User talk:HandThatFeeds

Closing Talk discussion

You closed a discussion on the Jorts (cat) Talk page (In-Universe Style) immediately after I had made a comment on it without providing a summary or assessing consensus—I saw no obvious consensus on the topic. You stated that it was over a year old, and yet my comment was only 4 minutes old. Considering the discussion to that point had been short and that I had just joined, it seemed an inappropriate move. There were other discussion from the same time period that had gone on considerably longer. Why did you close this one? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That was four months ago and you're just now bringing it up?

Yes, I closed it because responding to year-old sections is not helpful. If you want to suggest a new change to the article, start a new section. This is standard practice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Closed discussion

@HandThatFeeds how can you say that? I've provided reliable sources as asked, how can you just shut down the discussion after I have jumped through the hoops I've been asked to jump through? What was the point in me finding the multiple sources if you're just going to shut down the debate without even so much as a sensible discussion on new wording. If people are being disruptive and bringing their own views into the discussion (which they are) deal with that rather than shutting down the debate. Icecold (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Your sources were discussed and dismissed as inadequate for changing the consensus. This has been debated ad nauseam, please read the Archives and FAQ. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I don't understand, I was asked for more reputable sources and I provided them. In the end I provided a pink news source, 2 guardian sources and 2 times sources which are 5 "reputable" sources that Wikipedia has decided. That's ignoring the other sources which apparently aren't reputable. I didn't get any more feedback on this, that to me seems enough sources to at least start a discussion.

Secondly, there wasn't a clear consensus, there were 4 contributors that were seemingly open with the wording being changed. You cannot say it's a clear consensus when almost 40% of the contributers are open to a wording change. Yes, it might be in a minority and if it came to a vote then the statue quo might be maintained, but it's not a clear consensus, I would associate that with something like 90% supporting the status quo.

I think this is something which should be debated, I've jumped through Wikipedias hoops at finding 5 reputable sources, and had almost 40% of editors on that topic open to a language change. I don't care if it's been discussed before, language changes and sources get updated. This is a current issue that is constantly changing, you can't just say that because we've decided once a viewpoint is right that it's always going to be right.

Ultimately I just want some of the language to be made more neutral so it doesn't appear as if Wikipedia itself is judging him, I'm fully supportive of his controversy still being detailed, but in a neutral way. Icecold (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The quantity of editors supporting a change is secondary to the merits of the arguments. Just because 40% of the people on that thread supported a change, that doesn't mean there's a strong case for it. Fundamentally, the existing wording is supported by a large body of reliable sources, and is accurate. There's no reason to change it for some false "neutrality", which would ultimately mean we are describing him incorrectly. He's an anti-trans activist, simple as that, and we have a large body of evidence to support that exact wording. GraziePrego (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego

"The quantity of editors supporting a change is secondary to the merits of the arguments" okay, but you said there was clear consensus (presumably of the editors), so the quantity of editors supporting a change is clearly relevant. Are you saying that if a majority of editors supported a change you'd still veto it?

"Fundamentally, the existing wording is supported by a large body of reliable sources, and is accurate"

I disagree. The terminology has changed, and indirectly calling someone a transphobe for having increasingly mainstream beliefs is clearly taking a political position

"There's no reason to change it for some false "neutrality""

Well that's a rather odd thing to say given it's a core Wikipedia principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone."

That is literally all I'm asking. Refer to him in the opening sentence as gender critical, which is more neutral and then reword existing mentions to language like "he has been described by x, y and z as anti-trans" that seems like a much more fact based way to describe him, and is backed up by the NPOV article.

"which would ultimately mean we are describing him incorrectly"

What exactly is incorrect about describing someone as gender critical, when I have pointed out several reputable sources that describe him as gender critical, it's how he would describe himself, he's referenced on Wikipedias own article about gender critical.

So to summerise, I've provided 5 reputable sources showing gender critical is a valid description for him, we had almost 40% of editors on the brief talk discussion be open to discussing a change in wording, my proposed changes are in line with the Wikipedia rules on neutrality, but you clearly have personal views on Linehan’s "he's an anti-trans activist, as simple as that" and are letting those views cloud your judgement, by preventing any discussion.

With all due respect, I don't think you're following Wikipedias founding principles here. Please allow me to reopen the discussion. Icecold (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego sorry I've just realised you weren't @handthatfeeds I assumed you were as it's their talk page. Icecold (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"Gender critical" is a term TERFs made up to soften their image, when the term they created was turned against them. We aren't going to use it, any more than we're going to use "race realist" to describe clear racists.

We are absolutely following Wikipedia principles here, you're trying to push an agenda. And it's not going to fly.

Do not post on my Talk page again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds You're accusing me of pushing an agenda, when I'm just trying to follow NPOV. It's so arrogant that you feel like you can speak for the entirety of Wikipedia. Wikipedia already uses it and has an article for it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism and you're clearly trying to push your own agenda by not letting me soften the language. Even something like "described as gender critical or anti-trans" which is neutral and fair.

But you're clearly biased here. The facts are:

1) Gender critical is a valid term with reliable sources otherwise it wouldn't already exist as its own article (it also mentions Linehan)

2) I have provided 5 reliable sources that describe Linehan as Gender critical, which should meet the threshold for a good faith discussion

3) I have shown how the language on J K Rowlings article is more neutral, so it's just Linehan that has been unfairly singled out it seems.

If you won't allow me to discuss this on your page, I'll have to reopen discussion on Linehan’s talk page. You cannot shut down the discussion unilaterally and then not hear my appeals. If you're not going to allow discussion this needs to go to a RFC or DRN. If I lose a democratic vote, then fair enough, but I will not be blocked unilaterally by you for what I see to be personal bias reasons. That's not in the spirit of Wikipedia, you're letting your personal feelings cloud your judgment. You accuse me of pushing an agenda, but I have been consistently open to discussion, I'm not trying to erase accusations of anti trans, just trying to add to the article and make it describe him in a more neutral way so it doesn't appear as if Wikipedia is passing judgement, as NPOV describes.

So as I repeat, if you won't allow me to discuss this here, I'll reopen it on Linehan’s talk page and/or raise a DRN. I will not have you unilaterally shut me down. Icecold (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I hardly think yet another discussion on the article talk page will achieve anything. There have been a million and the consensus is clearly against changing the wording. There’s an FAQ on Linehan’s talk page for a reason- the discussion has been absolutely done to death. GraziePrego (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I can't reply as I've agreed to not post on this talk page, if you want to talk to me, take it to my user page. Thanks! Icecold (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said before, do not post on my Talk page again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll no longer post here, on the proviso that you don't unilaterly shut down the debate when I re-open it, otherwise I will be back appealing (as you give me no other option to appeal). Icecold (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Re-opening that discussion would be WP:DISRUPTive. If you really are determined to fight this, take your original idea of going to DRN.

Also, there is no "proviso". Per Wikipedia policy, I can require someone to no longer post on my Talk page, and violations can result in sanctions by admins. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)