User talk:Valereee/Archive 66
Latest comment: 7 days ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Books & Bytes – Issue 64
 | 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. |
| Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 |
Appropriate notification?
Hi, Valereee. Since you're already familiar with the background, would you mind taking a look at the question I asked M.Bitton on their talk page (and was reverted)? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since this is in relation to my comment on this discussion, would you also mind having a look at what Gitz has been up to. Thanks.
- @Gitz: please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, no idea what you're even talking about, Gitz regarding the notifications you thought were canvassing. Diffs might help. M.Bitton is allowed to removed posts from their talk.
- And M.Bitton, Gitz is welcome to try to get clarity over that. IMO even the Trump article referenced in that discussion should be slashed of all the actual speculation and just mention the coverage of the speculation, but I'm not getting into that quagmire. Especially not to protect Donald Trump, who is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. Valereee (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- yep, Trump can take care of himself as well as Putin can: that content about The Sun's allegations of Parkinson's is quite bad but others can take care of it... Anyway, as to the diffs (I'm perfectly fine with M.Bitton removing my question from their talk), they are in the removed comment:
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Why did you notify these discussions: WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Imane_Khelif, to the Algeria talk page, here? How is the Algeria article
directly related
(per WP:APPNOTE) to the subject of the discussions opened by Trade - whether the article about Imane Khelif is within the scope of the WikiProject LGBT studies?- You're making it impossible for me to assume good faith with you with your POINTY so-called "enquiries". I will also ping those who asked you to step away from the subject (JustAnotherCompanion, GhostOfDanGurney and TarnishedPath) because at this stage, a trip to ANI is probably the way to go.
- As for the notification, she is Algerian, so Algeria is more related to the topic than LGBT studies. M.Bitton (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- (since I'm here anyway) The Algeria appnote seems to fit well per WP:APPNOTE#1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- This comment may well have been
posted by mistake
, but it's definitely what you think. The xenophobic assumptions (that the editors are Algerians, whose responses will benationalistic and transfobic/misogynistic
) aside, theTrue Woman
remark is another proof that your BLP violations show no sign of abating. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- If (per WP:CANVASS) you wanted to "draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion" about Khelief and the scope of the WikiProject LGBT studies, you could have notified many WikiProjects: Sport, Women's sport and Boxing are the first three that come to mind. You opted for the talk page of the article Algeria. Why did you choose that venue? It's bound to look bad: it may draw editors who have a view on the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies for the wrong reason - national pride. Arguably, it is selective and distorsive. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- As to the
xenophobic assumptions
- this is absurd and offensive. If we were talking about an Italian or British athlet (nations close to me and my family), I would have found a notification to the talk page of Italy or United Kingdom equally wrong, and for exactly the same reasons. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- As to the
- If (per WP:CANVASS) you wanted to "draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion" about Khelief and the scope of the WikiProject LGBT studies, you could have notified many WikiProjects: Sport, Women's sport and Boxing are the first three that come to mind. You opted for the talk page of the article Algeria. Why did you choose that venue? It's bound to look bad: it may draw editors who have a view on the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies for the wrong reason - national pride. Arguably, it is selective and distorsive. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The first link takes me to a discussion that hasn't had a comment in 29 days and has 40 comments. The second link takes me to a discussion that hasn't had a comment in 30 days and has 54 comments. Are you saying you want me to read both of these long, stale discussions trying to figure out what you're talking about? Valereee (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, you're talking about this notification of Algeria of the two discussions? I agree with GGS, doesn't seem inappropriate to notify Algeria, and the notification was neutrally worded. Valereee (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- So it's not inappropriate? Good to know, I would have thought otherwise. Thanks for your time - I hope you didn't read those old discussions, just the OPs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, if you want to discuss why you would have thought it was inappropriate, I'm happy to keep an open mind. Maybe I haven't thought of something. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's okay, I don't want to waste any more of your or anyone else's time. As I said, I thought the connection between Algeria and the topic of discussion (i.e., WikiProject LGBT studies's remit re Khalid) was too loose to justify the notification; absent a justification, I thought this could be seen as an attempt at influencing the discussion by drawing in editors with an interest (not in sports, boxing or GENSEX, but) in Algeria. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good thing to draw in editors who aren't there because they're interested in contentious topics. Discussions shouldn't be posted to completely unrelated projects only because it's spammy.
- Why would people interested in Algeria be more or less likely to take any given position on a particular gensex policy question than people interested in boxing or sports? Valereee (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since you asked... At the Olympics, athletes compete for their country, Imane Khelif won a gold medal for Algeria, and this is reflected in the attitude of the national sports federations, the national press and the general public (see for example Sportstar, where Khelif is described as having "transcended boxing" and become a "social phenomenon" throughout Algeria). Would it not have been inappropriate for me to notify the talk page of Italy "There are various discussions involving the BLP of the boxer who beat the Italian Angela Carini at the Olympics"? I think so - it would be like continuing the Khelif vs. Celini fight on Wikipedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it would have been inappropriate to notify the talk page of Italy because the discussion is about Khelif (who is Algerian) and not Carini. In any case, you haven't answered Valereee's question. M.Bitton (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- For me, even Italy would be no big deal, if you can figure out a way to post neutrally and still explain why you think the project's members might be interested. If you sincerely believe members of a wikiproject might be interested, inform that project with a neutral post (which "who beat an Italian" is not). As long as you aren't spamming and you're being neutral, you're good. But are you saying there's some reason to believe members of project Algeria and members of project Italy would somehow be on opposite sides of a gensex policy discussion? Valereee (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, we're not talking about members of the Algeria and Italy Wikiprojects, but users watching the Algeria and Italy articles (the notification was made on the Algeria talk page). Yes, I'm saying that users active on those articles might tend to take opposing sides on whether Imane Khelif's biography belongs in the Wikiproject LGBT studies. I can't prove it, of course, but arguably Italian users would be inclined to believe that Khelif is intersex and/or that she was involved in a controversy about gender eligibility criteria in sports, making her relevant to the Wikiproject. Algerian users might be inclined to argue that she is a cisgender endosex woman and that the so-called "controversy" was utter disinformation, so that any suggestion that she is LBGTQ+ would violate WP:BLP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- With regard to this comment: the notification didn't
provoke nationalistic and transfobic/misogynistic responses
, so why make such a claim? M.Bitton (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC) - People interested in Italy (or Algeria, or GENSEX, or Israel or Palestine or abortion or the Balkans or any other subject, contentious or not) are not necessarily pro-Italy (or pro-Algeria, etc.) People probably join WikiProjects as often because they are critical of the subject as because they're supporters of it. So, no, we can't make that assumption. And you're making a really insulting assumption about Italians, which my husband and children and multiple of my in-laws are. And none of whom would assume she's intersex simply because some idiot on the internet speculated it. Valereee (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not so much an assumption about Italians as a factual observation about the content of the Italian press. You'll remember that I linked to some mainstream Italian news agencies and newspapers that describe Imane Khelif as intersex. But it's not just (or mainly) the nationalist mainstream. This article in the Italian edition of Cosmopolitan is written by someone who specialised in gender studies with an MA in women's studies in the UK. Its title translates as
The case of boxer Imane Khelif shows how invisible the intersex community still is
. It includes an interview with intersex activist and scholar Michela Balocchi [1] about the intersex condition. And this article in the progressive weekly magazine L'Espresso is meant to defend Khelif against the fake news put out by the right. Its title translates asFrom Meloni to Musk, lies about Imane Khelif's body reveal the fierce face of reactionary politics
. But the article clearly states:In reality, Imane Khelif is a woman with "variations in sex characteristics"
. - So part of Italian public opinion (and probably not only the Italian) has little doubt that Khelif is intersex, and sees her case as an attack on LGBTQIA+ people - the
non-conforming people
who have to fight against afront that spews hatred and violence against them and their lives
, says Massimo Prearo [2], interviewed in the L'Espresso article. Others point out that the Khelif case raises the delicate issue of balancing inclusion and safety in boxing when it comes to intersex women. These interpretations of the Khelif case seem to me to be more even-handed and profound than the (majority, but not unanimous) interpretations of English-language news sources, which report that she is not transgender and that anything about DSDs is unsubstantiated speculation, and see the Khelif case only as fake news and disinformation put out by Russia and the populist right. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- Sorry, TL:DR...your point re: inviting editors from these projects (or articles, don't care) weighing in at one of these discussion is...? Valereee (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a point about that. You are the admin here, you know the rules of the house. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't. In fact, you never did and the only reason you're continuing this discussion while evading the questions is simply to discuss Khelif. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I only continued this discussion because Valereee asked two questions after I said I wanted to leave and then commented on my "insulting assumptions" about Italians; the reason I'm "evading" your questions is because you asked me not to comment on your talk page or ping you. You can ask all you want: I won't answer you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't need to ask you anything now that you admitted that you don't have a point. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- In case someone in this discussion didn't know, there was a related discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS. It's waiting at WP:CR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks! No, I hadn't seen that. Valereee (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- In case someone in this discussion didn't know, there was a related discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS. It's waiting at WP:CR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't need to ask you anything now that you admitted that you don't have a point. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I only continued this discussion because Valereee asked two questions after I said I wanted to leave and then commented on my "insulting assumptions" about Italians; the reason I'm "evading" your questions is because you asked me not to comment on your talk page or ping you. You can ask all you want: I won't answer you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't. In fact, you never did and the only reason you're continuing this discussion while evading the questions is simply to discuss Khelif. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a point about that. You are the admin here, you know the rules of the house. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, TL:DR...your point re: inviting editors from these projects (or articles, don't care) weighing in at one of these discussion is...? Valereee (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not so much an assumption about Italians as a factual observation about the content of the Italian press. You'll remember that I linked to some mainstream Italian news agencies and newspapers that describe Imane Khelif as intersex. But it's not just (or mainly) the nationalist mainstream. This article in the Italian edition of Cosmopolitan is written by someone who specialised in gender studies with an MA in women's studies in the UK. Its title translates as
- With regard to this comment: the notification didn't
- Actually, we're not talking about members of the Algeria and Italy Wikiprojects, but users watching the Algeria and Italy articles (the notification was made on the Algeria talk page). Yes, I'm saying that users active on those articles might tend to take opposing sides on whether Imane Khelif's biography belongs in the Wikiproject LGBT studies. I can't prove it, of course, but arguably Italian users would be inclined to believe that Khelif is intersex and/or that she was involved in a controversy about gender eligibility criteria in sports, making her relevant to the Wikiproject. Algerian users might be inclined to argue that she is a cisgender endosex woman and that the so-called "controversy" was utter disinformation, so that any suggestion that she is LBGTQ+ would violate WP:BLP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since you asked... At the Olympics, athletes compete for their country, Imane Khelif won a gold medal for Algeria, and this is reflected in the attitude of the national sports federations, the national press and the general public (see for example Sportstar, where Khelif is described as having "transcended boxing" and become a "social phenomenon" throughout Algeria). Would it not have been inappropriate for me to notify the talk page of Italy "There are various discussions involving the BLP of the boxer who beat the Italian Angela Carini at the Olympics"? I think so - it would be like continuing the Khelif vs. Celini fight on Wikipedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's okay, I don't want to waste any more of your or anyone else's time. As I said, I thought the connection between Algeria and the topic of discussion (i.e., WikiProject LGBT studies's remit re Khalid) was too loose to justify the notification; absent a justification, I thought this could be seen as an attempt at influencing the discussion by drawing in editors with an interest (not in sports, boxing or GENSEX, but) in Algeria. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, if you want to discuss why you would have thought it was inappropriate, I'm happy to keep an open mind. Maybe I haven't thought of something. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- So it's not inappropriate? Good to know, I would have thought otherwise. Thanks for your time - I hope you didn't read those old discussions, just the OPs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, you're talking about this notification of Algeria of the two discussions? I agree with GGS, doesn't seem inappropriate to notify Algeria, and the notification was neutrally worded. Valereee (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- yep, Trump can take care of himself as well as Putin can: that content about The Sun's allegations of Parkinson's is quite bad but others can take care of it... Anyway, as to the diffs (I'm perfectly fine with M.Bitton removing my question from their talk), they are in the removed comment:
This Month in GLAM: August 2024
| ||||||
Xiaomichel
On his discussion page Xiaomichel is editing and making the discussion very uncivilized 79.17.172.126 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 64
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024
- The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
- Wikimania presentation
- New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)