User talk:Mx. Granger
Listlessly listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Listlessly. Since you had some involvement with the Listlessly redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Food Security edit
I'm not sure I understand a notice I just saw on my account that you rolled back an edit I made to the Food Security article. I corrected a typo I found: "anad" was corrected to "and". And as far as I can tell, that edit has not been rolled back. To what is that message referring?
- @Celavin: Thanks for the message. Your edit changed the word "Trump" to "Drumpf" in four places, presumably because you had the "Drumpfinator" extension enabled. To avoid this problem in the future, please disable the extension before editing articles that mention Trump. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
IP block exempt
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
Pro-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Describing Cecil Richards as pro-choice rather than pro-abortion undermines Wikipedia's credibility, and here's why.
When several options already exist, promoting the addition of another choice makes people "for more choices (plural) or "for a particular option." Calling them "for choice" exaggerates their position.
When several options exist and people defend a particular option, they are not defending "choice," they are defending one specific option. They would be defending choice only if the options would be narrowed to a single option. It is accurate to describe them as pro-[option name] and inaccurate to describe them as pro-choice.
When a person's position is associated not with the relevant option, but with "choice," it implies that anybody who opposes the option is "anti-choice." Indeed, "pro-choicers" frequently call those they oppose, "anti-choice." Thus, one side is elevated while the other side is denigrated, not on the basis of the actual disagreement, but on the basis of a straw-man.
When several options exist and people oppose one particular option, yet support choice between several remaining options, it is inaccurate to describe them as "anti-choice," to the point of being pejorative.
Please think about the meanings of the words and the motives behind their use. Is "pro-choice" accurate, or generalized to the point of misleading? Is it intellectually honest? Does it respect both sides, or does it elevate one side while denigrating the other? Is the term chosen to promote understanding, or to incite passions by invoking strong connotations? Is a polarizing misrepresentation going to promote trust, dialog, and empathy? Does it matter how an "activist" prefers to be described if the description is biased and misleading?
Does biased language belong on Wikipedia?
- The term "pro-choice" is both more common and more accurate than "pro-abortion". I think either "pro-choice" or "abortion-rights" would be acceptable in the article. "Pro-abortion" violates WP:NPOV and risks inaccuracy (not all pro-choice activists are pro-abortion – many are morally opposed to abortion but still believe it should be legal for libertarian or other reasons). —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Deletion request for List of breakfast drinks
You have participated at List of breakfast drinks. Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)