User talk:Instaurare/Archive 3
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Instaurare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Susan B. Anthony
I'm not exactly sure how I "vandalized" the Susan B. Anthony abortion debate page, when all I did was correct some spelling. Anyway, I re-corrected it. I think you may be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.221.234 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
CPCs Sections
May I ask you to undo your change that put "false medical information" and "legal action" under "controversy and legal action"? There are several problems with the change:
- Criticism ghettos are generally discouraged, I think (which is why we recently got rid of the "criticism" section!), and it's a NPOV issue to fill the "services" section only with favorable information and segregate the unfavorable into "controversy."
- The legal action has generally not concerned CPCs' provision of false information, so it's just weird to stick the two together unless you are trying to section off things that might reflect badly on CPCs.
To avoid the appearance of a POV-motivated change, would you please restore the previous organization of the page?
Maybe the "false medical information = service" problem could be solved by renaming the "services" section to "activities"? That would make more sense with "advertising methods" and "religious affiliation" anyway. What do you think?
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- My mistakes, I should have gone to talk before doing it unilaterally. My only concern is that false medical information is not a "service", i.e., something equivalent to sonograms and financial help. I didn't think it warranted its own section but I didn't find anything it would really fit under, so I put it there. As for your suggestions, I'll take it to talk. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're right - I agree that it isn't a service (even though they may think they're doing their clients a favor by persuading them not to have abortions). That's why I suggest "activities." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and would you mind explaining your concerns re: the globalize tag? The section includes references from the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada - it's more globally diverse than any other section! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're right - I agree that it isn't a service (even though they may think they're doing their clients a favor by persuading them not to have abortions). That's why I suggest "activities." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Roscelese's talk page.
Also, I took a look at your article about the Law and Order episode and man, it has some serious POV problems. I corrected the easiest ones (terminology) but you might want to check it out again - the problems are things like "the only quotes from the episode are anti-abortion arguments" (this may seem minor, but I'd rather see them paraphrased) and "your citations for responses are unbalanced" (your only quotes from pro-choice supporters are cited to an anti-abortion source, but you cite, at length, several anti-abortion responses). Can you improve it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Normally I wouldn't have written the article like that, but I am using the terminology used in the actual episode (if you haven't seen it, watch it to see what I'm talking about). What's the policy on that, should we use the terminology used in the show itself or wikify it? Thanks for your help. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the best practice would be to put quotes around anything questionable, though my personal inclination would be to just paraphrase it in neutral terms and save the quotes for actual lines. (Really, though, do they use the word "abortionist"? It being L&O, surely "abortion provider" or "doctor" also comes up.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about "abortionist", I watched it a long time ago. But I was extremely surprised at the pro-life terminology and rhetoric used in the episode. It was strongly pro-life. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, yeah, quotes and/or paraphrases would be the way to go. However, those are problems I've already attempted to deal with; what do you think about the other points I raised above? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about "abortionist", I watched it a long time ago. But I was extremely surprised at the pro-life terminology and rhetoric used in the episode. It was strongly pro-life. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the best practice would be to put quotes around anything questionable, though my personal inclination would be to just paraphrase it in neutral terms and save the quotes for actual lines. (Really, though, do they use the word "abortionist"? It being L&O, surely "abortion provider" or "doctor" also comes up.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
both archives the same!
Hey! I was looking for that recent revert that you did on the anonymous, one-time IP, but I can't find it in your archives. Then I noticed that you have two archives numbered 1. --Kenatipo speak! 16:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks! Fixed. And here's the link to the revert. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem! I'm glad you didn't lose anything. --Kenatipo speak! 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Baby Joseph
Hmm, okay, I took a look, but it seems like it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage goes back less than a month, and there isn't any evidence that this will be influential in the way the Schiavo case was. I'd give it time to see if anything develops, but be aware that if nothing does, it might be nominated for deletion.
Also, LifeNews isn't really a reliable source, so I recommend you find better sources for the statement about "pro-life" organizations - keep in mind that LifeNews's goal is partly to promote the "pro-life" movement, so its statements that "pro-life" organizations have been helping the family should be taken with a grain of salt. PFL's offer of a plane is probably available in their own materials, as is ACLJ's offer of legal counsel. The NCRegister would seem to have the same issue in that it exists to promote a particular point of view.
Hope that helps! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, I'll see how it plays out and try to find a new source. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I may jump in if this becomes politically significant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation to participate here, yankee, but I'm going to take a break from editing, at least during Lent. Be good! --Kenatipo speak! 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation to participate here, yankee, but I'm going to take a break from editing, at least during Lent. Be good! --Kenatipo speak! 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I may jump in if this becomes politically significant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Frank Buckles
With this edit you added details about the burial plans, but some of that was already in the article (a few paragraphs up). Would you be able to join in the talk page discussion, or have time to tidy that up? I would do it myself, but don't have time tonight. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a look, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
SBA List NPOV
This deletion is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please revert yourself. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to, but can you explain how it's a violation? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Happy to"... yeah, I can imagine how happy. Your removal took out the "Susan B. Anthony's Abortion Position Spurs Scuffle" reference and removed the description of who opposes SBA List, which is a significant factor as it includes notable and intelligent people such as Ann D. Gordon who has studied the matter exclusively for decades. At WP:NPOV it says "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes" but in this case you have reduced it so far that only the existence of the dispute is given. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- And is there something wrong with that? The dispute with all the pro-choice stuff is linked to twice. The dispute is described there. No need for WP:FORK. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your guideline. What part of it are you referring to? Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I meant WP:CFORK. In any case, a simple link is all we need, plus the ref I removed was a biased source. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- CFORK warns against about multiple articles saying the same thing, but this problem is not what we are talking about. There are many times where some brief descriptive text appears in two or more articles to supply continuity and relevance to the topic of the article. For instance, the articles about American Woman Suffrage Association, National Woman Suffrage Association and National American Woman Suffrage Association can't help but carry some similar information. It is not considered redundant when it helps the reader understand what is being described in the article. In our case, the story of the SBA List includes the story of opposition.
- The Women's Enews article is not biased except from the POV of advocates for pro-life positions. Stevens says a lot of very neutral descriptive statements such as "Dannenfelser's Susan B. Anthony List is also playing a leading role in promoting Anthony as an opponent of abortion." What part of the article do you see Stevens putting her opinion forward?
- Rough times when a neutral account is perceived as biased. :/
- Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, I should have actually looked at WP:CFORK before I linked it. In any case, all we need is a simple link, and we have two. You can open a RfC if you want. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I meant WP:CFORK. In any case, a simple link is all we need, plus the ref I removed was a biased source. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your guideline. What part of it are you referring to? Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- And is there something wrong with that? The dispute with all the pro-choice stuff is linked to twice. The dispute is described there. No need for WP:FORK. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Happy to"... yeah, I can imagine how happy. Your removal took out the "Susan B. Anthony's Abortion Position Spurs Scuffle" reference and removed the description of who opposes SBA List, which is a significant factor as it includes notable and intelligent people such as Ann D. Gordon who has studied the matter exclusively for decades. At WP:NPOV it says "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes" but in this case you have reduced it so far that only the existence of the dispute is given. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Userboxes
Okay, I concede that was over the line and it's not worth the argument. I do note that you undid the changes yourself.
As for the deletion - uh, wasn't it an empty page? If it wasn't, oops. DS (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can't remember whether it was empty, but what user requested that you delete it as you said in the edit summary? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Blanking a userspace subpage, creating a second page with almost the exact same content, and then leaving the first page untouched for a month (which is what you did) is close enough to "user requests deletion of page in own userspace" most of the time. I would never delete (User X)'s userpage at the request of (User Y). DS (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why couldn't you just ask me first? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's (usually) less efficient than just deleting it, since most people don't care about the pages they blanked and ignored. Incidentally, the image on the userbox is incorrect. That's a ten-week embryo, but you're talking about three weeks. So you want one that's more like this (the earliest-stage embryo whose photo I can find on Commons) or this (a good representation of the 21-day stage, but not a photo). And the comment about "before your mother even knew she was pregnant" - how do you know when a given woman does or doesn't know that she's pregnant? So I recommend removing that, for the sake of accuracy. DS (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still, you should ask first instead of just assuming. Given the edits to the userbox, I can only interpret the deletion as a hostile action. The image in the userbox is meant to show the heart of the baby, which is harder to see in the other images. As for the mother knowing she was pregnant, generally women don't know if they're pregnant until they miss their menstrual cycle, which generally occurs every 28 days. 21 days is a week before the menstrual cycle. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, ended up here for a different reason and can't help but jump in -- NYY, your reasoning assumes that every woman conceives within a day or two of her period ending. Also, while 28 days is an "average" cycle, it varies widely from person to person. And not for nothing, there are myriad ways of knowing you are pregnant wholly separate from menstruation. Arbor8 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware of all that. But that is the case for most mothers. In any case, the userbox is meant to illustrate a larger point, not specific details. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is simply factually inaccurate to state that most (or more than a minuscule minority of) women conceive within two days of the end of menstruation, Change that to ten days and you are accurate. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I changed it. Are we all happy now? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm just in that part of my menstrual cycle where I get really upset by factual inaccuracies. :) Arbor8 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No worries :) NYyankees51 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm just in that part of my menstrual cycle where I get really upset by factual inaccuracies. :) Arbor8 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I changed it. Are we all happy now? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is simply factually inaccurate to state that most (or more than a minuscule minority of) women conceive within two days of the end of menstruation, Change that to ten days and you are accurate. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware of all that. But that is the case for most mothers. In any case, the userbox is meant to illustrate a larger point, not specific details. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, ended up here for a different reason and can't help but jump in -- NYY, your reasoning assumes that every woman conceives within a day or two of her period ending. Also, while 28 days is an "average" cycle, it varies widely from person to person. And not for nothing, there are myriad ways of knowing you are pregnant wholly separate from menstruation. Arbor8 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still, you should ask first instead of just assuming. Given the edits to the userbox, I can only interpret the deletion as a hostile action. The image in the userbox is meant to show the heart of the baby, which is harder to see in the other images. As for the mother knowing she was pregnant, generally women don't know if they're pregnant until they miss their menstrual cycle, which generally occurs every 28 days. 21 days is a week before the menstrual cycle. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's (usually) less efficient than just deleting it, since most people don't care about the pages they blanked and ignored. Incidentally, the image on the userbox is incorrect. That's a ten-week embryo, but you're talking about three weeks. So you want one that's more like this (the earliest-stage embryo whose photo I can find on Commons) or this (a good representation of the 21-day stage, but not a photo). And the comment about "before your mother even knew she was pregnant" - how do you know when a given woman does or doesn't know that she's pregnant? So I recommend removing that, for the sake of accuracy. DS (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't know me, I don't know you
...we probably wouldn't even get along very well, but the whole ANI thread is one big scam. A userbox, IMO, has always been nothing but contradictory in its supposed purpose (i.e., it's supposed to tell a little bit about you but instead it just creates an "us v. them" environment). HOWEVER, it only creates a stir if it stirs to the right, specifically to the social right. How absurd is it that a userbox is only polemic in that situation? 2 wolves and 1 lamb voting on what's for dinner. You been done wrong, but that whole ANI thread is one freaking great commentary on Wikipedia and its one-sided thinking. It doesn't matter what I think about your userbox, this is bigger than that. You fight the good fight, and if they delete yours they gotta delete them all. The revolution begins...
...Now. --64.85.215.209 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Two things. First, I have a lot of userboxes on my user page, but I've managed to select ones that I don't think could possibly create an "us v. them" environment, apart perhaps from the few that are about my opinions on Wikipedia policy. That is, unless somehow another editor actually is a fly that repeatedly attempts to enter people's ears. So I don't think appropriate userboxes are necessarily contradictory. Second, as regards your suggestion that userboxes only tend to be questioned if they are politically or socially right-wing or conservative (if I understand you correctly.) Someone observed recently that one place userboxes are often discussed is RfA - but while "humanist" userboxes (perceived as anti-religion and therefore anti-conservative) have several times been reasons for Oppose votes recently, "religion" userboxes never are. I've also seen some very odd nationalist userboxes on the userpage of an RfA candidate, but none of the voters had any qualms on that occasion. Bias may be in the eye of the beholder. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...And the beholders are 2 wolves. "Polemic" is subjective, yes. Sometimes I agree with the wolves, but I know it's a problem when the lamb is the objective of what is subjective. UBX B DAMNED! --64.85.215.209 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused. In this metaphor, am I a wolf or a lamb? Either way I could really go for some mutton.... Arbor8 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...And the beholders are 2 wolves. "Polemic" is subjective, yes. Sometimes I agree with the wolves, but I know it's a problem when the lamb is the objective of what is subjective. UBX B DAMNED! --64.85.215.209 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
IP user, I agree with you 100%. If you want to, you should repost this at the discussion here. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, S Marshall makes some good points here. Hopefully it will be taken to WP:MfD and you can make the case there. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Oh, that's not a problem at all; I never use them anyway. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you receive your filet?
In case you didn't, here is a replacement.
Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderful, thank you! I must say it looks far superior to the Filet-O-Fish I was expecting, with its fish and cheese of questionable authenticity! NYyankees51 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
SBA
Per your edit summary - are you saying you don't have a WP:COI w/ SBA list? Arbor8 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did have one in the summer of 2009, but I am not associated with the SBA List anymore. I didn't start regularly editing the article until summer 2010, which is also when I came across Binksternet. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense, thanks Arbor8 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- NYyankees51, you were the article's most frequent editor in 2009, so I don't know what you mean by "regularly" in regard to 2010's edits. Also: you have not said when it was that your association with SBA List ended. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps regularly wasn't the best word, but the vast majority of the edits were made after summer 2009, when the association ended. I made several edits at a time a few times. In 2010 I began working with it constantly. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- NYyankees51, you were the article's most frequent editor in 2009, so I don't know what you mean by "regularly" in regard to 2010's edits. Also: you have not said when it was that your association with SBA List ended. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Just wanted to say that I've just provided my first thoughts. More anon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Roscelese#Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state's talk page. Thanks for asking for my input. I've done a little table work int he past, but nothing aggressive, so I'm not going to be much quick help on formatting. Having said that, I do have some thoughts on what I see you doing, some of which are so fundamental that I'm not going to try to edit them in, as that would be both time-consuming and disruptive to whatever's already going on:
- The whole breaking down sections based on status goes against the very title of the page - it should be by state - as well as making it less useful as a reference.
- This would be a summary page, and as such it doesn't require and shouldn't have much depth on each entry, as the individual states probably each have their own page by now.
- When using tables, you want to keep the information brief in order to keep from making it multiple lines, if possible, allowing as much as possible to be displayed within the height and width of the browser. That keeps things easier to compare, and keeps them closer to the header.
- It should reflect current status, not history on how it got there - that info is for the individual state page, not a summary page.
- The table should be in alphabetical order by state, and the columns should be:
- State name, wikilinked to the SSM-in-the-State article for that state
- Status, which should be one of three: granted, recognized, banned
- Status established in constitution: simply yes or no. For the yes entries, it should be wikilinked to the article on the referendum that passed the amendment or the ruling that recognized the constitution as permitting SSM.
- Status established in legislation: simply yes or no (and do realize that for some states, this will have the same result as the previous column, as some establish it through both, and I think there are still some states that don't explicitly establish it by either.
- Marriage-like status offered: domestic partnership, civil unions, or none. If there is an article specifically on that status in that state, or on the passage thereof, it should be wikilinked.
- Exceptions: This is a brief notes section, and I'm labeling it exceptions rather than notes to discourage it from becoming a random information dump. Really, the two things that come to mind are putting "Coquille Nation" in Oregon and "recognition dependent on date" for California.
- By using a color scheme for the background of the rows - a light red for "banned", yellow for "recognized", green for "performed", you'll make it easier for people to find the subset of information they want, as well as creating a quick visual summary of the general status, in a way that doesn't leave any of the information actually invisible for the color-blind.
- Your existing placement of Maine is incorrect; they do not have a constitutional ban on SSM. (They did have a referendum, but it wasn't for an amendment of the constitution.)
- The article should probably have a very brief intro explaining why such a breakdown is necessary: "In the United States, the federal government is barred by law from recognizing same-sex marriages, but that restriction does not flow down to the individual states, which may each set their own laws regarding same-sex marriage."
- The header "States prohibiting same-sex marriage in state law only" is confusing, as a state constitution is state law. But then, I think this section should be done away with.
All in all, I think if you follow my suggested table format, you'll get a tight, informative summary article which works as an effective gateway to more detail for those who wish it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, you make several good points. I don't have time to incorporate all this now, but I started a new table and a brief intro. Feel free to work on it if you get a chance. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
COIN
Yes, I put my arguments together at WP:COIN. You will likely want to add your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Marriage
I don't know a whole lot about the subject but I just wanted to say I like the mock-up that you, Nat and Bmclaughlin a whole lot better than the current article. Until you replace it, could some one downsize the huge map that is up top. For some reason it is taking up half my screen. - Haymaker (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, feel free to jump in if you want. I'll see if I can downsize it in the current article. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for the correction at BB
Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Article for deletion debate
The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets Notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
"a therapist is not a 'therapy provider'; 'abortionist' is the proper term and is not POV"
Would you care to compare these two search results (take care to eliminate quoted speech and unreliable sources, too) and revert yourself?
As an unrelated side note, I've realized that State amendments banning same-sex unions and its accompanying list is going to be redundant to the revised "SSM in the US by state" - when the latter is revised in mainspace, would you agree with a merge?
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, too late. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right, I just think of "abortion provider" as a clinic or organization, i.e. Planned Parenthood or Tiller's clinic, and "abortionist" as the person who actually performs the abortions, i.e. George Tiller. And it seems Tiller was both an abortionist and and abortion provider. I'll revert myself for the sake of discussion. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- As for the SSM article, I didn't even know about that article - there are way too many state articles on the issue. Hopefully we can find a way to combine them all. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but I think that's an idiosyncratic interpretation - "abortion provider" is used for people all the time. "Abortionist" often has connotations of illegality or unprofessionalism, at best. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Abortionist" very often is used for its negative impact. "Abortion provider" is neutral. There is no parallel in "therapist". Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're both right about abortionist, but abortion provider seems to me to be the politically correct term with positive connotations, since they're providing, i.e. doing something good for someone, as opposed to something like 'performing, i.e. just doing something, no connotations. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Either way, it's the term more often used by reliable sources. "Abortion performer" isn't used. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Abortion performer"? Seriously? Sounds like a really messed up circus act. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that someone as involved in abortion politics as you, NYYankees, isn't fully aware of the connotations of "abortionist." Arbor8 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly I didn't know there were connotations. "Abortionist" is still used in mainstream sources, and exclusively to describe Kermit Gosnell. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- We're talking about providers of legal abortions, though, right? Certainly Gosnell is a different case altogether. Arbor8 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- With your background, these nuances have to be very familiar to you, NYyankees51. There is no need to pretend otherwise. The term abortionist has the connotation of back alley and illegality. The term abortion provider gives the impression of medical competence and accepted legal status. If you call a legal abortion provider an abortionist then you are insulting them. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I hadn't really thought about the term. In any case, abortion provider is probably just as POV, because nobody wants to dislike someone who "provides" for people. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again, this is a case where the connotations are largely irrelevant, because reliable sources use "abortion provider" for Tiller and not "abortionist." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I hadn't really thought about the term. In any case, abortion provider is probably just as POV, because nobody wants to dislike someone who "provides" for people. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
1RR
That's awfully close to a 1RR vio there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Sarek, there was an edit conflict so I hit cancel and submitted it again without checking to see if any changes had been made to the section. My mistake, I restored his edit here. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I saw that, thanks. However, I'm more concerned about adding the "LiveAction posted the unedited videos to their site" language twice. That first post was definitely restoring language that had been previously removed, but not recently, so I'm not going to count it as a revert. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't see the other one, also restored here. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, good. Thanks for catching that yourself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) NYYankees, your efforts to expand Live Action distorts the historical context of the section. Live Action is just one of a series of stings and if you want more coverage, add it to the article on the topic. I will add that removing the the 2005 Bush study that was brought up in the context of past sting activities also removes a relevant and official counterpoint to past stings that predated the most recent Live Action video. I would ask you to reconsider your efforts here. You may also want to use the talk page since there was already a long discussion about balance relating past history. The section is not 2011 stings. It's all stings including the history.Mattnad (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're right Mattnad, I restored it but moved it so it doesn't look like the 2005 investigation was in response to the 2011 videos. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Also, I'm wondering whether we want work on expanding the Live Action article together. It's a bit.... underwhelming. It also seems to be competing with the Lila Rose article. Really, aren't they synonymous?Mattnad (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely, the article is in desperate need of expansion. Once we do that, we can work on Rose. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Also, I'm wondering whether we want work on expanding the Live Action article together. It's a bit.... underwhelming. It also seems to be competing with the Lila Rose article. Really, aren't they synonymous?Mattnad (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're right Mattnad, I restored it but moved it so it doesn't look like the 2005 investigation was in response to the 2011 videos. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
AFA
No worries. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
A.J.
Nice! Should she be added to Live A & PP ?Lionel (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Defense of Marriage Act, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A520 | Talk me away! 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Maine Question 1
*sigh* I hate articles that are named after specific legislative designations that change from year to year... (as I previously argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 4#HR 676)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1RR notice on Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute
Please revert yourself at Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute where you warred over the same wording twice in 24 hours. The article has been under general abortion-topic sanctions, restricting editors to 1RR since February 26, 2011. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a violation, but I'll revert for the sake of discussion. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Maine referendum
Please don't "move" articles by cutting and pasting. If an article cannot be moved, you must use the WP:RM process. Regardless, the article is already at the correct location (i.e. Maine same-sex marriage referendum, 2009, as this is the standard naming format for elections and referendums. Cheers, Number 57 22:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
Summarizing sources
In this edit you removed general information from the pro-life article. In your edit summary you wrote "Source doesn't say that". Did you read the source? It says that. Here we have the long version in the original source:
- "A sizable majority of pro-life groups work within the Republican Party, hoping to influence the selection of Supreme Court justices and to nominate and elect more Republicans to enact whatever legislation the Court will permit. Since 1980, when pro-life activists gained control of the Republican platform committee, Republican platforms have called for a human life amendment."[1]
Here is the short summary I wrote in the lead section:
- "The pro-life movement in the U.S. is composed largely of Republican Party members, and seeks to enact restrictive legislation such as a Human Life Amendment."
Later, in the article body, I wrote another summary, with slightly more detail:
- "That same year [1980], the pro-life movement gained control of the Republican Party's platform committee, adding pro-life planks to the Republican position, and calling for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning abortion."
If your problem is with the Republican part, there are a lot of sources which back it up:
- "Over time, Republicans have become more identified with the pro-life position and Democrats with the pro-choice position. Southern Republicans have gained more support as pro-lifers entering the electorate identify with the GOP."
- "...the pro-life movement is closely allied with the Republican Party."
- "...a large contingent of pro-lifers into Republican politics."
- "Almost by default, the Republican Party became home to pro-lifers, many of whom drifted into it from other parties."
- "Among the Two-Party groupings, the Republicans were the most pro-life..."
- "...the pro-life movement is closely allied with the Republican Party." Also: "Pro-life groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee, want a constitutional amendment banning all abortions."
What parts of my summaries are untrue to the source? Please be specific. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- None of those sources say that the movement is composed largely of Republicans. You could stretch them to say that, but that would be an unprovable generalization. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- If your opposition to the bit is simply about wording, how would you word it? Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would say that the Republican Party allies with the pro-life movement, not the other way around. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because the movement is independent of the party. The Republican platform says they are pro-life; there is no universal pro-life platform that says they are Republicans. There is a sizable group of pro-lifers who don't give a doggone about politics. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are also unrepentant pro-choice Republicans, in the spirit of pre-1980 Republicans who were more pro-choice than Democrats. "Pro-choice" satisfied the Libertarian streak of Republicanism, the group which did not want more laws restricting people's actions. I say pro-life forces allied with the Republican party because that is the formulation used by the reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because the movement is independent of the party. The Republican platform says they are pro-life; there is no universal pro-life platform that says they are Republicans. There is a sizable group of pro-lifers who don't give a doggone about politics. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would say that the Republican Party allies with the pro-life movement, not the other way around. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- If your opposition to the bit is simply about wording, how would you word it? Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- None of those sources say that the movement is composed largely of Republicans. You could stretch them to say that, but that would be an unprovable generalization. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Conservatism Collaboration
NYY I'd like to personally invite you to nominate an article for the first ever Conservatism Collaboration! I thought of you because on 2/15/11 you put Dan Benishek on the Todo list, later you listed National Right to Life Committee. Either of those would make a great nom. The Conservatism Collaboration is a phenomenal opportunity to meet other editors, learn new editing techniques and even enlist aid for some of your own projects. Nominate your article here. Lionel (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
SBA Museum
I'm puzzled by your removal of the information that the museum does not display the other quotes we discuss. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled too. I was thinking that since the sentence was written before we added the "rue the day" quote that I was updating it. I'll restore it, I didn't think anything of it. Sorry about that. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- No need to apologize - I just thought that there must be a reason for the removal of the information, and was interested in hearing what that reason was. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you sir!
Excellent userbox! --GBVrallyCI (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1RR violation on Susan B. Anthony List
You have broken the 1RR sanction on Susan B. Anthony List. I have filed an entry about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello NYyankees51,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
Regarding WP:SAY
You have used WP:SAY several times over several articles to put the word "say" in place of a stronger word. The guideline at SAY allows the stronger words when appropriate, such as when one side of a debate or dispute is composed of scholars and the other side has only lay researchers. In that case, the stronger word is merited; the truth of the point being made is stronger from the scholars than from the lay people. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose the latest statement wasn't really worth fighting over since nobody really disagrees that she didn't actively work against it, but I am tired of seeing stuff like "pro-lifers claim..." where the word claim really means "this is ridiculous", while "pro-choicers point out" where "point out" really means "this is the truth, believe it". And I'm not just talking about abortion articles, I'm talking about in general. Too often your intention when using these words to avoid at least seems to be to discredit the pro-lifers. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Because abortion articles are under 1RR restrictions, reverting twice on Susan B. Anthony List is a violation of our edit warring policy. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Instaurare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have always been confused about 1RR. I changed the wording of something and was reverted, so I reverted the reversion. That counts as two reversions? If I am in violation I'll accept the block, just seeking clarification on the policy for the future. Thanks!
Decline reason:
A simple visit to WP:EW was all that was needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 1 June 2011 (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.
- From WP:EW "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". Your first edit reversed recent actions of other editors through an edit, and was technically your first R. When you reverted someone's change, it became your second. Besides, you don't even need to break 1RR to be edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=My block expired a little while ago, but now I am blocked again because my IP was somehow autoblocked for longer than my username was blocked. It's set to expire in a couple hours so it's not a big deal if no one gets to this request, but I would like to do some editing if someone gets this in time. If there's something else going on please let me know. Thanks!}}
- Got it. There's a separate unblock template for autoblocks, so try to use that one next time, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, many thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Sanction Repeal
It may be time to seriously look into making a motion to repeal the abortion article sanctions completely. Their repeated use as an intimidation technique and as way of circumventing the BRD cycle has to end. Putting something together may be a good use of your time during your block. PeRshGo (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that you reverted at Susan B. Anthony List without discussing any new reasoning. The 1RR sanction is not the problem if even you do not follow WP:BRD as a guideline. Whether or not 1RR remains in place, BRD will. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- As did you, in fact the only difference between your actions and those of NYyankees51 is that you didn’t make the mistake of reverting twice in the same day. The problem removing the sanctions will solve is to help curtail the massive abuses of the administrator’s noticeboard going on. Sanctions shouldn’t be used as an intimidation tactic, and shouldn’t be used as often as possible in order to punish those who don’t share the same POV. A part of acting in good faith is not waiting for an editor you oppose to screw up in order to tattle and see them punished. PeRshGo (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything "massive" or abusive regarding AN/I. Also, I do not predict better behavior in abortion topics if all the parties are restored to 3RR. There will just be 3x the rate of reversions. Discussion is the key, not changing 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then why didn't you take this issue to discussion rather than edit war over it? Arzel (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. I guess I thought it was part of the discussion about scholars, whether we should say there was one or more than one scholar, whether the scholars should be acknowledged as a better source than lay researchers and activists, whether their input should be treated as truth because no scholar has opposed them. Certainly, I started a thread here yesterday to discuss the specific issue. Perhaps after NYyankees51 is unblocked I can move that discussion to the SBA List talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- This was of course on a user's talk page, after you had made your edits, and after you had already reported the user for "edit warring" to AN/I. Nothing builds consensus like “Hey I’m trying to get you blocked. By the way, what to talk about the issue?” PeRshGo (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, PeRshGo. The direct cause of the 1RR was the conduct of User:WikiManOne, who antagonized others such as myself and caused others to edit war. WikiMan, Haymaker, me, and a new user are the only people blocked under the rule. Now WikiMan is a sock, Haymaker hasn't been violated it in two months, I fully understand the rule, and the new user was new. I don't think it's needed anymore. Once it's not needed, it becomes a weapon in disputes. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty bold to declare 1RR not needed and that you "fully understand the rule" one day after you violate it. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- See the section above. I didn't understand the technicalities of it. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty bold to declare 1RR not needed and that you "fully understand the rule" one day after you violate it. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, PeRshGo. The direct cause of the 1RR was the conduct of User:WikiManOne, who antagonized others such as myself and caused others to edit war. WikiMan, Haymaker, me, and a new user are the only people blocked under the rule. Now WikiMan is a sock, Haymaker hasn't been violated it in two months, I fully understand the rule, and the new user was new. I don't think it's needed anymore. Once it's not needed, it becomes a weapon in disputes. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- This was of course on a user's talk page, after you had made your edits, and after you had already reported the user for "edit warring" to AN/I. Nothing builds consensus like “Hey I’m trying to get you blocked. By the way, what to talk about the issue?” PeRshGo (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. I guess I thought it was part of the discussion about scholars, whether we should say there was one or more than one scholar, whether the scholars should be acknowledged as a better source than lay researchers and activists, whether their input should be treated as truth because no scholar has opposed them. Certainly, I started a thread here yesterday to discuss the specific issue. Perhaps after NYyankees51 is unblocked I can move that discussion to the SBA List talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then why didn't you take this issue to discussion rather than edit war over it? Arzel (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything "massive" or abusive regarding AN/I. Also, I do not predict better behavior in abortion topics if all the parties are restored to 3RR. There will just be 3x the rate of reversions. Discussion is the key, not changing 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- As did you, in fact the only difference between your actions and those of NYyankees51 is that you didn’t make the mistake of reverting twice in the same day. The problem removing the sanctions will solve is to help curtail the massive abuses of the administrator’s noticeboard going on. Sanctions shouldn’t be used as an intimidation tactic, and shouldn’t be used as often as possible in order to punish those who don’t share the same POV. A part of acting in good faith is not waiting for an editor you oppose to screw up in order to tattle and see them punished. PeRshGo (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
DYK nom?
FYI this became DYK eligible here Lionel (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that so if you want to please do! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Tilting at windmills
Pro-Herman Cain userbox? Good luck with the campaign. Don't bet the farm. :/ Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. He comes across as very genuine, he's very articulate, and his message is resonating. Considering that Newt has imploded, Romney's going nowhere, and Huckabee's not running, the door is wide open. And that benefits Cain, Bachmann, etc. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Barring some major scandal or crisis, though, it's going to be difficult for any Republican to win the general in 2012. Cain might indeed win the primary (though then again, he might not, given the racism of a substantial section of the party), but losing the general is entirely likely to kill his future presidential hopes - the really serious challengers are thinking about '16.
- ...Although I was actually here to tell you that I'm working on your draft on SSM legislation. ;) Hopefully sooner or later it will be ready to put in mainspace. In the meantime, you/me/NatGertler/someone should check that all the information in the current version of the article is represented in the articles on individual statutes before we remove it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever racism once existed vanished at the time it vanished from the Democratic Party - Cain is the tea party favorite and he's placing towards the top in the polls. Yes, 2016 is going to be a very big year.
- Thanks for working on it, I haven't been able to do anything with it recently. I'll take a look at what you've done and hopefully I can get back on it soon and we can finish it off. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I wish it were true that racism was gone! Certainly there's less than there was, at least. But it's still alive and well in both parties, the Republican Party more than the Democratic, going based on the incident after incident from Tea Partiers and non-, and from polls like this one. It would be nice if Cain motivated white voters to change their racist views of black people - however, if he wins the primary, his campaign in the general is going to be seen (perhaps already is seen) as a ploy to win black voters from the Democratic Party, by assuming that they will vote for a black candidate rather than for a candidate who supports policies in the interests of black people. (I sometimes see people cite the percentage of blacks that voted for Obama, as if to prove that it was race-based voting, but Kerry, Gore, and Clinton had similar numbers.) Compare the Clarence Thomas nomination.
- I haven't yet saved the edit (it's largely aesthetic, combining a few of the redundant tables) but are you watching the subpage, or should I let you know when it's saved? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any political analyst who thinks that voters will leave their Democratic choice to vote for the black candidate would seem to be forgetting who the Democratic candidate will be.
- My time is tending to come in smaller chunks these days, fine for drive-by editing and kibbitzing, but I'm juggling too many work projects to do a big editing push on anything at the moment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry Nat, I'll keep a close eye on your LGBT articles for ya. My dream ticket: Palin+Bachmann! See Ros, I'm no sexist. You betcha. Lionel (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Palin-Bachmann is also the Demo's GOP dream ticket. :P
- Binksternet (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. It'll never happen, though. Even the Dems wouldn't run a ticket with two minorities on it, and they don't have the problems the Republican Party has with racism and sexism - this is regardless of whether either of them can actually get on the ticket independent of the other, which is also, to make an understatement, less than a given. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- That poll was forced stereotyping. And the party is not sexist either. I am watching the subpage so go ahead when you're ready. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what you mean by "forced stereotyping"? Obviously wording the poll the way they did is going to influence the responses - it's the power of suggestion, you'll get more people answering "I think black people are lazy" if you ask "do you think black people are lazy" than if you ask "what do you think of black people" - but I don't see anything that would have led greater numbers of Republicans to respond negatively and Democrats to answer positively, as opposed to the same skew in each group. I'll see if I can finish up the edit this evening! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Everybody was forced to answer whether they think an entire race is one adjective or another. That's forced stereotyping regardless of whether they respond positively or negatively. In any case, if your racism/sexism theory is true, then all the racists and sexists will vote for Tim Pawlenty as the nonoffensive white male Protestant (Romney is a Mormon, Gingrich has been divorced two or three times, Cain is black, Bachmann and Palin are women, Ron Paul is Ron Paul, and Santorum is Catholic. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what you mean by "forced stereotyping"? Obviously wording the poll the way they did is going to influence the responses - it's the power of suggestion, you'll get more people answering "I think black people are lazy" if you ask "do you think black people are lazy" than if you ask "what do you think of black people" - but I don't see anything that would have led greater numbers of Republicans to respond negatively and Democrats to answer positively, as opposed to the same skew in each group. I'll see if I can finish up the edit this evening! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- That poll was forced stereotyping. And the party is not sexist either. I am watching the subpage so go ahead when you're ready. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. It'll never happen, though. Even the Dems wouldn't run a ticket with two minorities on it, and they don't have the problems the Republican Party has with racism and sexism - this is regardless of whether either of them can actually get on the ticket independent of the other, which is also, to make an understatement, less than a given. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry Nat, I'll keep a close eye on your LGBT articles for ya. My dream ticket: Palin+Bachmann! See Ros, I'm no sexist. You betcha. Lionel (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Yank here. My response to that poll would have been to snort, insult the pollster, and walk away. And, how about them Red Sox? PhGustaf (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I like that reaction.
- Psh, it's only June...A couple years ago I think the Red Sox took the first nine games of the season and the Yankees took the last nine when it counts! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean about the poll. I think that, based on what you say, such a poll would have under-measured the amount of non-racists, exactly because, as you say, one doesn't lump all people of one race together. (To quote a wise fictional Catholic, "I have the greatest esteem for Jews, so far as anyone can speak of a heterogenous great body of men in such a meaningless, illiberal way.") However, this doesn't undermine my point, which was that racism is not over and that it's more prevalent among Republicans; I wouldn't cite that poll for its numbers, but rather for its demonstration of the existence and lesser-or-greater of racism. (As for the primary, people are willing to swallow their biases for the sake of their policies all the time, particularly if it lets them pretend they don't have those biases or if the candidate supports restrictive policies against their own group; witness Palin, among a host of others. I certainly wouldn't put money on Pawlenty winning! Nor on Cain losing. It'll be interesting to watch - though, as I said, 2016 and the lead-up will be the most interesting.) PhGustaf, now I'm very much wondering the percentage of non-respondents! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Racism is certainly not over, and it's certainly correlated with political conservatism, regardless of party. Until 1964 (which I'm old enough to remember) southern Democrats still hadn't forgiven Lincoln for freeing the slaves. After Johnson (who was a pretty good president except for that Viet Nam thing) pushed through civil rights legislation all those Democrats suddenly became Republicans, and their children did too. It's ludicrous to imagine that racism isn't still a prime motivator for many Republicans, especially the Tea Party loons. PhGustaf (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Give me a break. What a bunch of liberal BS. Arzel (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- "The Tea Party is not a racist movement, period! If it were, why would the straw polls keep showing that the black guy is winning? That's a rhetorical question. Let me state it: The black guy keeps winning." -- Herman Cain NYyankees51 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's more to racism than "will they vote for a black guy." The Republican ticket for president in the last election, for example, opposed legislation that would make it easier for women illegally denied equal pay to sue for that pay. It's an attempt to rectify the pay gap where a woman is paid less than a man for the exact same work - a practice prohibited by the Constitution - and which is part of the reason why poor people in the USA are disproportionately female. Is the sexism of this policy canceled out by the fact that one supports it by voting for a woman? Hardly. Would it also be sexist not to vote for her only because she's a woman? Yup, but there's more to sexism than that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- More liberal BS. They opposed legislation that would have no statute of limitations. The particualar lady related to that situation did get a raw deal, but the law which was proposed to resolve her situation will have unintended consequences that will make things worse for everyone. I liken the approach to Robocop. When they added thousands of directives on what he could or could not do he was a walking contridiction. Forced to protect everything, but unable to do anything, much like the liberal approach to government today. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the film, so your analogy is lost on me. What you're saying about the law is also flatly false, which is obvious if you'd bother to read about it - it didn't extend the statute of limitations indefinitely, rather, it made the statute of limitations relative to every violation of the Constitution rather than only to the first one, without changing in any way the duration of said statute of limitations (180 days). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I should have said no effective statute of limitations. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The statute of limitations resets back to zero for every new offense. This is not a radical concept - it's how statutes of limitations work. You're asking that offenses against women be treated more leniently than other offenses. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I should have said no effective statute of limitations. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the film, so your analogy is lost on me. What you're saying about the law is also flatly false, which is obvious if you'd bother to read about it - it didn't extend the statute of limitations indefinitely, rather, it made the statute of limitations relative to every violation of the Constitution rather than only to the first one, without changing in any way the duration of said statute of limitations (180 days). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- More liberal BS. They opposed legislation that would have no statute of limitations. The particualar lady related to that situation did get a raw deal, but the law which was proposed to resolve her situation will have unintended consequences that will make things worse for everyone. I liken the approach to Robocop. When they added thousands of directives on what he could or could not do he was a walking contridiction. Forced to protect everything, but unable to do anything, much like the liberal approach to government today. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's more to racism than "will they vote for a black guy." The Republican ticket for president in the last election, for example, opposed legislation that would make it easier for women illegally denied equal pay to sue for that pay. It's an attempt to rectify the pay gap where a woman is paid less than a man for the exact same work - a practice prohibited by the Constitution - and which is part of the reason why poor people in the USA are disproportionately female. Is the sexism of this policy canceled out by the fact that one supports it by voting for a woman? Hardly. Would it also be sexist not to vote for her only because she's a woman? Yup, but there's more to sexism than that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- "The Tea Party is not a racist movement, period! If it were, why would the straw polls keep showing that the black guy is winning? That's a rhetorical question. Let me state it: The black guy keeps winning." -- Herman Cain NYyankees51 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you've dropped the Herman Cain box. Was the debate last night unsatisfying? (I saved that edit, by the way, tell me what you think.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- He was the only one last night, aside from Ron Paul, to say gay marriage should be left up to the states as opposed to a federal constitutional amendment...That adds to my concern that he won't focus on social issues. I'm leaning towards Bachmann as of right now, but Rick Perry could change things. The edit looks great. Do you think we can add the margins by which the referenda passed? It's not a huge deal, but I find it very interesting to see how the margins vary by region, i.e. barely passing in CA and parts of the north and landslides in the South and Midwest. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- What people say in debates is always going to be a political decision, though, and doesn't necessarily reflect what their priorities will be in office. Cain presumably thinks that registered Republicans want to hear about the economy. (Which would probably help him among independents in the general, but I don't know about among Republicans - after all, the House made anti-abortion laws their priority upon taking over - though then again perhaps Republican voters are discontented with the failure to address economic problems.) What he says presumably represents his actual positions (ie. he probably won't push for a federal amendment, having said he wouldn't), but the weight given to the various issues might be different in the campaign and in office (ie. he might soft-pedal abortion during the campaign but go all-out for anti-abortion laws in office).
- I don't think it's necessary to add the margins in an overview of current state-by-state status, since List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type exists and could be linked. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- You make good points. I'm just a little uncertain because I heard him speak last week at the Faith and Freedom Conference and he only made two or three passing references to life and marriage while Huntsman, Pawlenty, and Bachmann made strong life and marriage-focused speeches.
- I'll take a look at that page. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it's possible that he's being forward-thinking and trying to limit his focus on social policy for the general; though - you yourself are a prime example - it might hurt him among Republicans such that he never makes it to the general. Primaries are fascinating that way - see Sestak and Specter in Pennsylvania, Perry and Hutchinson in Texas... (And primary campaigns are such interesting creatures - because you want to slag off your opponents enough that you win the nomination, but not so much that you damage them in the general election if they beat you. Are you speculating yet on who will drop out first?) Heh, I don't even have to think about anything in this election cycle.
- Yeah...I'm always worried that there's lurking redundancy that I can't see to correct. But that page exists and is well-formatted and everything, so it's not necessary to repeat the information. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- When Sarah is elected she can bring Pam Bondi on board as Attorney General.
Discussion at Talk:Charmaine Yoest
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Charmaine Yoest. Lionel (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}}) Lionel (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Faith and Freedom Coalition
On 20 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Faith and Freedom Coalition, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Faith and Freedom Coalition was founded by Ralph Reed as "a 21st century version of the Christian Coalition"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Abortion lede
I invite you to take a look at abortion.71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey did you know...?
Same-sex marriage is now legal in New York state, and that fact must be mentioned 15 places in each SSM-related article! Apparently, the editors of Wikipedia forgot to do that! ;) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry Nat, I'm on top of it. I've got this NY thing under control--you can count on me. You can go back to real-life. You haven't forgotten I'm watching your lgbt articles for you... – Lionel (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Bachmann Campaign
Glad to see that we could come to an agreement without any edit warring on the Bachmann Campaign page. Thanks! --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, sorry about the confusion with the edit conflicts. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Abby Johnson (activist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Notable only for publishing a non-notable book.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PhGustaf (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Abby Johnson (activist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abby Johnson (activist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Johnson (activist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PhGustaf (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
John Lennon
Have you not heard of bold/revert/discuss? I clearly didn't revert your addition of this information because I don't believe it but because--as I stated in the edit summary--that it is WP:UNDUE. Yes, this is a dubious bit of fluff making the rounds right now but it doesn't belong in the article because of its exaggerated significance. Since I reverted your edit, the civil thing to do would have been to initiate a discussion on the talk page rather than simply reverting. As the person who has added the contested information, the onus is on you to justify its inclusion. Please discuss it on the talk page. freshacconci talktalk 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Quick question
NYY, some of Bello's pals and I were reminiscing at my talk, and I remembered a hilarious incident where you and WikiManOne got into it at an abortion article. He said he was pro-life when it came to animals, and you wrote back that he preferred killing babies or something like that. Do you recall which article? Or better--have a diff? Thanks – Lionel (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's at the bottom of this subsection. [2] NYyankees51 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh man I cracked up allover again. The best off the cuff retort on wiki ever! Thanks!– Lionel (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
FYI - I have removed the uncivil comments you posted where you told me that I "don't have a clue" and that I should "shut up and go find something better to do". They were quite uncalled for, and I think you should make a sincere effort to be more civil and remain calm in the future. —SW— spill the beans 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Jewish one-state solution
Hi. I see you are a supporter of Israel.
Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEeiDjdUuU
It is not exactly serious (the one-state proposal is satire), but it is funny and makes some good points. (this has little to do with Wikipedia, but I wanted to show you) Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response, I messed up my talk page so I couldn't see this. I've seen that - it's a great one, hopefully more people will see it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Abortion page protection
I don't know how I didn't notice your report when I filed mine. :O Sigh... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, no problem. And thanks for fixing the section collapse. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, NYyankees51,
but, you may be inviting a seemingly interminable retribution on yourself (I call it logorrhea [3]). Don't forget to duck! --Kenatipo speak! 22:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I always forget if you like people to use these or not - I know you leave them when you reply to people, but I don't know if you prefer to receive them or not. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The worse offense
Relativism, overpopulation myth fail |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In discussions it is far worse to shut someone up by deleting what they say, than to shut someone up by proving what they do say isn't worth saying. The former is an act of cowardice, practiced by book-burners throughout history, who were afraid that a differing opinion would result in less control over other people. Truth always hurts liars and the deluded, but only those groups. Honorable people have nothing to fear from Truth. If you believe that a "pro-life" stand incorporates more Truth than a pro-abortion-rights stand, then you should be able to back it up in a Debate. If you can't back it up, then your so-called "truths" aren't necessarily what you think they are --that's a real Truth. You've thrown down the gauntlet by, apparently, not wanting others to see my willingness to directly Debate any "pro-lifer" into a kind of speechlessness on that topic (because just about anything you say can be used against you). Do you have the integrity to follow through? We shall see! V (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Newsflash! Someone else --an astrophysicist-- has followed in Asimov's footsteps, writing a blog titled "Do the Math". ( http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ ) and ( http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/ ) Even if population does not increase, there are Genuine Physical Limits to how much certain other things can be increased. Enjoy! V (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Below, you stated that you are unable to argue the finer points about overpopulation. Does this mean you are willing to never again say that "overpopulation is a myth", as if the statement was something you could back up with evidence? And, if you still cannot accept the idea that overpopulation is a Real Threat to the future of humanity, what evidence can you offer, to support a refusal to accept that idea? Thanks in advance! V (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Person subsectionHonestly, I don't know enough about overpopulation to argue the finer points with you. Can I ask whether or not you deny that the unborn child is a human person? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Religion/Responsibility subsectionMost scientists would say that life begins well before conception. However, that only barely scratches the surface on the subject of abortion. Here's a fascinating article on the subject by Druyan and her late husband, Sagan, titled "Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?" -- AzureCitizen (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It's been a while since you last posted to this Debate. Did I really post a "taunt" when I indicated on the mediation page that I was willing to render speechless any other pro-lifer? Or was I stating a Truth? No matter. I'm utterly confident that there is exactly one valid argument that pro-lifers can raise to oppose elective abortions. But that argument depends on the total population of humanity being so small it risks extinction if the gene pool isn't kept shuffling. Nothing like that has been true for about 75,000 years (see Toba catastrophe theory), so that particular argument is irrelevant to today's world. All other anti-abortion arguments are inherently invalid, because they are all based on faulty data --such as the unproved claim that an unborn human qualifies as a "person"-- at the very least.
|
Hey, Yankees!
Are you having fun yet? Hang in there, ol' buddy! --Kenatipo speak! 14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ranting and raving |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Edit warring at Pro-life movement
Do not put disputed text back into the article at Pro-life movement without gaining a consensus for its inclusion. You have not participated in discussion so your actions are tendentious and disruptive, and you may be blocked as a result.
There is no consensus for including the text about the man convicted of making threats, appended to the other descriptions of actual murders. The bit is undue emphasis on something that is not as important. At any rate, stop edit warring and start trying to form a consensus for inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by October 18, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
"Dignity" and Abortion
It should be pretty trivial to source this; could you please do so (and link Tiller as well)? NW (Talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)