User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive October 2018

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tornado chaser. 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.

unless you know what you're editing is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucamidikc (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Listen I hope you mean well but please stop saying this misinformation. Dr Sebi was not with this lady at the end of his life. And youvspeak as if he was mediocre. Please tell the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfinder1933 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Truthfinder1933: I follow what reliable sources say, which is that his treatments were not very good, but I never said he was with a lady, did I? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The article uses the term "transvestite," which is a deprecated term and is often viewed as offensive. The more appropriate term would be transgender, which is a broader and less caustic term. Eddie Murphy had a similar incident with a transgender prostitute and his wiki page uses the proper terminology. So for consistency sake between articles and in order to use inclusive terminology I recommend reverting the edit I made.

Sincerely, Thehmania (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thehmania: Doesn't "transvestite" mean someone who dresses as the other gender (but may or may not identify as a gender other than their biological gender), and transgender is someone who identifies as a gender other than their biological gender? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Glaad has an excellent guide to the different designations under the transgender umbrella (page 12)^[1]

• Transgender is defined as, "[a]n umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender...Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to bring their bodies into alignment with their gender identity. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon physical appearance or medical procedures."
• Cross-dresser is defined as, "typically used to refer to men who occasionally wear clothes, makeup, and accessories culturally associated with women. Those men typically identify as heterosexual. This activity is a form of gender expression and not done for entertainment purposes...[r]eplaces the term 'transvestite'."
• Transgender woman is defined as, "People who were assigned male at birth but identify and live as a woman may use this term to describe themselves."

Helen Boyd has written 2 books about the cross-dresser phenomenon, My Husband Betty: Love, Sex, and Life with a Crossdresser and She's Not the Man I Married: My Life with a Transgender Husband. In the books, Boyd chronicles the experience she and other married women have had with husbands that were cross-dressers. The profiles depicted in the books do not match the description of Lucille Tyler.^[2][3]

I would add to this discussion that according to a 2015 study of the US transgender population, "[n]early one-third (29%) of respondents were living in poverty, compared to 12% in the US population. A major contributor to the high rate of poverty is likely respondents’ 15% unemployment rate—three times higher than the unemployment rate in the U.S. population at the time of the survey (5%)." The study goes on to report that, "[o]ne in five (20%) have participated in the underground economy for income at some point in their lives— including 12% who have done sex work in exchange for income."^[4]. These hardships were highlighted back in 2015, a time when transgender issues, such as economic, housing, health care and other issues have become part of the national dialog with greater resources available.

If we look back at 1985, society neither possessed the language nor the support for people suffering from gender dysphoria. They were pushed to society's margins and significantly more disadvantaged. Having read a number of transgender autobiographies from people who lived openly during this time, they frequently report having had to resort to sex work in order to both survive and pay for transition related care. Combining this with the fact that most cross-dressing men are heterosexual, I would argue that it is likely that Lucille Tyler was actually a trans woman and not a cross-dresser. However, despite my anecdotal evidence, there is no empirical way to prove that she was either a cross-dresser or a trans woman. Therefore, to be safe it would be prudent to use the umbrella term of transgender. Thehmania (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Thehmania

@Thehmania: I think it would be original research to change what the source says, although I could see changing it to cross-dresser assuming it has the exact same meaning as transvestite, but we shouldn't change it to transgender because the source doesn't say transgender. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: There are 2 issues with that position. First, the Wiki article is reporting on a historical event and there has to be some accommodation to the fact that language changes. Historians face this challenge continually. We use the term African Americans not "blacks," we use the term Asian or Asian Americans instead of "Orientals" or other derogatory/imprecise terms that were acceptable decades before, but are no longer accepted or relevant. Second, as I noted previously, the Eddie Murphy article in which a nearly identical event took place uses the umbrella term "transgender" instead of "transsexual" (another deprecated term that can be construed as offensive), in the wiki article. So there is a precedent for using the umbrella term transgender. Thehmania (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Thehmania

@Thehmania: I'd be fine with changing it to cross-dressing, but transgender and transvestite are not necessarily synonyms. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am very new to editing. It appears that you deleted entire sections from the page. Please help me correct the text rather than delete altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCelib123 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@DCelib123: I removed some stuff that was sourced to the ASAT website, you need sources other that the website of the organization your writing about, this is to avoid biased or ad-like wikipedia pages. However, I thought I deleted a little too much so I put back most of the views section, but then you deleted it, I assume you didn't mean to do this? Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This process is a bit overwhelming. I tried to add in a bit more content and now there is far less. Can you put those two sections back and I will edit in line with your feedback. Many of them had embedded footnotes. Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCelib123 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@DCelib123: I just put back the "views" section that you deleted, I assume you didn't mean to delete this, since you are saying you don't want stuff to be deleted. I did not but back the "impact" section, because all the footnotes there were to the ASAT website and the section looked a bit promotional. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of that content was already on the page in the intro section. I just moved it to the new section. I was under the impression that thigns needed to be verifiable hence the links to the website. Is the content OK without the website links? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCelib123 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@DCelib123: You are spot on about the need to be verifiable, unsourced content is not acceptable, everything needs a source, but many new editors don't know this, good to see that you do. However, the sources should be independent (not using the ASAT website as a source about ASAT, for example). Tornado chaser (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Do not be discouraged. This is an active page with strong views. The best way to make changes is to propose short specific additions or deletions and support these with good quality RS. Happy to discuss further. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I share some view on the problems with this page:

1) There is a lack of critique of the theory and the practice of white privilege

2) There is an over-reliance on RS from academics from the social sciences who work in fields related to 'white privilege'. This is wider issue for Wikipedia and related to the Sokal Squared hoax and Jonathan Haidt's work on group-think within Universities which demonstrates that there are serious questions about the validity of social science methodology. Conservative opinions, typically expressed in RS media, but not in academic papers, are sidelined or suppressed.

3) The definitions and history sections are far too long and should come after a section detailing the core concepts and its main criticisms.

4) The page has attracted a core group of editors whose sympathy with the subject matter has led them to become overtly defensive. There is another group of sympathetic editors who are more hostile. There is rarely an attempt to achieve consensus especially if this involves incorporating critique.

There is yet another group of critical and occasional editors. They come to the page, become alarmed and raise general questions about its quality and neutrality, some of which is helpful and some of which is hostile. They rarely suggest concrete changes based on RS and typically they quickly leave. Taken together, this leads to a feedback loop where the original editors are now confirmed in their feelings of defensiveness, and entrenches their views that critique is invalid. Despite Wikipedia guidelines, the sheer mass of sympathetic editors, combined with those who are more hostile, overwhelms critics.

5) Bringing in external editors to adjudicate is a mixed-blessing. Subject-matter experts tend to be unsympathetic to critique. Uninvolved editors are faced with enormous discussions on the talk page which are hard to follow and tend to degenerate into arguments once it becomes clear the odds are stacked against critique. They tend to instinctively side with the majority view as, generally speaking, the wisdom of crowds is a reliable way of identifying problem editors.

I welcome your views. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on this, and your recent involvement in White privilege, neither of which you had edited before I did, I am starting to get the feeling that you are following me around.

I do not enjoy interacting with you, I do not seek you out, and you should not be seeking me out. If I need to get an IBAN I will, but hopefully you will just stop doing this. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I do not seek out interaction with you either, I was looking for refs to improve the intersectionality article (which I have edited recently [1]) when I came across the wikipedia page for white privilege, which struck me as biased and poorly written, so I am now attempting to gain consensus for changes to that page. Cochrane has been on my watchlist for a while and your edit summery said "tried to be NPOV, can probably be improved", so I looked it over with an eye to what might need improving, and decided it was pretty neutral but could use small wording changes.

I watchlist many medical-related articles, medical stuff appears to be one of your interests as well, so I hope you assume good faith if we cross paths in the future, but no I am not making any attempt to follow you. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not buying this. If you continue following me around I will seek an iban. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Please agf, i'm just trying to make good faith improvements to white privilege, it happens that you have been involved with that article for months, that doesn't make it bad faith for me to edit it. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not about one article. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Guillain–Barré syndrome. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears the editor Doniago is making false attributions on the Starship Troopers (film) page as has been pointed out by others.

Inaccurate Attribution[edit source] In the Salon article cited by reference [18], Aasif Mandvi does not mention or criticize Starship Troopers directly; rather it is used as an example in the accompanying slide show created by Max Rivlin-Nadler.

Whitewashing, a history

He refuses to allow his false attributions to be corrected. I trust this fraudulent behavior will be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Block (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Re this, I meant to reply to your talk page message but I forgot about it, what with one thing and another. The association of anti-vax with the political "liberty" movement in the U.S. is distinct from general arguments about individual liberty, so I might try to get around to it later. Just wanted to let you know it wasn't a deliberate snub. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Thanks, I didn't think it was a deliberate snub, just never know which editors find it annoying to be asked a question again that they have not responded to the first time. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying this one more time, as I notice you have not responded in several weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddeleon82 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi-

I've noted that your edit on this article violates Wikipedia's rules against OR/anti-neutrality and use a number of false premises in order to express a biased point of view.

These are:

1) Bowman claimed to cure all disease with herbs and a unique vegan diet based on various pseudoscience claims. His diet was based on the discredited alkaline diet.[7]

From Dr. Sebi's site:

"In contrast, as we examine an African approach to disease, it diametrically opposes the present Western approach. Specifically, the African Bio-mineral Balance refutes the germ/virus/bacteria premise. Our research reveals that all manifestation of disease finds its genesis when and where the mucous membrane has been compromised. For example, if there is excess mucous in the bronchial tubes, the disease is Bronchitis; if it is in the lungs, the disease is Pneumonia; in the pancreatic duct, it is Diabetes; in the joints Arthritis. All of the African Bio-mineral Balance compounds are comprised of natural plants; which means its constitution is of an alkaline nature."

You deliberately misstate his point of view in order to discredit him. You also falsely deride traditional African medicinal concepts as pseudoscience even though various peer-reviewed studies have established the medicinal efficacy of herbalism and other traditional medicines.

As well, you falsely create a link between the alkaline diet and Dr. Sebi's work in order to point out that the central point of the alkaline diet-that foods can effect the body's homeostasis and thus alter its Ph-is false. However you ignore prevailing research that establishes that organic, plant-based, non GMO diets that are low in sweeteners have demonstrable positive effects on both the prevention and cure of disease.

2) and factored in faux-afrocentric[9] claims about the unique genetic characteristics of Africans and its diaspora.[10][11]

In addition to the mildly racist characterization of Dr. Sebi's research as "faux-afrocentric", you cite two sources here: one of which is an author lauding Dr. Sebi, but it never specifically links him to any of the beliefs espoused by the author. And the second is a letter posted to an unrelated party site that is unsigned, unverified, and a primary source (this is frowned upon in Wikipedia land)

3) Although he used the name Dr. Sebi, Bowman was not a doctor and was considered a quack by actual doctors, attorneys, and consumer protection agencies.[1][4]

Obvious bias and failure to consider supporters as well as detractors.

4) Bowman was arrested for money laundering in March 2016 while attempting to transfer from a plane from the United States to a private plane at the Juan Manuel Gálvez de Roatan Airport while carrying $37,000 in cash.

This is inaccurate. Dr. Sebi was arrested, released, and re-arrested and charged with money laundering, though his arrest records have not been released. This charge (money laundering) was never substantiated and was not the original charge. Source: https://chicagodefender.com/2016/08/15/no-mainstream-farewell-for-dr-sebi/

5) You label him a charlatan in the final "see also" but ignore the widely available positive reviews of his work and treatments. Whether or not you agree with them, you must agree that they...exist.

Please kindly respond or I will be left no other choice but to report you for these clear violations of impartiality and misuse of sources.

Ddeleon82 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ddeleon82: sorry about the lateness, I meant to respond but forgot about this. This is the kind of issue that should be discussed on the talk page of the article, so that multiple editors can weigh in, I don't know enough about Bowman feel comfortable making major changes, but I do know that you shouldn't remove properly referenced info without discussing it on the talk page first. And no, his own website is not a reliable source, and germ theory is well established as fact by reliable medical sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it questionable you refuse to allow the edit of the word "revered" to be placed in reference to Jordan Peterson. Regardless of your own personal feelings on him, many Canadians do in fact revere him despite controversy. The paragraph in the Arts Commons page very clearly does it's best to cast him in a negative light, despite the overwhelming support he gets from the people of Calgary.

Inaccurate and provably so is the claim said controversy surrounds refusal of using pronouns, when in fact the issue is, and always has been, government mandated speech laws.

I question why (Redacted) is making such an effort to spin what appears to me as their own political bias into what should be an unbiased and factual Wikipedia entry.

Hello. I apologize for not providing an explanation for my edit; I felt that the sentence might be read as slightly redundant given that the usage of the word "some" would already imply that this is a minority view, and therefore removing the latter half of the sentence might be seen as a nice compromise to make it appear to be a more neutral statement whereas otherwise it might be construed as 'doubling-down' on the (now somewhat contentious) view point, as it were.

I further apologize for any inconvenience-- I truly thought the edit was harmless, but if you or other contributors think otherwise, I will cease and desist.

Thank you.

I’m confused as to why my edit to the Bolt (fastener) page was reverted. I was simply adding a fact that I thought could be helpful to those who don’t work with bolts. BenjoMoyer555 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@BenjoMoyer555: The first paragraph of an article is supposed to be a general summary of what the article is about, it is not the place for random facts about the subject of the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tornado chaser. 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.