User talk:Benjiboi/Archive 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Contents |
Jim Bailey
Per a note on my talk page, you might be interested in Jim Bailey (entertainer). The article is about someone who is probably notable, but it reads like a {{db-bio}} and desperately needs some references. I thought I'd drop it in your lap, if you're interested, since you're a master at finding them. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry too much, Bailey is old school. If I were you start at Google books - he's that old! Benjiboi 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
E.O. Green School shooting - WP:BLP
You have no right to classify this article as resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I tagged discussion as resolved but I'm happy to remove it if there is some issue. As the alleged murderer in the incident is a minor I doubt there name will appear but very happy to discuss as long as we stay on point. Benjiboi 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I recommend that the "suspect" is referred to as a suspect in the article, and not referred as the killer in-till he is proven guilty/innocent by the state of California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Nuns
Hi Benji, and thanks for your message on the Nuns page. I understand your desire for the article to reflect more about the social justice aspects of female religious and stories about important nuns. I agree that such material is import. However, nuns are, by definition, a contemplative vocation. This is true not only in Eastern and Western Christianity, but also in Buddhism and Taoism as well. Since nun's are contemplative, they mostly lead a lives of meditation and prayer. Within Christianity, nuns are infact confined to a cloister, that is they are physically separated from the outside world by walls. This means their primary work can't be hand's on work in social justice. HOWEVER, religious sisters are not cloistered. Whereas nuns are contemplative, sisters are an active vocation. They work in the community, and many have been involved in social justice projects. The work of religous sisters in the American civil rights movement and in ending segregation in South Africa immediately come to mind, as does work by Buddhist sister in Tibet. Just today, I was thinking of making a page at Sister (religious) that would focus on female religious sisters that are not nuns, i.e., female relgious who have a more active role in the world. I'd like to start the article sometime this week, and perhaps we could collaborate in introducing the themes you mentioned on the Nun talk page into that article. Given the distintinction between contemplative nuns and active religious sisters, do you think this jusifies removing the POV tag from the nun articles. Feel free to leave a message on the nuns talk page or leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dgf32 (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I will reply both here and on your talk as you request. I feel the major POV problems with the article currently are the gender issues and the propagation of Catholic interpretation of all things nunly verses everything else. I applaud our Catholic editors and those who persist in this POv for sharing their views however I feel that on this article, like others I have encountered we have veered away from encyclopedic into moralizing. For instance, if transgender nuns existed and succeeded as such it should be a testament to all those who choose or are compelled to be nuns not seen as an attack against women as has been suggested. I see it as a triumph of the individual to serve their community. Benjiboi 14:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh
You and I are in complete disagreement over the the Sanchez image (and now, I realize, even over the dating thereof). I know we're both trying to do the best thing for the project though. Sigh, why can't things be simple? Aleta (Sing) 15:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, people aren't simple is the short answer. I see the dress blues image way more problematic than the helicopter image which many seemed to agree wrongly implied he was in the military. Given Sanchez's quite problematic history with accurately sharing facts including the rights to images I'm convinced we need an image from Shankbone or someone completely independent and somewhat trustworthy to upload so we have a non-POV-problematic image. Benjiboi 15:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It was pretty rhetorical. :) If we could get an image from someone like that where we could truly know its status, I agree that would be best. I'm skeptical that'll happen. Who knows though? It might. If David were to get a chance to try to meet with Sanchez, I wonder if he'd consent. Hmmm... maybe we should ask David to try? Aleta (Sing) 15:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Herbert (Family Guy)
I think your changes to that are OR...the part that says "so is believed to be gay". What do you think? Ctjf83talk 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, could use clarity. "So would be defined as gay by contemporary standards"? Benjiboi 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know...I kinda of have a problem calling him gay at all. Yes, I'm sure he is, but who knows what he did in the closet, lol, ya, I'm sure he had sex with Mr. P. I mean it's like calling Waylon Smithers gay. Ya, everyone knows it, but he has never officially said it, so thats why we keep deleting the "fictional lgbt" tag that people keep putting on there. I mean we all know Clay Aiken is gay, but until he says it, it is just speculation or WP:OR. Ctjf83talk 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- "In many ways, Smithers represents the stereotype of the closeted gay man, and numerous overt allusions and double entendres to his homosexuality are made" seems to cover Smithers adequately until something else confirms otherwise. Clay Aiken has been dogged by rumors but as a BLP we need to have exceptional RS's on that one. I do agree we can massage the wording to be more encyclopedic to avoid OR. Benjiboi 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know...I kinda of have a problem calling him gay at all. Yes, I'm sure he is, but who knows what he did in the closet, lol, ya, I'm sure he had sex with Mr. P. I mean it's like calling Waylon Smithers gay. Ya, everyone knows it, but he has never officially said it, so thats why we keep deleting the "fictional lgbt" tag that people keep putting on there. I mean we all know Clay Aiken is gay, but until he says it, it is just speculation or WP:OR. Ctjf83talk 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Personal comments
That was a highly personal comment, verging on attacking. I'm sorry if I offended - that was not my intention. I would like to point out that your entire post was on me and my wording and did not address the content of the article at all.
And besides that, it totally feels like an attack. What's up? Your comments to me have been very mean lately. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was thinking very similar of some of your posts. Painting me as "grasping at straws" and "screaming" seems a bit unencyclopedic but I certainly could be off-base there. Benjiboi 17:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for doing that. The article probation, as pointed out elsewhere, is rather silly as it compels editors and admins to do exactly what we're suppose to be doing anyway but I feel in this case license to go "overboard" in favor of the subject is occurring. Material that would hardly cause one to blink elsewhere is dissected to the point of repelling the very folks who would like to make meaningful contributions to the article, IMHO. I look forward to when the subject will be treated neutrally in line with all the other BLP on wikipedia. Benjiboi 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
Nun
Hi Benji. I left a response for you at Talk:Nun. If you could be concrete in your POV concerns it would be easier to improve the article. I'm definitely not pro-Catholic or anti-LGBT, infact I'm gay myself, but I just don't think the article has a POV problem. It's an article about a religious subject that focuses its content on the relious aspects of the subject. Dgf32 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I thought I had already done that previously but will try to do a general summary to answer your concerns. In general I see this similar to an artcile on doctors and priests where multiple issues and cultures converge and see our job as to not emphasize one dominant POV over most or all others. As a suggestion it might be smart to not jump right into religious sects/religions directly after the lede but instead take a path of showing the commonalities of nuns then later showing how Christian nuns are unique, etc. Benjiboi 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a careful look at the article and at your list of concerns. However, I maintain the the article currently has NPOV. If you would like to remove the POV tag from the article, that would be simplest. However, since you have reinstated the tag once already, I have suggested a discussion to build consensus on whether or not the article has NPOV. That discussionc an be found at Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sanchez's escort history
SatyrTN is trying to archive the section on the Talk page, though it hasn't been resolved. As SatyrTN also has a campaign going proclaiming that Sanchez was never an escort -- even though Sanchez clearly admitted having been one -- I don't think SatyrTN is archiving in good faith, and merely wants the section "blanked." You've been pretty judicious in this matter, so I welcome your input on whether you think the escort section should be archived just yet. --Eleemosynary (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I find that highly problematic, I welcome resolving the issue by introducing the similar texts that have been proposed numerous times rather than conveniently banishing the material from the very active page. Benjiboi 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- What material did I banish? There seemed to be agreement on the section I labeled "resolved" (00:28, 1 March 2008) two days ago. The other section I quickly archived was an uncontroversial grammar fix and restoring a ref that you did. Are you suggesting that either of these topics is seen as needing further discussion and resolution? If so I'm happy to re-open either or both. Benjiboi 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No, I don't want to bring those back. My point is that you have and do archive material less than a day old, labeled as "no evidence to indicate", but when I try to archive a BLP violation that's over a month old because there is no evidence to indicate it's true, you cry foul. Just pointing out what looks like a different set of standards for material you agree with vs material you don't. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That section was started by me and I correctly felt it was resolved for the reason I started the thread, that indeed it was considered resolved that the image should be considered stable and free. I acted on the consensus and took the image to the image lab to get a headshot for the article. Are you suggesting I acted in any way to stifle dialog or against consensus? There is plenty of evidence that Sanchez is (or at least was) a gay escort and prostitute, including his own statements, and no consensus as how to deal with that controversial material as of yet. Benjiboi 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The escort thread has been disregarded for over a month. The two youtube threads don't have anything to do with escorting and both have been disregarded for a month. As I said - it looks like a different set of standards for material you agree with vs material you don't.
- And I've laid out the challenge to find reliably sourced material that says Sanchez was an escort, which hasn't come forth in several months. Why does potentially BLP-violating discussion need to sit on the talk page? If or when reliably sourced material is found, we'll need to start discussion. Until then, it's a) taking up huge amounts of room, b) potentially BLP violating, and c) not helping the article in any way. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the issue here is again who sees the issues in terms of BLP and who sees it in terms of RS? I don't have a BLP concern because I think the evidence of truth is very substantial, but recognise that RS must be satisfied for the relevant discussion to be added to the article. Perhaps others agree? Jay*Jay (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Outdent. I think that's a reasonably fair assessment Jay*Jay. There seems to be disagreement on RS being met for the content to be added to the article, as of yet.
And SatyrTN, please consider using {{stale}} if you really think a thread is indeed stale. Frankly I reserve that for threads that are so old they've lost relevance which wouldn't apply to any of the threads you tagged as resolved. Most every issue with Sanchez is simply controversial at this point and I will continue to seek to add sourced content despite a seemingly concerted effort to remove items not laudatory of him. Benjiboi 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still seeing a different set of standards. I have to wait "until they're so old they've lost relevance", which evidently is more than a month and a half and tag it as "stale". But you get to tag "resolved" in under a day and whisk things away to the archive. As I've pointed out several times in this discussion, if you get new sources about the escorting, they'll have to be discussed - that's fine. Who says the old thread has to stay until then, though? It's huge, it's BLP, and it's not helping the current discussions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well I certainly disagree. I've worked hard to clean-up the entire talk page and the various archives so have tried to be careful in archiving anything before its due. Is there something I've tagged on the Sanchez talk and archived that wasn't resolved? If so maybe we should investigate it. I agree it's nice to keep the talk page shorter but that's hardly a reason to archive a thread that's quite clearly important to the subject of the article and considered highly contentious, and others seem to agree with my assessment.
- As Sanchez is pretty much a non-name and discredited right-wing blogger at this point I rather doubt we'll be seeing much more than the below-the-radar treatment he was getting prior to his national exposure as a gay pornstar and escort in light of Coulter's "faggot" remark. So we should probably work with what we have rather than simply dismissing it all as old and await some new source to restate what has been said already. And I think it all informs the current article as we have a long track record of him trying to mitigate anything seen as morally questionable on his part and several editors seem to want to lean not on verifiability or truth but instead upon Sanchez's wishes. I find all of this dubious at best. Benjiboi 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to your question
Hey Benji, the other day you asked a question at WT:LGBT about the quotes that Leah's requesting. I just saw your question and replied there. Basically, I think she wants quotes from Robison and Maguire where they have spoken publicly in support of the LGBT community. Aleta (Sing) 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Quotes
I finally saw it today.. wikilinks in the LGBT portal quotes do work so wikilink your lil heart away sunshine! lol :] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Histmerge request query
- At Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New rewuests, you wrote: "San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area This looks like a basic cut and paste but the editor is unlikely to see any of my involvement as welcome so would appreciate someone else looking at this. It may be quite simple. Benjiboi 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)". But which other page was San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area cut-and-pasted to or from? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
