User talk:SlimVirgin/January 2016

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –

Thank you, Cullen328, and all the best to you for 2016. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Gnu Ear Greetings

	Hopp(y) Gnu Ear
	Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Be Safe! Buster Seven Talk 07:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoppy Gnu Ear back to you, Buster. :D I really hope 2016 is a good one for you. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year! Be well, be safe, and a hug and all my best wishes...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Modernist, and all the best to you back (and a hug too!) for 2016. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested...

In Talk:Antony Bek (bishop of Durham), as I recall you've had some issues with people changing reference styles unilaterally. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ealdgyth, I missed this earlier, but it seems to have sorted itself out. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy 2016

	New beginnings
	Hope you have a wonderful and productive year. I know we've disagreed in the past about the best way to present information about the cultural aspects of meat-eating, but at the risk of WP:CGTW#7 I'd like to offer a fresh start. Looking forward to seeing more of your fine work— FourViolas (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, FourViolas, and a very Happy New Year to you. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Gender template

I completely agree with your suggestion about a gender template. I was actually looking for one yesterday and thought we should have one. How about we try starting one up. How about {{genderPOV}}?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter Isotalo, I agree that we should do that. I began one yesterday, but didn't complete, so feel free to start one, or I may do it if you don't. I'll look out for it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Created. No idea what to do next.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you! I suppose the thing to do is start adding it when we see these problems, just as people add {{globalize}}. Also, let GGTF and WikiProject Feminism know about it, and perhaps add it to the main GGTF page. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to add some guideline as to when and how it should be used? (I know the "globalize" tag is frequently misused...) Montanabw^(talk) 09:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: yes, we'll get something worked out. I tried to add some words yesterday but wasn't sure how to approach it. Discussion at GGTF. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HitlerRealschule.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HitlerRealschule.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete empty WP:MEDRS talk archives?

Hey, SlimVirgin. Do you mind deleting Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 23 and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 24 as empty? I emptied them when moving material, and I don't want the bot or OneClickArchiver to skip over them right to archive 25 when it archives the next batch. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: done. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks a lot. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Threat

I've been threatened with a block by an wp:involved admin if I participate further in the SPI. That seems highly improper - irrespective of the merits. No? Apparently, he's immune to wp:involved violations.

As for the merits, he claims it's because I've insulted folks. I've done no such thing. I've called him out for violating policies and pointed out that he's blown me off, big time. That I have done. And that's what he's done. And I've called out the refusal to ban the IPs back when they were not stale AT ALL. I've tried hard to respect policy. I've done well, I think even though, among other things, I've got Jytdog, who frequently jumped to Formerly 98's defence whenever needed (examples, analysis) following me around. (analysis 2).

Formerly 98 still has 3 unblocked named accounts -User:A_Bertheim, User:Alfred Bertheim, User:Formerly 98 User:A_Bertheim / User:Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6, but instead of blocking them, Vanjagenije told me 4 days ago to drop the stick! (See link to 2 sections of 's talk page, above.) He doesn't seem to care in the least about following policy himself. Now he's removing my comments - this one for the second time and it was directed to you.

Also, would you be willing to at least tag or give me the go-ahead to tag the talk pages of the IPs, and accounts, so, e.g. it would be easier to ID if this is the same guy?

What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary". It took many users and months of edit warring (not by me) to get any info at all about the incredibly lousy PARADIGM-HF trial despite lots of damn reliable media coverage of this very important topic. This edit of mine finally got a little bit to stick. And I think big pharma does lots of good work. But the whitewashing is harmful.

I recall you recently saying somewhere that Formerly 98 had reactivated his account. I see no evidence of that.Ah, I see Doc James deleted his page at his request. And yet it hasn't been blocked as a sock. Based on policy, it should be, don't you agree? Any reasonable policy interpretation supports blocking a VERY RECENTLY ACTIVE, CONFIRMED sock, as such, no? I'm really tired of this case; I wish the minimal reasonable action would be taken so I could feel comfortable moving on. --Elvey^(t•c) 04:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elvey, I'll reply over the next day or so. There are a few issues I'd like to check first. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

SarahSV, I should still be expecting the promised reply, yes? The issue below is of less import, IMO. --Elvey(t•c) 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) TIA! I'm curious if you agree with this- a false accusation of OR. His removing cited material (cited to an FDA publication) on the basis of "OR" is defended; no apology. I value your opinions for being grounded in policy. I've been getting a lot of grief lately from folks who support whitewashing and are known for trying to make others look bad by making accusations that when investigated, hold little or no water. Looking at the GMO ArbCom case, it seems like this sort of abuse is typical, and ArbCom's response is to punish the victims as much or more than the perpetrators. --Elvey(t•c) 08:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Hi, I can't see how it's OR or medical advice, but if the text is elsewhere in the article, I suppose the argument is why highlight that source and not another. SarahSV (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC) I see that evidence was presented to ArbCom of him doing what he's just done again - use novel misinterpretations of policy (in this case OR) as a weapon. If the argument is that, we want sources on both sides of the is suicide a big problem issue for NPOV then, well, hmm: I agree... and... I see the conservative/mainstream view (of the FDA) kicks off the section, though without the content of the black box warning. Then we have Donald Klein's minimization slant. Then ... nothing. Nothing from the folks who think this is a really big deal, like professor and whistleblower David Healy/David Healy. None of the quotes I added cuz I was reverted. We can balance the quotes I added by restoring them and adding ones from Healy. (That was a joke.) But note - though there's a pretty strong argument for including Healy's POV, I haven't gone there (and he's hardly extreme either - he prescribes the drug). But seriously - What to do? Well, I said, "I don't think policy supports you so I'm restoring the user's content unless you can show otherwise. " and I don't think his reply comes close to showing otherwise, so I'll restore momentarily. --Elvey(t•c) 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, Elvey, it's not an article I'd want to become involved in, so I don't know what to advise. SarahSV (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC) OK. (partisan JzG weighed in.)

Again,SarahSV, I should still be expecting the promised reply to the section above the <hr>, yes? The issue below (here) is of less import, IMO.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I revised my comments above.--Elvey^(t•c) 15:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we're down to 2 named unblocked accounts. Maybe DoRD noticed my comment - Any reasonable policy interpretation supports blocking a VERY RECENTLY ACTIVE, CONFIRMED sock, no? ?--Elvey^(t•c) 04:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

#!$^%$#&

Wow that's some incredible #!$^%$#& around this and the SPI. As you know, I've been threatened with a block if I participate further in the SPI, based on what I've argued are trumped-up charges. If that's not an enforcable threat, let me know. (I've just been mentioned by name, twice; surely I have a right to reply? I've seen that right invoked but can't recall where or under what policy. Perhaps you could urge the admin who threatened me to drop the threat or at least allow me a curated reply?) Did you notice that Jytdog backed down, which I've never seen and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=699817733 refuses to answer when I ask him, for good reason, "...Do you have any alternative accounts?" The user should be required to return to using their master account and all the others should be blocked as socks. That anyone should even have to argue for it is ridiculous, given how ruthlessly that rule is sometimes applied by some advocacy ducks. --Elvey^(t•c) 04:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey, I think it's better to leave this for now, and to keep it at one page as requested. Enquiries are being made and there's no rush. I'll leave a note on your talk page if it ends up being resolved. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing Creationism Talk Page

Why are you messaging me, exactly? Please notice that I cannot even manage to make any comments on the talk page without having them censored by others. It's a lost cause. Mob rule here means that these articles can only ever reflect what is the prevailing opinion of the editors on this site, who have no real regard for objective and neutral reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbei85 (talk • contribs)

Carolyn Merchant

Please ignore this message if it doesn't interest you, but our biography on Carolyn Merchant could use your help. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, thanks, I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of MEDRS

Long, wide-ranging discussion of equine-assisted therapies across multiple areas and articles (basic spat here, here, etc.) now appears to be consolidating at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy if you want to pop over and watchlist. Best for a bit of new blood to pop by. Your call, of course if you want to weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, thanks, I'll certainly take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you've made comments regarding Martin Hogbin's edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rose (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that a bot archived the section about Martin on WP:ANI, yet the issues have never been addressed and I believe they will reappear in the future. How do I properly restore the section? --Rose (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rose, the options are to ask someone to close it at WP:AN/RFC (in the archive) or unarchive it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it again, Rose, it's a bit old to unarchive, so if you're looking for someone to close it, the best place is WP:AN/RFC. Or you could leave things as they are for now, and open a new discussion, pointing to the old one, if the issues continue. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have no doubt that Martin will go back to trying to revive an old and finished discussion after a while. You know the pattern. I still have no idea how to make an admin or a group of admins come to a decision regarding Martin, particularly now that the section is archived. --Rose (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rose, I would say wait until his latest RfC and AfD close, then if the problems continue (there or elsewhere) open a new AN/I and link to the old one. Admins often need to see clear evidence that the behaviour isn't stopping. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I will do that then, though as even you pointed out in the AN/I discussion, that behavior was nothing new. --Rose (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rose, in case you haven't seen it, Sammy has unarchived the section and continued it on WP:AN. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Even if an admin is prepared to make a decision on the proposed remedy, I don't think it will help too much to resolve the issues raised (which are not limited to the talk page if the reversions of the word 'both' are anything to go by). The way I see it, an experienced user (who can afford the time) will need to clearly present the history of the concerns and establish it rises to the level of arbcom so a decision can be made one way or the other on the concerns relating to this user's editing. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hilberg2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hilberg2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your move at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 12

Hello. I am not sure that you are aware of the fact that moving parts of a Request for Deletion to a talk page results into masking these parts for all the people accessing the discussion by one of its containers. Specifically, page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea is transcluded into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 12. Everything done in the AfD page must be coded with care in order to produce equivalent results when accessing with one or the other method.
When accessing from the container, the talk page is not transcluded, and one doesn't have a clue about the existence of the material exiled to the Talk Page. I don't think that it was correct to not leave a comment at the top of the discussion describing what you have done, and taking the responsibility for it. Moreover, you have changed the structuration of this discussion, suppressing the subsections. Now, the history is not easy to understand at first sight. I think that you better revert your modifications. Or, at least, modify the orange structuring comments in order to reflect the actual state of the page, and taking the responsability of your reorganisations.
Pldx1 (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pldx1, I moved some text that said it had been copied from another talk page. I'll check again to make sure that was the case; if it was new, I'll restore it. Thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the IPs originally posted on talk, which is where the confusion may have originated, so I've moved those to the AfD. The only posts on talk are a few that were copied from the article's talk page for some reason. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A COI question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi SlimVirgin. I have a question about COI and I noticed that you have done a lot of editing on the guideline WP:COI and may have more insight than I. I am not sure if the specifics point to a COI, but they have me concerned. I am not suggesting you are have a COI, but someone else. Whould you or can you discuss this in general without discussing the editor? AlbinoFerret 20:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi AlbinoFerret, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean if you suspect someone of COI editing, what's the best thing to do? If you want to discuss it with me in general, please do, or if you mean how to do that in general, COIN is a good place. Just be careful not to violate WP:OUTING, so stick to on-wiki things only, or if you need to refer to off-wiki matters, speak only in very general terms without naming the editor or allowing people to guess who it is. (I say this without knowing the example, which makes giving advice tricky.) SarahSV ^(talk) 21:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What I need to know is if this falls under a COI. In general without mentioning names here is what is raising concerns. A editor remarks that they are working for a company supplying medications to people. Should this editor be editing articles on drugs and the companies that make them? Is this a COI? AlbinoFerret 21:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, it would depend on the editing, and what the job was. If someone works as a chemist for Sanofi, they have a COI in relation to that company. I would say they don't necessarily have a COI in relation to Pfizer, but they would have to be careful not to do anything that could be construed as inappropriate or biased.

If the person works for Sanofi in a role that has anything to do with marketing, then I would say they not only have a COI in relation to Sanofi, but in relation to other companies in that industry too. Anything that could be construed as "spreading the word" about how great these companies are – or how great some are and how terrible others, etc. – would be problematic.

It might help to examine it away from that industry. If someone works for Volkswagen – especially in a marketing role – do they have a COI if they edit articles to say that exhaust emissions don't cause lung disease? I would say obviously yes, and that they should stick to talk and disclose. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I am in a tough spot because the company was not disclosed, and it appears from what was written on the talk page it is more than just being a chemist. AlbinoFerret 21:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The best thing is to open a COIN. Just be careful not to do anything that might out the editor. But COIN is there to get other opinions in tricky cases, so people are used to this kind of thing. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and pointing me in the right direction. I will take a day or so and word it correctly before going to COIN. AlbinoFerret 22:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• AlbinoFerret is probably talking about me, and This. If that is your concern Albino, the appropriate thing to do, like it is for any behavioral issue on WP, is to open a simple, polite, yet direct discussion with me on my talk page (or if it is someone else, with them on their talk page). You would be amazed at how much can be resolved just having a good faith, civil discussion. Of course if you want to jump straight to the dramaboard knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This brought to mind that I needed a COI disclosure on my userpage, which I have now done. User:Jytdog#COI_disclosure Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you have posted and identified yourself as the subject I will confirm you are the editor who I was referring to. I wasnt sure if it was indeed a COI, so I asked questions without identifying anyone in case it was not a COI. Thank you for placing the COI statement on your talk page. I do question if it is enough. You have not mentioned your position in the company, nor the company itself. I understand the outing concerns, but how are other editors going to properly assess your COI without knowing these details? AlbinoFerret 13:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah I will go ahead and answer. By defining the field in which my company operates and not editing in that field, I am avoiding COI editing. If you are concerned that I am lying about the field in which my company operates, there is little I can do about that... but I suppose I could disclose it to an oversighter and have him/her verify the field. But if you accept that I am telling the truth about the field, I think you will find the approach of defining the field and not editing within it to be conservative and reasonable. I don't understand how my position in the company is relevant if I am not editing in the field in which the company operates. Do tell... Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I think these kinds of discussions belong on COIN, so I'm going to close this. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tangential mention at WP:AE

A conversation in which you were involved has been brought up at WP:AE. You personally are not the subject of the request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Darkfrog. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say "you're welcome," but it's largely self-serving. If you don't want to get involved or don't consider it your concern, I get it. If you agree with any or all of what SmC is saying about me, I get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RFPP for Dev joshi

The page of Dev Joshi which you have protected from editing has been recreated with a new variation and been deleted 2 times and salted only for few days. As per now, i had redirected to Baal Veer and needs some sort of salting again on its new variation. Thanks. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

An example of carnist commodification?

From the article:

• "The cow in Queens was confused but determined. It had escaped the slaughterhouse and made it to the streets."
• "It was not the first cow to try to escape the butcher’s knife. It was not even the first cow in the 103rd Precinct to make a run for freedom."
• "The officers managed to corner and corral the cow, securing a rope around its neck. The police said the animal was returned to its owners."

Presumably the owners of the slaughterhouse. Recap: enslaved sentient being escapes slaughter looking for sanctuary; long arm of the state captures enslaved animal and returns it to its captors for slaughter. New York Times covers the story, joking about how funny it is. Carnism at work? Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely; see the "saved from slaughter narratives" section. People think it's hilarious. I found an interesting article recently by an interspecies anthropologist examining animal resistance. If I can track it down, I'll post the link for you. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do, as I would very much like to read that article. I'm just curious, but how do you emotionally deal with reading that article? It made me very sad. I realize, of course, that many people depend on animal protein to survive. In Hawaii (and Polynesia in general), people depend on fish, pork, chicken, and beef. There have been a series of reports and news articles about the serious obesity and diabetes epidemic in Polynesia, much of it traced to something I had never heard of before: the importation of cheap cuts of meat known as mutton flaps. The reports describe how people are literally eating themselves to death with mutton. I wonder how much of the obesity epidemic in the US is also traced to meat eating. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of sources on PubMed about the health effects of eating meat, and elsewhere about the environmental effects of producing it. But as you say lots of people believe they need it for protein. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a lack of arable land for growing crops on the smaller island nations, and they grow few crops besides taro. They very much depend on fishing and meat imports. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Space farming

Before I forget, I notice we don't have any information about the role of vegetarianism and veganism when it comes to space farming and the potential colonization of Mars. There's a lot of sources about the role a vegetarian diet will play in such a scenario. I only bring it up because I know you like to work on fun articles every now and then. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll kindly leave that bit of fun to someone else. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 00:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I completely understand. I think PETA deleted this from their site.[1]. It made a few waves several years back. Although it received a lot of negative feedback, I don't know if PETA understood a lot of these engineers and space scientists are hardcore meat eaters who in all likelihood eat more meat than regular meat eaters. Also, in a bit of cross-topic-fu, several proposals have been discussed about having all-female colonists on a Mars mission. A good introduction to the subject is Packing for Mars, which I may have already recommended to you in the past. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Blanket revert

Have you thought of addressing the issues on the talk page before removing the multiple tags in one revert? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV dispute: "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved." Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi, you're tagging things that are well-referenced, either in the lead or the body. I think you've probably violated 3RR by now. Please discuss instead of doing this, or look for refs yourself. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well-referenced according to who? Do you think that by merely using ref tags, claims magically become "well-referenced"? If this is your understanding of proper research and accuracy, then god help us. Those references, while reliable, discuss sexual assaults in general, and make no use of the term 'taharrush gama'ee' nevermind claim that they are uniquely a cultural and/or Arab phenomenon. To use such sources in article whose entire premise that mass sexual attacks is an Arab thing and one that implicitly paints Arab/North Africans as sexual predators is highly misleading. If it is indeed a phenomenon as you maintain, then finding academic sources (and ones that call it by the article's title, taharrush gama'ee) should not be a problem. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you violate 3RR, it's likely to be reported, so please revert yourself. The material is referenced. New material and sources are being added and the writing is being fixed. Your wholesale reverts are undoing all that work. You've also undone a clarification about the name. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Query

You'll get an idea of the inventing, if you read the part of a translated german source: Talk:Taharrush_gamea#Wikipedia_and_politics -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amtiss, I've read the sentence you added, I've read the German, and I've read the Google Translate version, but I'm still having difficulty with: "it is inventing a genuine Arabic cultural phenomenon." Can you express it differently (here on this page)? Separate issue: is that source representative of the coverage? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So "inventing" is my understanding of the word "career": if a wrongly transcribed arabic word has a career, starting at a news report citing an internal police report, this describes an act of creation for me. As I'm non-native English speaker, i used the - for me most appropriate - word "inventing", because "career" was not explained in that context/paragraph. Also the history of the word/ the sources showed, that it was used in internet forums and a semantic shift has been seen in the last years, so it has no stable definition. There are also some news paper articles reflecting the media and peoples reactions as stereotype reproduction ("the notoric wild/southern man") which got a new term to describe it. Is that somewhat helpful? If I shall give sources for certain aspects, just ask, but I won't be online the next 5 days. So better ask me in the German WP. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 01:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Amtiss, thanks. That transliteration was introduced by the German report, but the general term is in use. It's discussed in several reliable sources. The meaning of those terms (more than one is in use) is shifting because women's groups in Egypt have been struggling to establish a language for it and have the police and government take it seriously. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So it's actually about Egypt as I and others say? Yes, thats why in the german WP most of the content (which - in the english WP - is still in the article of taharrush gamea) was moved to a Egypt-related article. The special role of the media phenomenon is discussed is the rest of the german article about taharrush gamea. I think you're doing the same mistake, which Polentarion did (and he understood in the end), that there is "a term" or "a group of terms". Sure, there's also a term or a group of terms to describe harassment and sexual/sexual-actions-including violence in German or English language and you will find sources for that too. You have to strip the media phenomenon and all the associations which came with that if you really want to describe "the term(s)" or you should describe the role of the media too. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 03:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amtiss, it's not about the term, but about the phenomenon. Some sources use those terms and some don't, but they all describe the same phenomenon, a very distinctive type of sexual violence, which has been reported in Egypt since 2005 and in Europe since 2014. If we look for sources we may find women in other countries describing it. That research will take time. But the article is definitely not about a phrase. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So the article should get the title Sexual violence by groups (edit: harassment)? Otherwise its definitely not clear, what they have in common. Those incidents are not called tahharush gamea in Germany! They are called "Übergriffe von Köln" or similar. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 13:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the current version makes clear that it's an Egyptian phenomenon. What I don't like about the German solution is fitting this all into one article about sexual harassment. These attacks aren't just harassment. It's mob sexual violence of a very distinctive kind: not gang rape, which is assumed to be hidden and criminal, but this strange thing where a male crowd turns on a woman and does what it wants in public and assumes it can do so without consequence. In that sense hosting it at the title Egyptians use feels appropriate. But I would like to move it from taharrush gamea to whatever the most accurate transcription is. There's also "Crowd sexual violence in Egypt," or "Mob sexual violence in Egypt." But I'd like to do more research first to make sure it really is just Egypt (if we exclude what happened in Europe). SarahSV ^(talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-native -> replaced the suggestion. Actually, in most cases of Germany the term harassment would fit. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 21:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can know that, but I wasn't talking about what happened in Germany. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant I wasn't keen on the German solution to the Egyptian article, which was to move it to a general sexual harassment article. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

To finish this: you said "the general term is in use" - yes, but either the term exists since 2016 or the different one is in use in the very special case of egypt with the word change history. Currently, I don't see the sources telling something beside that, except that there is compareable crime all over the world. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Food inequality and the myth of scarcity

I only eat about 1 kilogram of food per day. The average person eats slightly more, up to 2 kg. Yet, we are constantly told there is food scarcity, and animals are needed to bridge this gap. But when one looks at the evidence, it seems that the animal industry is responsible for overproduction and food waste, as well as obesity and related health problems like diabetes and heart disease. Do we have an article that addresses these myths and discusses the contradictions? Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A good source is Henning Steinfeld, et al., Livestock's Long Shadow, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, 2006. It goes into a lot of detail about the food given to livestock. In 2001 livestock consumed over 60 million tonnes of peas, beans, potatoes, sweet potatoes, cabbage, cassava, and plantain. In 2002 they ate 1,174 million tonnes of food, including 670 million tonnes of cereal (one-third of the global harvest) and 7.6 million tonnes of fish.

I don't think it's seriously disputed that, if human beings relied on that kind of food instead of animal food, there would be less global hunger, fewer health problems, less cruelty, and fewer environmental issues. It would make a good article. It might be covered in Livestock's Long Shadow or environmental vegetarianism. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop editwarring

Your recent editing history at Taharrush gamea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Noted, but please discuss on article talk instead. I've replied there. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thank you. I will check with you about the sources before removing them. Frankly, considering there are 4 blogs, and one Discover article by a man outed as having taken money from Monsanto to promote GMOs, we are left with only one primary source about her employment. I do think there are BLP issues that should see her page deleted speedily. petrarchan47คุก 23:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've entered the page at AfD here. petrarchan47คุก 06:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No self-published material is allowed in BLPs, even if written by an expert in the field, unless the author is the subject of the BLP. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Many editors do not seem to believe this. I'm not sure if it's canvassing to say who, but there are ongoing discussions in various places about weighting BLPSPS versus FRINGE (specifically PARITY). I think this is almost certainly what Petra is running into. Are you sure you're right about this issue? --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely sure. See WP:BLPSPS, which is policy: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. It seems like you're in a minority. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP is a strongly supported policy, and that part of it is very clear, so anyone can remove an SPS from a BLP. If someone restores it report it to an uninvolved admin or WP:BLPN. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I "hate to agree" with Sammy1339, but that's definitely not true any more. merely arguing removal is considered heretic as I had to find out the hard way from one of your colleagues slim virgin, someone who is now an arbcom member.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The relevant cases are highly watched. Would it be canvassing to mention them here? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be canvassing, but it's better to report them to BLPN. The first step is to remove them with "per WP:BLPSPS" in the edit summary. If someone restores them, BLPN is the best place to attract more eyes, or if it's happening a lot, then AN/I. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.