91.64.59.86

Broccoli

On my talk page, you said: I added information that wasn't in the article, and gave a great number of sources. If I had added to the article and you reverted, then we could have a discussion on the talk page. But reverting my edit to the talk page? What is this?

It's not clear what "symbolism" with cannabis you were trying to state. None of your sources is WP:SCIRS, and the relationship between broccoli and cannabis is vague at best, so falls into WP:UNDUE. On a talk page, per WP:TALK, the process among editors is to make a suggestion for changing the article for the better, then provide a solid WP:RS. Your comment to me was more blogging or forum than constructive, WP:NOTBLOG. We can discuss further here on your page, if you wish. Zefr (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why wasn't it possible for you to give this answer on the Broccoli talk page? Why was it necessary to revert an edit that (I gave 2sources and then came back to add 4 more) clearly was in good faith? WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline, which given you have been on WP for 16 years, you clearly know. And why do you revert something from your talk page and move it to mine? What kind of behavior is that? 91.64.59.86 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You posted a blog or forum topic on the Broccoli talk page that did not address how to improve the broccoli article and did not provide a reliable secondary source; see WP:TALKNO regarding blogging or forum topics. If another editor disagreed with me, that person could restore it, but I doubt this will occur. Your offered sources were strangely like blog or rumor postings - they have scant value and no relationship to broccoli. I moved this discussion to your page because it is not my issue. Zefr (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "if another editor disagrees"? I am an editor that disagrees with you. What do you mean "not my issue"? By reverting it, you made it your issue. You seem to act condescending and dismissive, and, in my opinion, your behavior is seriously lacking with respect to WP:5P4. Still, WP:AGF also applies to me, so I will try to ignore this as good as I can and continue.

• Cannabis, despite recent legalization efforts, is still a taboo subject, which is likely the biggest reason there has been no cannabis Emoji added to Unicode yet.
• Cannabis culture, as can be seen in the emojipedia source link I gave (as you reverted it, here it is again for your convenience: https://emojipedia.org/420/ ), has resorted to use the herb emoji (🌿), the tree emoji (🌳) and the broccoli emoji (🥦) to represent cannabis in emoji form. Of these, as far as I can see, the broccoli is very much the most popular.
• This usage has spread from mere emoji substitution to broccoli becoming a symbol for cannabis. This is evidenced by (a) a magazine called "Broccoli - Magazine for Cannabis Lovers" having been founded (see my Architectural Digest link: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/cannabis-flower-art-weed-home-decor ) and (b) a Cannabis company producing advertising using a broccoli mascot (see my Yahoo Finance link: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/weedmaps-tackles-cannabis-marketing-censorship-130000832.html )
• I think it is reasonable to expect at least some people not knowing this background being confused by this very non-standard use of Broccoli.
• I don't know about you, but when I am confused, my first path to clear it up is usually Wikipedia.
• Accordingly, I assumed it would be helpful for such people to add a note somewhere indicating this, something along the line of "In 2020s cannabis culture Broccoli has become a symbolic stand-in where mentioning Cannabis is not possible or appropriate."
• I gave six links to sources, which substantiate this connection. I think your reference to WP:SCIRS is not relevant here, as this is not a scientific claim about a scientific connection between Cannabis sativa and Brassica oleracea. This is a claim about a symbolic connection between the two. The article on Gold uses a gilded-food company as a source for their statements on the culinary uses of Gold. This is also not WP:SCIRS and it doesn't need to, because the culinary use of Gold is not a scientific issue. Similarly, the symbolic connection between cannabis and broccoli is not a scientific issue. Demanding a scientific source is unreasonable here.
• Consider the following, which is a quote from WP:SCIRS: "Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source." Nature (Journal) would be an excellent source for a claim about the cell structure of Broccoli, but this is not a scientific issue. This is a cultural issue.
• The Museum of Modern Art, which is an excellent source for cultural claims, and AdWeek, which is at least a good one, are generally considered reputable and reliable sources, even though hey do not meet WP:SCIRS criteria. Again, this is not a scientific claim.
• Finally WP:SCIRS is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. This is written at the very top of the page. Also WP:5P5.
• I gave a multitude of sources not because all were great, but because hey might have been helpful for a discussion whether the claim should be included in the article or not, which I hoped to instigate by my edit to the talk page. Of course, this will not happen now, because you reverted it, and so there can't be a discussion.
• To find out whether it is WP:UNDUE or not was exactly the point of my edit. You assuming unilateral authority that it isn't (and by reverting hiding the mere suggestion) is clearly not in the spirit of a collaborative project. I refer you to WP:CON, which you should also know. I thought about just adding it (see WP:BOLD ) for a second, but realized this could possibly lead to an edit war. So I wrote an entry to the talk page, expecting a discussion.
• In my edit I even stated "I know this isn't the most notable thing in the world", because I expected there to be people disagreeing, and I expected a discussion. I didn't expect someone coming in and unilaterally deciding there will be no discussion.
• As to reverting my edit, this is from WP:TPO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. (...) If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note (...) Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution." Furthermore WP:EQ states "Avoid reverts whenever possible".
• Finally, finally, your link to WP:TALKNO seems to refer to the following sentences "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." I hope to have made clear that "discussing how to improve the article" was exactly my intention. At the very latest when I came back to give additional sources, this intention was clear. You just didn't WP:AGF and reverted it.

I hope to have made the situation more clear to you. Be assured, I did my utmost to stay calm and friendly, even though your behavior made me angry. I expect your reply. 91.64.59.86 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's normal to have disagreements among editors on Wikipedia, and even to have emotional responses to reverted edits that you wanted. I don't see anything constructive about your idea that emojis for broccoli-cannabis has relevance to broccoli. If there was any scientific or substantive support for such a strange thing (UNDUE weight), there would be better, more rigorous sources for it, and other editors following the broccoli article would disagree with my revert of you on the talk page, and restore it. I don't see this as a major issue, so have nothing more to say, and will wish you a happier journey of editing. Zefr (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Re. Broccoli

Hi, IP, I have responded to you here - as an unregistered user, I couldn't ping you and wanted to make sure you got it. I do recommend registering, it has benefits: I could ping you; all your edits will be connected if you edit from somewhere else, and you might get a little more benefit of the doubt - something which it seems didn't happen in the issue you bring up.

Besides the response I left there, I will add that there are, as I see it, two main issues that caused your message at the Broccoli talkpage to be removed: 1. you did not phrase it as an edit request, but as a discussion. Now, lots of edits should be discussed at the talkpage before being implemented, but users are typically more assertive. You shouldn't be 'punished' for how you phrase something that is about article improvement, even if the suggestion is poor. Someone could reply "WP:NOTAFORUM" or interpret that between the lines of discussion is the suggestion to add it. And 2. your suggested edit relates more to Cannabis culture than to the actual plant/foodstuff broccoli, so you were probably asking at the wrong place. Again, you should not be 'punished' for that, but pointed in the right direction. The minor third issue is that you were unregistered and even lengthy well-thought-out messages, if on unusual subjects (like broccoli and cannabis), are assumed to be trolling - this does not stop a user removing the message from leaving an edit reason, though, which seems to be your main hangup - or it is assumed that the user will not return so doesn't need a reason. (And many, if not all, experienced users do this; this is less a criticism and more an observation.) Since the significance of "trees" has been discussed regarding cannabis culture before, I am sure we can discuss broccoli... over there. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Kingsif, it's me, same person, new IP. Thank you very much for answering, and for the non-dismissive tone. Yes, you can't ping me, so it's my responsibility to check, which I just did. You write "you were unregistered and even lengthy well-thought-out messages, if on unusual subjects (like broccoli and cannabis), are assumed to be trolling" Can you imagine this being a major hurdle for newcomers to this project, and substantially undermining the status of Wikipedia as "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? I am seriously extremely annoyed by the behavior of Zefr, and I imagine, if I had never used Wikipedia before and this actually were my first impression I would never come back. For me, this is a much bigger problem than the minor thing I wanted to add (on which my very first sentence was "I know this isn't the most notable..."). You have been on here for at least a couple of years, Zefr for over 15, but this project does not do it's best to be welcoming to those without or with little experience. Still, Zefr's behavior of just reverting without even a note is the worst I have come across so far. After that, do you think it makes sense to continue this further? I am absolutely fine with "I don't think this adds value to Wikipedia." I can live with criticism. I am just angry at the dismissive behavior I experienced, and I'd guess newcomers experience everyday. This is not conducive to Wikipedias future. You can answer on here, or on my new IP talk page. I will check both. 91.64.209.25 (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll reply here to keep it in one place. In my opinion, Wikipedia is welcoming to newcomers who start out slow and ask for help, and more so when their editing doesn't really affect the encyclopaedia, so they can take longer to learn. If they express interest in the more boring side of editing, even better. When newcomers jump right in at the deep end, they are often met with more resistance, sometimes suspicion. I couldn't even guess as to what the ratios of slow/ambitious newcomers are, nor the retention rate of new editors. But the Wikipedia community is generally aware of the biting-the-newbies problem. As for broccoli/cannabis, feel welcome to present your thoughts at the cannabis project or at the cannabis culture article talk page, where I think it at least merits discussion. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

---