This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mathglot. 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.
I make a clear distinction between sardonic and sarcastic humor. Failing to disguise (or to recognize) the former embarrasses me in a self-effacing way; stooping to the latter is a shame I strive to avoid. My nose never gets out of joint when I'm the target of either. Thanks for reminding me that not everyone feels the same. Anyway, "Sex is (fill in the blank)." Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk)08:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kent, I walk a fine line sometimes, trying to support your work on language in the right venue, while sometimes pointing out where your passion leads to enthusiastic alternative views which might be completely accurate, but perhaps not entirely on-topic for some non-linguistic corner of the encyclopedia. I hope you don't take it personally (it doesn't seem like you do) because I value your contributions, they make me think. I know I can go on and on about certain topics, and you're welcome to chide me if I go overboard or digress too much on some article or other; I have certain topics that I can wax eloquent about, and never stop. Thanks for keeping us all tending towards accuracy in communication, especially when clarity and the point of view of a reader coming cold to an article is concerned. I always try to think, "How are we going to phrase this, so that a second-year high school student, or even a smart middle school kid can gain maximum benefit from it?" It's when pondering that question, that I realize that sometimes my advocacy in discussions over single words like division, characteristic, attribute, type of, or whatever, really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Which isn't to say that they aren't worth having; it's just about maintaining perspective, and keeping our eye on the essentials.
Being a logophile myself (and not only in English), I actually think it's worth my time to think and write about individual words in articles, and engage in Talk page discussions about them, probably way beyond what is "due" for the topic; but it's just something I enjoy. It's kind of a treat for me, to encounter someone that is perhaps even further along that axis than I am. Which means that you and I are in danger of meeting up in some discussion somewhere, and going on and on about the use of the in some sentence for a few days or a week, while the rest of the world rolls their eyes at us. So, if you'll keep me honest by reminding/chiding/teasing me when needed, I'll do the same for you! Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot, that's all good. And I think that's the second time you've (or maybe it was someone else?) implied I'm a logophile and the second time I've cringed. I hardly consider myself in that light. I just try to look at text from perspectives that contrast my first and second glances to see if the meaning holds up. It doesn't matter whether I authored it or not. I get more dismayed by editors who overlook defects in my drafts than those who allege errors due to their own lack of expertise. Or lack of circumspection. Sometimes my own interpretations, regardless of moments of certainty, are subject to change based on subsequent enlightenment, improved memory, or lexical extension. Through it all I admit taking an uncharacteristically axiomatic approach.
Case in point: Today I decided that one sense among my definitions for "fence" should be changed from "... separates adjoining areas..." to "... separates adjacent areas..." A big deal? Not for most people. But for anyone tracking the relevant hyperlinks, the sense given for "adjoining" would have to be construed in a tenuous way when applied to the sense given for "fence." The cleanup (i.e. re-encoding all of the affected hyperlinks entailed in changing one word) ate up all of six hours. Fun? No. A labor of love? Hardly. Painstakingly OCD-induced? Well, I'll put it like this: The ego in me sees my work in the way I imagine Michael Jordan approached basketball drills; the way Mozart practiced scales; the way Kurt Gödel recited math equations to make sure they were at his fingertips. When I'm done, I hope people will herald the work's utility, not the nuts and bolts of it. You might be the minority of one who asks, "Kent, how did you do that?" My short answer: "You don't want to know." Your reply to the long answer: "I wish I hadn't asked."
When I go off about semantic stuff to make a substantive point on the Wikipedia talk pages I can see people's eyes glazing over. The poor CycoMas of this site (and apparently sometimes you) think I'm off on a tangent. Not so. Instead, I admit trying to see how readily editors here can grasp the semantic import of certain text by reading it in uncustomary ways. CycoMa thinks I'm pushing a particular POV. Another editor said my explanations smack of "turgid, turbid, awkward writing." So far, only one editor here, plus one at Wiktionary, have baited me into bona fide digressions.
Truth be told: I do pity those editors who never catch the barbed ends of my jabs at lexical incompetence more than I feel for those who feel stung and then cavil, piss, and moan. And I regularly question whether the back-and-forth stuff is worth the effort - especially since nothing productive ever comes of it. Old man that I am, there still are times I need to remind myself to grow up. --Kent Dominic·(talk)10:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
My new hero
I enjoyed reading every word of what you posted about soapboxing for CycoMa's benefit. Thoughtful, incisive, and articulate. Semantically clear and stylistically unassailable. Why can't you write like that in your edits? (Sorry I don't know where the cheeky-winking emoticon files are stored here.) Your pearls of wisdom just might help him to avoid a meltdown.
Speaking of wisdom, I hope most everyone takes special note of this: "It doesn't matter if some term used by sources is just obviously straight up a misnomer." I remind myself of that each time I use terms like:
relative pronoun
relative clause
restrictive relative clause
nonrestrictive relative clause
reduced relative clause
subordinate clause
past/present participle
copula/linking verb
subject complement (as dishonorable mention since I hijacked the term itself for use in a way that conflicts with how it's traditionally construed)
If my axiomatic terms to the contrary ever gain popularity, I'm bracing to get trolled by someone who associates me IRL to certain posts here and to edits like this one, regarding the etymology of "past participle" and "present participle" in English usage. How would I dare expound the etymology of terms that I'm loathe to use? Answer: My lexicon has entries and definitions for such naïve terms with Cf. hyperlinks to terms that are cross-linguistically more efficacious.
Anyway, I hope you've saved CycoMa some grief. Keep up the good work, and I'll try to do the same. Here's sneak peak at the "sex" entry in my lexicon:
sex
noun –
1. activity relating to genital contact or stimulation via intimate interaction between individuals; Examples: (a) “Tae Sung, how old were you when you first had sex?” Deborah asked. T.S. winced at the question. “Sorry. “How old were you when you first had sex with a girl?” she asked; (b) “When’s the last time you had sex involving another person?” she asked in a slightly more adversarial tone; (c) “For the record, Your Honor,” T.S. replied emphatically, “the last time I had sex with anyone other than myself happened six-and-a-half years ago. With you.”
2. a classification of individuals within certain species, including humans, according to characteristics pertaining to organisms that typically have two X chromosomes versus characteristics pertaining to organisms that typically have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome; Examples:See –
female
male
Yes, each of those words are hyperlinked in the source material. X chromosome and Y chromosome are hyperlinked to the respective Wikipedia articles, so please don't encourage anyone (*ahem*) to mess with the definitions there. And yes, I do obsess over whether the first sense should be left as "between" or expanded to "between or among." Ultimately, the context relates to a specific couple, not to a Caligula-type mise en scene, so I remind myself that I've written a lexicon as a glossary, not a dictionary.
These days I'm not so much writing as much as I'm just encoding hypertext and inserting relevant screen tips for the 500,000 words in the textbook. My true passion relates to my novel, which forms the basis of the items quoted in the examples. The grammatical stuff is all boilerplate for that overriding interest. Indeed, I really had hoped to crosslink my second sense of my "sex" entry to Wikipedia rather than write my own definition. I suspect poor CycoMa would never understand how my lexicon's inclusion of "classification" demonstrates that I have no particular bias favoring "attribute." (I.e. "attribute" merely reflects the manner in which "sex" is employed throughout the majority of the Wikipedia article but doesn't accord with my textbook's use of the term.)
Club me over the head for the distinction between "classification" and "division." Does it truly matter? Only if you're the one who has to spend 14 hours re-encoding 1,000 hyperlinked items of text.
Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk)04:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
P.S. If you're uppermost among editors, you'll have noticed that when T.S. said, "The last time I had sex with anyone other than myself..." entails his use of the word "sex" in a way that conflicts with the "between individuals" sense as defined. That conflict represents intentional mischief. Meaning, I take responsibility for the definition's sufficiency but I draw a bright line between what I (Kent) would say apart from the text and what a character (T.S.) says on his own accord within the text. Moreover, I think it's funny for anyone who wants debate whether masturbation constitutes sex. Let's ask CycoMa. Ha! --Kent Dominic·(talk)04:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
One last thing: It's been so long that I worked on the whole "sex" thing for my own purposes that I just now recalled how the pop-up screen tip for the "(biological) sex" hypertext in my lexicon says only this: "sex (noun) - a classification of individuals within certain species, including humans, according to female characteristics versus male characteristics." My original research restatement. Shh - please don't tell CycoMa that my lexicon involves nominal rather than attributive use of the word. --Kent Dominic·(talk)04:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry to ask this again but I need your input, if a category such as State and local socialist parties in the United States does not have any subcategories for Eco-Socialism and Social Democracy is it right to remove them even though they are socialist parties? Bvcitizen (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bvcitizen: First, I'm not that well versed on subcategories, and your question would have a better audience at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Secondly, from the way you phrased your question, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. What is the them referring to, in the expression, is it right to remove them? Are you talking about removing articles that are currently categorized in Category:State and local socialist parties in the United States, that might be better categorized in a subcategory, if only the right subcat existed? No need to respond to this question here, as I likely wouldn't be able to help regardless; just think about it, so you can maybe rephrase your original question in a way that is unambiguous, before posing the question at WT:CAT where folks can better help you. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Mathglot. During the second draft of my 367,000-word novel, I developed some semantic algorithms that I applied to the characters’ speech to ensure that they didn’t all wind up talking like one another or, even worse, like me. Just for fun, I dug up that algorithm and applied it to the edit summaries and talk page discussion for sex. I suspected CycoMa would grade the lowest, but Crossroads beat him to the bottom. Some samples:
“There was nothing wrong with the sentence, ‘Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex.’” – Crossroads, 06:39, 27 March 2021
“‘Sex relates to’ is in violation of WP:REFERSTO.” – Crossroads, 20:21, 27 March 2021
["Sex is a male or female attribute in organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." I think 'attribute' is better than 'characteristic' based on the etymology of the terms. Mathglot? Crossroads? Newimpartial? Anyone else?" -Kent Dominic, 10:05, 28 March 2021] “None of the sources define sex as an ‘attribute.’ And then people might read that and think it means a particular male or female attribute. What we should look for is what dictionaries of biology or encyclopedias of biology say and how they define the term. – Crossroads, 04:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
“Try ‘attribute.’ [E.g.] ‘Sex is the attribute of male or female in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction.’” - Crossroads, 17:57, 30 March 2021
"‘Sex is a male or female attribute’ makes no sense and sounds like some other attribute is being described. [‘Sex is the attribute of male or female’] is fine because it is the attribute ‘in’ organisms.” – Crossroads, 03:06, 12 April 2021
“‘Sex is a male or female attribute’ is syntactically discombobulated. Stop WP:Edit warring over this.’” - Crossroads, 03:28, 12 April 2021
"‘Sex is a male or female attribute’ makes no grammatical sense. Supposedly the pre-existing ['Sex is the attribute of male or female'] violated some rule of grammar, although it is not clear to me what it is. Sex is the attribute of male or female. That attribute is in the organism, etc.’” – Crossroads, 03:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The outliers include Crossroads’ irrealis use of “might” in the third quote and imperative use of “should” and “try” in the third and fourth quotes. Everything else is uttered as stative or indicative matters of fact. In law, we say such non-evidentiary statements are “conclusory.” In logic, they’re ipse dixits. On Crossroads’ behalf, I should point out the growth in stance from (apparently) rejecting “attribute” in statement 3 to embracing it in statement 4. From a strictly vocab POV, he still grades low in recognizing the various meanings of what “attribute” entails.
I was a bit surprised that Crossroads proffered the “Sex is a trait…” phrasing given his initial objection – on source grounds – to “Sex is an attribute…” That's what made me apply the semantics algorithm to ALL of his remarks to find there’s no continuity regarding much of the logic underlying his various statements.
In the end, I hope he’s happy. Please don’t tell him he did a 180-turn regarding his view of what “sex” means re. its attributive versus nominal definition. I’ve got the feeling that if he realizes he ultimately advocated the very idea that I initially suggested (rather than believing the current definition was his brainchild), he might renege on his support for the consensus.
Speaking of "renege..." If indeed you consider yourself a logophile, please join me when I mount a rebuttal to the cancel culture's attempt to eradicate the word, echoing the same grounds used when they railed against "niggardly some 20 years ago." --Kent Dominic·(talk)04:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Kent, some of those attempts are probably doomed, unfortunately. I remember the niggardly controversy back when, which I found cringeworthy. I figured that one was a lost cause. There's a word for a shift in usage, roughly rendering the "bad meaning drives out the good" concept, but I can't remember it now. Maybe you know what it is. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Flunked your quiz. My test for today: linguistic analysis of the word, "gob-so-smacking-lutely." In the toolbox:
Poor Kelly, the woman who translated the novel from English to Korean. According to her, there's no Korean language equivalent for that neologism. I told her to make one up. Unlike Wikipedia, fiction thrives on imaginative OR. --Kent Dominic·(talk)13:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Kent, actually, Steve Pinker (pretty sure it was him) did an analysis of ab-so-effing-lutely, and a whole round of similar insertions on linguistic principles, and even analyzed why it cannot possibly be ab-effing-so-lutely. If I can find it, I'll link it for you.
Btw, I cringe sometimes, when you mention other users in a way they might either not like, or at least wish to be able to respond to. And I know your "Don't tell User:Example, but.." is tongue in cheek since the whole internet can read this, but it still comes across a bit U and non-U, and I want everyone to feel welcome here. I'm not saying you can't say whatever you want here, exactly, but don't forget AGF, and also there's a guideline or recommendation somewhere that calls for linking a username when mentioning them for the first time in a discussion. Then too, editor C's TP is usually not the right place for editors A and B to talk something out. Anyway, it's all good, but just be kind.
I'd welcome whatever you might find re. the above, but I finished my own analysis of gob-so-smacking-lutely last night. And I'll respect whatever parameters you prefer here. I suspect, however, that the non-U and non-Me editors would care little and understand less about all the grammatical, semantic, linguistic, and textual analysis that I spout. With a belated shoutout to Crossroads, I always welcome a sound refutation of my observations, and I value feedback that demonstrates flaws in my reasoning more than I solicit echo chamber agreement. My conclusions are always subject to change. So too is my reliance on premises that are shown to be invalid.
So far, in my experience here, you're the only other editor with the background and interest to recognize the six shades of semantic import underlying the ton of words that fly around the talk pages, edits, and edit summaries. (My jaw would have dropped to the floor if Crossroads had spontaneously pointed out that my 26 March 2021 edit for sex should have said "by" rather than "into" as a reason for reversion. Too late, Crossroads: I have only myself, not you, to thank for that bit of embarrassment I endured in private with nary a well deserved talk page nor edit summary dress-down. Indeed, your reversion highlighted "categorized" and "characteristics" as deficient when, in hindsight, "into" was the culprit.) Nevertheless, I know I risk boring even you, Mathglot, with all my semantic spiel here and elsewhere. And let me say this: I don't feel any amount of disrespect when the spiel is outright ignored, as is typically the case with Crossroads, or when my stuff goes un-replied. Or unread and deleted. Certain editors would benefit by doing more of that. --Kent Dominic·(talk)23:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I just read the Steve Pinker article. He and I are on the same page, but I have this niggling observation: True enough, the "fucking" in "fucking brilliant" would be an adverb if categorized under a traditional part of speech. In my lexicon, it's an adverbial continuative participle. (I shun the use of present participle.) And I use lexical category, not part of speech. So, the the "fucking" in "fucking brilliant" constitutes any of the following:
adverb (as traditionally given)
adverbial continuative participle
expletive
interjection
filler (perhaps; depends on Bono's intent and prosody)
obscenity (my call as of today, ask me again next week)
vulgarity (i.e. not for use in the presence of Her Majesty)
@CycoMa:, Basically, it has to do with the core difference between gender identity and gender expression, which are elementary concepts of gender. David Reimer was always a boy, although he didn't look like one growing up because of the surgery and feminizing hormones he was given per Money's "twins experiment", and wasn't dressed like one, because his parents dressed him and treated him as a girl at Money's direction, because they believed Dr. Money. Even with no penis, and feminizing surgery, and female hormones, and girl's clothing and everybody treating him like a girl, he always knew something was wrong but as a child, couldn't articulate it. The minute the truth became known to him, he immediately went back to being a boy outwardly, changed his name back to male, and demanded to be treated as a boy. The point is, he was always a boy, and even a vulva, breasts, female name, and girl's clothing could not change his inner feeling of who he was; that's how powerful his male gender identity was. He never had a female gender identity; he merely had female methods of expression forced on him, but he was never comfortable with it. Discovering the truth of his surgery, and "treatment", merely confirmed the male identity he was born with, and that even years of being treated as girl forced on him could not alter. What he changed, was only his outward presentation: the clothes he wore, hair, and so on became masculine, instead of feminine. His gender identity remained what it always was: "boy". Makes sense, now? Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment
Hi! You asked a question at Talk:Bharat#Requested move 2 May 2021 – sorry for getting back so late. The short answer is: no, I don't have any particular process that I follow. In that case, I was proceeding mostly from my involvement in the topic area, and the data I looked at was mostly just the one I presented in the nomination. I also took account of the pageviews though – they're never determinative, but are very easy to access and can often provide useful initial hints. My two rules of thumb for pageviews are: 1) if X is an article with a hatnote linking to X (disambiguation), then it probably shouldn't be a primary topic if it gets less than 10x the views of the dab page; 2) If Y is a redirect to X, with a similar hatnote to Y (disambiguation), then there's usually no primary topic for "Y" unless the dab page gets less than half of the views of the redirect.
Please search for any currently relevant names in this list. I make this list, and recently added a feature to hide the top 100 rankings to avoid unhealthy article creation habits by some editors trying to be #1, as discussed on the list talk page Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count#Top_100_protected in particular the insights/research done by user FOARP. -- GreenC18:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
What makes you think I’m a gender essentialist?
Hey I remember in a earlier discussion you said something along the lines of what I was saying was a ge dear essentialist point of view.
Just to make sure you are aware I don’t really care about the sociological side of sex or gender. I only do research on ten biological side of it. CycoMa (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@CycoMa:, I don't recall what you are referring to; if you can link to it, I can respond better. But if your first sentence is correct, then I'm not attributing any point of view to you; that first sentence is saying that an assertion of yours matches a gender essentialist PoV, if that's what went down; it doesn't mean you are. So, in that case, the answer to your question is, "Nothing." That is, nothing makes me think you're a gender essentialist. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Right, and I said, "...I can't imagine that's what you were implying." That was an open-ended invitation for you to clarify what you were trying to say, because your comment came off like a gender essentialist position, and I assumed you were of the diametrically opposite opinion. If I was confused about what you were saying, probably other people were too, and I thought you would want to know. Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I think I should have said was that the reason for the separation was mostly for sociological or societal reasons. Saying it was for political was honestly came off as negative on my part.
I do understand a little bit why sex and gender are two different things. But, at the same time it’s hard for me to understand.
Also do forgive me if I can off as confusing, I was confused at the time and I get confused a lot to be honest
I am commenting this down because I was honestly a little worried you assumed I was some kind of misogynist.CycoMa (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@CycoMa:, don't worry, it's not a problem. And you don't have to apologize (although it's kind to do so if you think you made a mistake, but I don't think you have anything to apologize for here), and in particular, no need to worry about what I think, either. It's not like I'm an admin or something (and even if I were, I'd be a nice one; .) Hey, we're all human; I know I can be confusing sometimes, in spades. Take care! Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
IP 2600, Excellent job finding these two; do you mind telling me what tipped you off? Also, how did you know to find me? Your quick work in finding these, makes it easier to deal with via undos and rollbacks, before their edits get buried in other, valid edits by other users. So, big thanks for this! Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lotje: Yes – be sure and ping me in case you have any issues rescuing the dead links. Archive.org is the best place to start looking for them. Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Only me again... from your userpage I take it you are a native speaker of the English language. Wondering if "prounciation" is or was an English word, or just another typo. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am. To my knowledge, prounciation is not, and has never been a word in English, just a typo. You can check Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) which doesn't have it, or other dictionaries, and I think you'll find the same thing. Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lotje:, that's what's called a WP:BAREURL, and it's unfortunate, because had they included a title from the original page, it would've perhaps been possible to find it at the internet archive, but with only a dead url, which is marked "fix attempted" since 2017, it's harder. You can try other archiving sites, like archive.is, wikiwix, archive.today, and so on. I finally found a copy of it, and added it to the article. When writing citations, please be sure to always add at least a title along with the url, it makes it much easier to find again if the url goes dead. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
hi! I'm a bit surprised that you decided to take my edits down because I thought I researched that topic in depth and really contributed and expanded the section as I believe it was lacking in important details. I'm also not sure about the citations that you thought were irrelevant as I really put effort into finding scientific peer reviewed articles on the topic - I would appreciate your input and advice on that. Cosmetic interventions are my passion as I have done quite a lot of them myself and hence my interest in them and desire to contribute to either lack of information, incomplete information or erroneous information. I will much appreciate your feedback/response on the items above. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautydepot (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You reverted my edit of the word "superficial" in the article "Gender Identity" stating that there were no sources. The article currently reads as if sex reassignment surgery alters the biological processes of the human body such that biological sex factors are reformatted via this purely cosmetic surgical procedure. The article Sex Reassignment Surgery refers to the surgery as "altering to resemble" the other sex. Note the distinction between "alter to resemble" and "reassign." An alteration only to resemblance is what is called a "superficial" alteration. Perhaps there is a language barrier between us as you are obviously a polyglot and my edit is self-evident, universally-accepted information that is clearly stated in the intro to the Sex Reassignment Surgery article that you also heavily manage. If not, why don't you edit the Sex Reassignment Surgery article to state that "their existing sexual characteristics are altered to resemble those socially associated with their identified gender" to be consistent with the patently-false assertion that the reassignment of sex characteristics is not exclusively superficial? I edited the Gender Identity page to convey the same factual information that is present in the header for Sex Reassignment Surgery, and you edited it to contradict said factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your discussion above about why your content should be acceptable at Gender identity, I appreciate your comments, but this is the wrong place for it. The correct place is at Talk:Gender identity, and you're more than welcome to copy these comments there, if you wish, or to start a new discussion there, if you aren't already in the process of doing so. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The Iron Heel
Hello Mathglot, on May 26 I added information to the The Iron Heel page on Wikipedia about a theatrical adaptation of The Iron Heel that had a 3-week run at Pulitzer Prize-winning Theater for the New City in New York City from September 24 - October 11, 2009. I just noticed that you removed my contribution the following day, May 27. Can you let me know your reason for doing so and what I can do to restore this relevant history to the page? Many thanks! 72.69.161.2 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, Mathglot. I have reviewed the information you sent about citing sources, and I am still wondering what would be considered acceptable source material for an ephemeral theatrical production. Of course, people can contact Theater for the New City (TNC) in New York to verify that the production had a full 3-week run. The production was listed in 2009 on TNC's website, which is constantly updated. The writer/director of the production was interviewed on several NYC radio shows, including 3 distinct programs on WBAI Radio in New York. The process of creating the production and the production itself were extensively documented with photographs by prominent German-U.S. photographer Marlis Momber. These photographs have been available for for the public to view in online websites since 2009. The performance was also documented with a full-length video recording made by NY-based filmmaker, Charles Krezell. In the weeks leading up to the production dates, write-ups were featured in many printed and online news formats including the Villager newspaper and Broadway World, where the September 24 - October 11, 2009, production dates are clearly listed. The production was listed in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, the Columbia University Alumni calendar, and other printed and online publications throughout the 3-week run of the show. Performances were attended by Jack London scholars from across the country, who participated in post-show conferences at Theater for the New City. One of these conferences was video recorded. The production was well documented on social media and generated extensive commentary and dialogue from attendees. It united theater artists and Jack London admirers and also appealed to community people who are traditionally underrepresented by the theater. It remained faithful to Jack London's vision while contributing a new view on the material with lyric language and innovative performance techniques, as well as 20 new songs inspired by London's text. Songs and excerpts from the production are periodically performed at public events, including Theater for the New City's 26th annual Lower East Side Festival of the Arts, which took place this past weekend and was announced in the mainstream media in NYC.
Theater for the New City's 2009 NYC production of THE IRON HEEL predates the Untitled Theater Company's 2016 NYC production, which is listed in the Adaptations section of Wikipedia's page on THE IRON HEEL. While the Untitled Company's 2016 production does not feature original songs, it recalls specific production choices of Theater for the New City's earlier (2009) production in many significant ways. Additionally, the 2009 production (performed in TNC's largest theater space on a set designed for the production) included theater professionals affiliated with and known to the director of Untitled's 2016 production (an itinerant production performed on a smaller scale in site-specific meeting halls or in audio form). Both the 2009 and 2016 productions received a Puffin Foundation Grant.
TNC's 2009 production had been in the works since the mid 1980s. The Prologue and a draft of the script were written in 1984. In a phone conversation in 1986 the writer/director was gratified to receive assurance from Milo Shepard, a relative of Jack London and guardian of his legacy, that THE IRON HEEL was in the public domain and she was free to adapt and perform it as she chose.
Please let me know, if you can, what documentation would be acceptable for the influential 2009 work to take its place among the adaptations in Wikipedia's page on THE IRON HEEL. 72.69.161.2 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear Mathglot, is there a response to my 5/31/21 followup inquiry (above) about the 2009 production of THE IRON HEEL? Please let me know. Thank you. 72.69.161.2 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote for you in spanish, cause you are mexican right ? (at least, that the info on your personal info). Do you need i write for u in english language ? Not problem. Now, Could you explain me why did you reversed the changes that i did in Cuba article, specifically in the "Media" section ? Its just an actualization in a section with a lot of old information (and misinformation also, specially citing sources well known by his attacks against Cuba ) and I put cuban websites as a proof of the lies about the sell of computers in Cuba. How could I DELETE that lies ?. By the way, Im working in Wikipedia since years ago, and for example, the articles about cuban military, or the cuban special forces, were started by me. Thanks by your messages, and the technical details. In the next hours I will add new content to the music section, were "Celia Cruz" o "Gloria Estefan" are cited, although they ARE NOT the most representatives figures of the cuban music. Because, for example, Gloria Estefan NEVER made career on Cuba and Celia Cruz left Cuba 60 years ago. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianCubano (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
AdrianCubano, I'm not Mexican, and that is not on my personal info; perhaps you have me confused with someone else. The reason to write in English is because this is English Wikipedia, and writing in Spanish might exclude others who might wish to participate in the conversation. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for my edit removing the hidden comments you added. I did not realize until now that you has just added them to help you in the process of adding in-line refs. I hope I didn't screw things up for you too much. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@CycoMa:, no worries/nothing to apologize for; I know you're here to improve the encyclopedia, so we're both after the same thing. Mathglot (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Capitalization of book titles
Hi Mathglot, I saw you reverted some of my edits with the edit summary "Please don't change the capitalization of titles, if they use sentence case and not title case." I've been following MOS:TITLECAPS, where it says "In titles (including subtitles, if any) of English-language works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized." Does that explain my edits or am I missing something? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike:, Hmm, it does say that; and yet, the quotation style guide (I'll have to go find it) says, iirc, that we use the capitalization of the original. Either I remember wrong, or there's a conflict between the two guides, which will require a discussion at one of the style guide pages to resolve. In the meantime, I won't revert you if you make further edits of this type, as the guide does seem to support you, and even if the other one doesn't, that's probably good enough. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Lockdown protest talk
First of all thanks for your post on my page. It's great to learn more about how Wikipedia works.
I've looked back at the talk page today for COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in the United Kingdom, and the original post I made I worded perfectly. But my points were ignored and you complained almost immediately about a string of edits that I mostly had nothing to do with. It went downhill from there as we were both talking past each other.
The Guardian story says "The Westfield invasion came after a mass march of about 12 miles through London, starting in Parliament Square and reaching as far west as Acton. At its height there appeared to be hundreds of thousands of people taking part." If this "directly contradicts" the other "impeccable" sources you posted, then is the Guardian source, which you also posted, still "impeccable". I think it is a folly to describe any media source as impeccable.
@Raptor252:, since this appears to be your second-ever post under this username, I assume you're a former IP editing primarily at Talk:COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in the United Kingdom who I've interacted with before there and your IP talk page. Congratulations for signing up for a username, and welcome! (This makes it much easier to communicate; for one thing, you'll get an alert due to my use of the {{Reply}} template at the beginning of this message.) I don't want to out you, so I'm not making any assumptions, nor stating here, who I think you are. (You are allowed to do so, if you wish, but you don't have to; others however, must not.)
You're correct that I reverted some edits at the article, but I only have two lifetime edits at the article, one reverting User:Zerbstill (here), and one reverting IP 86.4.148.164 (here). All my other activity has been on the Talk page. Above, you said that I:
complained almost immediately about a string of edits that I mostly had nothing to do with
that may well be true, and I don't disagree. There was at least one registered user and four IPs involved in similar activity at the article iirc, so no doubt I was talking mostly about somebody else (or four somebody elses). As far as this comment:
I think it is a folly to describe any media source as impeccable.
while I did use the word "impeccable", that was mostly to stress that the sources we have at the article for "hundreds" of protesters at Parliament Square are rock-solid sources, way beyond the normal bar for a "reliable source", including Reuters, the New York Times, The Independent, and so on. That's what I meant by "impeccable", although I suppose you are right that to the extent that means without fault, that's an exaggeration as no source reaches that threshold. (But one of the criteria of a reliable source, is that while errors are relatively rare occurrences, a reliable source issues retractions when they do happen, and all of those sources easily meet that bar). I don't want to quibble with you about the meaning of "impeccable", though; the real take-away here, is that Wikipedia follows what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a subject, regardless if what they say is true or not; and that the point of contention raised by the OP at the discussion was about the number of protesters on 29 May in Parliament Square and it was very clear that a large number of [impeccable] sources all agreed that the number was in "the hundreds". Whatever may have happened elsewhere in London that day, before, or since, is a separate issue, and with all the users and IPs jumping in with their own theories and claims, things may have gotten confused.
Raptor252, I don't have any issue with you, and I sincerely welcome you to the encyclopedia. If we got off on the wrong foot due to a confused situation at that one article, let's put it behind us. From your reasoning at the Talk page, regardless whether I happen to agree with it or not, I can see that you could become a good editor here, and an asset to the project. It will be crucial, however, for you to get on board with that one rule, which some find a tough pill to swallow, and that is this (and I know I'm repeating myself here): Wikipedia summarizes and reports what the majority of reliable, independent, secondary sources have to say on a topic, regardless of the truth of the matter. In particular, an individual editor's personal knowledge and experience, even if they were personally at the event, even if they are the *main speaker* or the *author of the definitive work on the topic* cannot be used at Wikipedia (the buzzword here is WP:Original research), unless you are prepared to include a citation to a reliable source to that effect. If you can accept that point (not everyone can), I think you'll be a fine editor here. I hope you will, and feel free to come here for questions any time. (There's also the WP:Tea house, and the WP:Ref desk). Thanks for reaching out, Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
