their utility and value seems pretty close to zero, if not worse than useless; unscientific at best. One might reasonably wonder what uniquely differentiates, say, the “female gender” from the 3 or 4 alluded to in the Gender article, or from the 56 that Facebook accepts. --TillermanJimW (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Tillerman, the idea that the legal framework for gender used by the UN organizations and most of the OECD countries, and which is supported by mainstream medicine and scholarship in psychology, is "fringe", is a kind of thing that is going to get you laughed out of Talk pages, particularly when you present this as anally-derived original research. And YOULIKEIT is not a policy-relevant criterion to use in deciding which definitions of gender are helpful.Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Melissa Hines, "Human gender development" is quite interesting. Some nice distribution graphs... Tewdar (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: - did you like my additions to Gender today? Tewdar (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763420304796?via%3Dihub - you might need to be institutionalized, though. Tewdar (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Right now, I am staying away from the tire fire. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What tire fire? I thought it was rather good... 😁 Tewdar (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Or were you referring to CycoMa? Or myself, heaven forfend?! Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A tire fire is an event, not a person. In this case there are three editors involved. I will not make it a fourth; at least, not at this time. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/tire_fire Tewdar (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but only one of those editors has decision making power... Tewdar (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The contribution history for gender is actually quite revealing. Also, I would never refer to a person as a "tire fire" since there are much more evocative terms for "a chaotic person": to wit, chaos muppet. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: - though "impartial" is clearly inappropriate in more ways than one – you seem incapable of differentiating between different aspects and “schools” of thought on the topic. And likewise incapable of considering whether some aspects are more credible than others.

Maybe you can clearly tell me exactly what differentiates the “female gender” from all the other myriads of other genders?

But for instance, you might note that one WHO group clearly asserts that “Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed”. Which even various subsections in the Gender article argue is generally untenable. --TillermanJimW (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

But "female gender identity" just means someone saying "I'm female /a girl /a woman". Just like Cornish nationality means saying, "I'm Cornish", regardless of genetics, or birthplace, or whatever... Tewdar (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: But what is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a member of the female (sex) category? By definition it is to be able to produce ova. Can Hubbard do that?

And likewise, what is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a member of the "female gender category"? Most people in the humanities don't seem to have an effen clue about categories, about how they're defined, about the criteria for membership. Try reading the Wikipedia article on Extensional and intensional definitions

If category membership is only because "I say so", if there's no objective correlates then they're literally useless. Like much of the concept of gender. --TillermanJimW (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, you have just given a largely apocryphal account of Gender identity. Try not to insert that into any article, please.

And Tillerman, the definition of sex by chromosomes and/or gametes, which much of the discipline of biology uses (as is reflected in female), has very little legal or social standing. Non-sociopaths do not normally classify others by biological sex except for purposes of reproductive health, so maybe drop your logical positivist metaphysics and join consensus reality. Just a thought. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, Actually, neither are in the top ten editors for the page [2] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I am very embarrassed to be #3 in that chart. Well... I do a lot of little edits, and most of 'em get reverted anyhow, so... 🙄 Tewdar (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah crap, I'm still #6 by "added text"... Tewdar (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, half of that will be gone tomorrow when Crossroads wakes up... Tewdar (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• I do believe I added some skeptical philosophy, either to Gender or the Sex and gender distinction articles. I don't think it's there anymore. ☹️ Tewdar (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @@Newimpartial: - In fact, the "because I say so" definition is pretty much Wikipedia policy on gender identity. How do *you* determine someone's gender identity? Personally, I'm not a mind reader, so if you tell me you're a woman, or a man, or something else, I'm prepared to believe you. Do you have a better method? Tewdar (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between "what a person internally feels" and "what a person says they internally feel". If you are unable to make this distinction conceptually, then like Tillerman you may be inhabited by a logical positivist metaphysic. The difference between the two is something like a "sincere conviction", and this is the distinction between what the medical literature says gender identity is, and what nominalists and "skeptics" pretend it to be. There is no such thing as a gender identity as an "attack helicopter" for example, and probably not as a tree, either, in terms of sincere conviction. Newimpartial (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Clear indication then, if that's really the case, that Wikipedia has anything but a neutral point of view when it comes to gender.

How absolutely bloody ridiculous to argue that anyone's claim to a particular state should be accepted without any proof. So someone claiming to be Jesus Christ or Napoleon should be accepted as such? Some kid of 14 walking into a liquor store to get booze claiming to be 35 should get it because they "identify as 35"? Either there are no rights attendant on being in a particular state - "I'm the Emperor of the North Pole!" - or society has a right to see an objectively quantifiable membership card.

Michael Robillard argued in an essay at Quillette, The Incoherence of Gender Ideology, that “by the starting premises of [gender ideology advocates’] own argumentation, the notions of both ‘gender’ and ‘transgender’ are either incoherent or vacuous and therefore cannot be the conceptual grounds by which persons derive actual positive or negative rights claims.” A point which is underlined by Michael Mascolo writing at Psychology Today: “Although it is important, the concept of gender is an imprecise one. Depending on how it is used, the concept of gender can be illuminating, clarifying, confusing, contradictory, or downright incoherent.”

"incoherent" is being charitable; anyone peddling that "identify-as X" schlock has disappeared up their fundaments. WP:FRINGE indeed. Sad that Wikipedia has apparently followed them. --TillermanJimW (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, add your content, attach a reference, sit back, and enjoy the fallout. All the best. Tewdar (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And note that Quilette is not a reliable source, and you shouldn't use sources selectively to shoehorn in your own POV interpretations.

I am also amused at how you have completely avoided talking about the legal frameworks through which gender is understood in the OECD countries, given your attachment to the ghost of Scalia earlier. But only fringe appeals to fringe, I suppose, as other instances of like to like. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I'm not saying that Quillette is particularly reliable - I think they often have their thumbs on the scales. I'm saying that the author of the piece might reasonably qualify as something of a "subject-matter expert". Did you look at his credentials? Or being too quick to judge a book by its cover? And did you read or look at the Psychology Today article & its author? What makes you think that both authors are "fringe"? And your evidence for that would be what?

And so fucking what with how "gender is understood in OECD countries"? Did that WHO document I just finished linking to say that gender was socially constructed or not? You think that gender is entirely so? Has that Gender article itself given evidence that that position is not particularly justified or not? You might note a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the point:

“... which social practices construct gender, what social construction is and what being of a certain gender amounts to are major feminist controversies. There is no consensus on these issues.”

Maybe a "controversy" that should be front-and-center in the lead section of the article on Gender?

As for Scalia, you might try getting your head out of your arse and read a bit more of that Gender article as it posted the same quote of Scalia and source that I'd referred to sometime back. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You will need a better source than one for philosophers' own user-generated content, and better evidence than selective quotation, if you want to make a relevant argument even in User space. And I will not be engaging further WP:SEALIONing even on this user page of yours (though to be fair, "civil POV pushing" presupposes CIVIL, which isn't really the way you roll). Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial - I don't know "what a person internally feels". Except myself. Sometimes. So, like I say, unless you have a better method, I'm stuck with believing what people tell me is their "sincere conviction". Tewdar (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If someone tells you that their internal feeling of gender identity is an attack helecopter, and you believe them, the problem doesn't rest with me, and I don't think it rests with the (insincere or perhaps delusional) speaker, either. You are not stuck believing them, as they are almost certainly aware themselves.

The "better method" is to assess the sincerity of utterances, as any reasonably competent philosophy of language would have you do. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: You might read up on the number of Messiah claimants there have been over the millennia. What people claim often has no correspondence in "reality". You might also read Pinker's How the Mind Works for further elaborations on the topic.

Words are common currency; people don't get to create their own definitions and then expect everyone to follow suit. As we can't decide to drive on any side of the road we want whenever we want. If peouse those words to make claims about themselves or reality in general then society has a right if not an obligation to ask whether they're madder than hatters - ie., many if not most of the transgendered - or not. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal to ask whether they're madder than hatters - ie., many if not most of the transgendered - or not is a WP:BLP violation and in present company also violates WP:CIVIL. Don't do that and expect to keep editing WP. Also, if you live in a society and culture that distinguishes sex and gender, but you idiosyncratically refuse to do so, that leaves you as the one person who denies consensus reality. That isn't a place most people want to find ourselves...Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You're a fucking joke mate. After your earlier "you present this as anally-derived original research" you don't have much of a leg to stand on with WP:CIVIL.

And I'm not the one trying to deny a fundamental difference between sex and gender. That was the Hubbard article that was trying to do that. And virtually everyone one of the editors & administrators who reverted my posts on the topic. Is Hubbard an "adult human female (sex)" or not? What is the consensus view on what it takes to qualify as female? Is the Wikipedia article on female a consensus view or not? --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't swear at me, dude. If you don't understand what the society you live in constitutes sex reassignment and gender identity, I don't think Wikipedia can help you with what amounts to basic reading comprehension. Trying to selectively quote a biology article on the specific question of how to treat BLPs is, well, precisely the form of argumentation I have come to expect from you, tbh. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW, you should take that back. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Why? Because someone might be "offended"? I'd uploaded an image the other day on Wikimedia and the article I was reading said that Wikimedia doesn't hold being offended in high regard when it came to uploading images, mostly what some might call pornographic, that some might consider offensive. Think they said something similar about the religious being offended - such as Mohammed cartoons if I'm not mistaken. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Simply because it's uncivil. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)