Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant Reference Desk
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.
This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.


ANI discussion concerning editor arising from question and responses left on WP:RDS[edit]

Just to let people know, I opened an ANI discussion requesting a block or topic ban here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concerned about a question and responses from an editor on the RD Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I didn't see this before it was closed and archived, but I should say that I feel a bit annoyed to have had my unsolicited safety worries used by someone else to support a ban without so much as a ping. I mean, if I'd wanted User:Plasmic Physics banned I would have started the process myself, and the same is true of removing his question. I was a bit alarmed by the description of the research he wanted to do, but he gave a pretty reasonable sounding answer as best as I could tell, bearing in mind that he is thinking about research level chemistry whereas I just know what's in the basic undergrad coursework. Initially I was surprised he used an uncommon name for one chemical involved, but that could be a regional variation - I have not toured the chemistry labs of the world. The "emotional blackmail" strikes me as simply a statement of fact - if he is scheduled to do undergraduate- or graduate-level research on the topic in 2018, then he is, and I don't know differently. I mean, the rules are that this is not a forum for advice at all - we tend to make an exception for giving a friendly heads-up on safety, but ultimately whether you want to do fundamental research with mercury is not our call. Our role is to assume good faith. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Movies censored because of being deemed racist[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why was my question removed?74.138.45.254 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Question deleted by MarnetteD citing "rmv LTA post". LTA = Long Term Abuse
Deleted again by Viennese Waltz.
If the question were allowed, I see no problem in answering that the NAACP spearheaded an unsuccessful campaign to ban the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, see reference. Blooteuth (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Because the only reason you asked the question was to stir up trouble. --Viennese Waltz 13:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a general article about Film censorship and that links to individual articles such as:
List of films banned in India, Film censorship in Malaysia, Film censorship in South Korea, Film censorship in the United Kingdom, Film censorship in the United States, Film censorship in China, Film censorship in the Republic of Ireland, Film censorship in East Germany, Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union#Soviet_censorship_of_film. The number of man-years put in by contributors to create all these articles is considerable and every one was given to understand that Wikipedia does not censure verifiable, factual information. To the OP who is an IP user in the USA, please may we hear in your words why you are interested? Blooteuth (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Because after reading about Gone With the Wind being censored from a movie theater in Memphis,Tennessee because of being deemed as racially insensitive, I've started to worry about other good movies being censored for being racially insensitive. Perhaps next, songs and novels will be censored if they're deemed to be racially insensitive. It sounds almost like communism.74.138.45.254 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There are differences. Movies like Gone with the Wind reflected the prevailing attitudes of the times, while Birth of a Nation went beyond the prevailing attitudes, and was actually even more racist than the times when it was made. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Decades ago, the book Huckleberry Finn came under fire for similar reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There's always a risk with satire that it will be taken seriously. There were probably those who thought A Modest Proposal was a serious suggestion that Irish children be cooked and eaten. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you User 74.138.45.254 for explaining the thought behind your question. Seeing that it has already led to answers with references here, does anyone still object to the question being restored to the Humanities reference desk with explanation? Blooteuth (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Nazi ref desk troll. The "good movies being censored" and "sounds almost like communism" are their typical tripe. Not only should this not be moved back it should be deleted - or at least hatted - from here. Please stop feeding this troll people. MarnetteD|Talk 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The exploits of your alleged troll seem as awesome as the reliability of your accusation by opinion. Far from being a litmus test for Nazi subversion, the report that Gone with the Wind is a "good movie that has been censored" is supported by very reliable sources. Legend even persists that the Hays Office fined Selznick $5,000 for the wording of Rhett Butler's exit line. Study that movie properly if you are not familiar with it. @MarnetteD no one has asked you to agree with their movie taste and if you think you serve a Greater Purpose by censoring an innocuous question that the ref. desk team can handle without your help then, being overwhelmingly unconvinced, Frankly my dear I don't give a damn. Blooteuth (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You don't, but some of us do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I know this had been hatted, but the user who posted the supposedly innocuous question, after being blocked, immediately jumped to a new IP address and tried to start an ANI discussion accusing me of pretty gross stuff. It has since been RevDeleted, but you can see it's existence here. This is exactly the sort of behavior the Nazi Troll undertakes, to a T. If the question left any doubt as to whether or not this is the exact same person as we're all familiar with, the behavior immediately following the block removed all such doubt. This is one of the things he always does. --Jayron32 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@User 74.138.45.254 Is this true? Blooteuth (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That's the wrong question. The right question could be, "Do you believe Hitler was unfairly blamed for World War II?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You can ask the admin who blocked 98.211.122.50 (being Floquenbeam) or you can ask any admin to read the deleted diff. I'd rather it wasn't repeated here, as it involved some pretty unreasonable things, but it's very much the pattern of how the Nazi troll operates. --Jayron32 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Created because of RD discussion[edit]

Do we have a category for pages created because RD discussions revealed that the pages were needed? I thought we did, but I can't find anything other than Category:Wikipedia reference desk, which is for the desk and its archives only. I'd like to tag Talk:D.Œ.A.V. and Talk:D. Œ. A. V. for this category if it exists. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a long defunct Wikiproject titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration which has a tag you can add to the talk page {{WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration}}. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 23:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The complementary tag is {{WPRDAC attention}} on the RD question. DMacks (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate request for opinions about little girl's legs[edit]

Let's make this simple, since it has been challenged. Should the discussion at WP:RDM titled "Why do schoolgirls wear short skirts in spite of their sex appeal?" remain hatted, be deleted, or be re-opened for full discussion. --Jayron32 02:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

discussion[edit]

  • Keep closed No need to delete, but also the discussion is not appropriate and outside the scope of the reference desk. --Jayron32 02:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove hat. I was just adding sources when Jayron started deleting any additions to the hatted discussion: [1]. This exceeds his authority. Not adding to a hatted discussion is a suggestion, not a command, since anyone can hat it. I've put my sources (in reply to a follow-up Q deleted by Jayron) on Futurist's talk page instead, to avoid further censoring by Jayron: User_talk:Futurist110#Skirt_and_dress_undergarments. StuRat (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seems like request for opinions, and all of the responses to date have been opinions, but I would be interested to see the aforementioned sources before !voting here. Jayron, in my experience closed does not mean closed, period,[2] but I'm open to being corrected by a link to policy/guideline. ―Mandruss  02:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See my link above. It was in reply to a comment that has now been deleted by Jayron, about the much greater coverage of undergarments in the past, making skirts less revealing than they are today. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • None of that has much relevance to the question asked. ―Mandruss  02:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure it does, since whether or not skirts are "revealing" depends on the accompanying undergarments, which have changed over time. StuRat (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The sexiness of revelation comes from seeing something normally hidden, not the material. Adjusted for leg tolerance inflation, a bit of stocking is every bit as "revealing" as a bit of butt cheek. In the post-nuclear future, prudes will probably complain about seeing too far through those crazy kids' thin skins, and pervs will complain about not seeing far enough. There'll be genetically modified acetabulum in advertising, and I (for one) am already shocked and appalled. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, after Jayron stopped deleting contributions, I was able to make this point there (minus the humor). StuRat (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
So you were. I thought I'd checked to see if it was gone before I replied, but I checked the Humanities Desk. Should've known this was miscellany. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • Close - Request for opinion. Responders need to refrain from giving opinions, as usual. ―Mandruss  02:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Mandruss removed the hat and I restored Jayron's deletions. I'm not totally opposed to the hat, per se, so long as that doesn't become a justification for deletion of all further contributions. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Close, request for opinion and/or debate. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Does everyone have the right to hat discussions and then delete any further contributions to that thread ?[edit]

Jayron seems to think so. I strongly disagree, especially since the reason for the hatting is often that no sources have been provided, and if they are later added, Jayron would then feel free to delete them. Thus, while supposedly asking for sources, the result is to block them from being provided. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason why we're discussing it here is because you have contested it. If the above discussion has a consensus to undo the hat, then we will put the discussion back at the status quo ante bellum. I have no problem with that. However, multiple people have requested and/or closed the discussion (not one, and I was not the first). Since you objected, I started the discussion above so you have the opportunity to prove me wrong by establishing consensus that I (and the people who objected before me) were wrong. Please stop with the general whininess here, however, and let the discussion take its course. If you were in the right, you'll win in a few days. The immaturity you just now displayed in starting this here thread is beneath you, and you're better than this. Don't do this. It makes you look bad. --Jayron32 02:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The thread above is about the hat, this thread is about your claim to have the right to prevent any additions to a hatted discussion. I've never seem such a claim before. And since this would prevent fixing whatever alleged deficiency caused the hatting, it's also a bad practice from that POV.
You're also using the fact that Wikipedians rarely reach a consensus on anything, especially before it is archived and becomes moot, to get your way. Had you left the thread unhatted until there was a consensus to hat it, then it would likely remain unhatted permanently, but your way means it will likely remain hatted. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Look, if consensus is in your favor, I'll personally unarchive it and move it to the head of the line. If you're so sure you're correct here, you stand to lose nothing. --Jayron32 02:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
My preference is to follow widely accepted process, not invent our own rules. The hat is a disputed edit and therefore requires consensus. There is nothing here to support a WP:IAR rationale. ―Mandruss  02:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
As is mine. Which is why I started the discussion. --Jayron32 03:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Please remove the hat pending consensus for it. ―Mandruss  03:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't put it there. Not my hat to remove. --Jayron32 03:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
So the only legitimate reverts are self-reverts? I have reverted the hat. ―Mandruss  03:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I've left the hat, but undid your deletions, as there is no precedent on your right to delete additions to hatted discussions. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)