This page was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2019. The result of the discussion was Keep and Blank.

• This does come across as the classic "attack helicopter" meme, a slippery slope argument. I feel quite strongly about the value and importance of self-determination and autonomy, where one gets to shape their own identity. Moreover, I would like to note that neopronouns are particularly uncommon on Wikipedia thus far, and I can't think of any notable individuals that use them. The concern that our MOS:IDENTITY guideline will be abused by someone who wants to make fun of sources like Wikipedia is currently unfounded. As for trademark stylizations and honorific titles, I don't really have an opinion. I do think we should be nicer to Cabo Verde and Côte d'Ivoire, though. This is just kinda mean. They have a name and we (the English-speaking world) refuse to use it? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologistic pronouns are uncommon here, for good reasons, but we nevertheless have people advocating them (most often for specific subjects, like Genesis P-Orridge, but sometimes also more generally). Of course it's a slippery slope argument; it wouldn't be funny if it weren't. But see the Slippery slope article: such arguments are not automatically fallacious; they're valid when the sliding effect is real, and a case can be made that this is possible here, because the language-reformism types are not joking and are quite serious. In the interim, what the mainstream is doing is not using neo-pronouns, but re-integrating singular they into everyday English writing (it actually pre-dates singular you, which used to be plural). That's something I'm very supportive of.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is shockingly mean-spirited. Where, exactly, is the joke here? Parabolist (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• IMHO, this a borderline transphobic rant. Complete with wikilinking the picture caption in a disturbing manner. The fact that Wikipedia finds this funny and has published in in their official publication is very distressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.194.26 (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anything borderline here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is simply appalling. Especially since these concerns were raised before publication. Doubly-so since there were alternatives. This article should be retracted, with unambiguous apologies (not the "Well I'm sorry you were offended", kind). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As the other involved user, I can confirm this had no reason to be published. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 18:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just going to tell you write right now that I'm a she, I've always been a she, I was born a she, I'm staying a she. Don't be It'n on me, forgetaboudit. – Athaenara ✉ 13:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC) (I was hopping mad and couldn't spell rite.) – Athaenara ✉ 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really disappointed that none of the examples provided discussed It putting lotion on Its skin. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Demmit, I It should've thought of that ...  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your Cousin says hello. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and that, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kind of sophomoric humor but humor nonetheless. Scolding criticism and personal feelings of upset about any humor borders on a gotch-ya moment of satiric bliss, and could be attributed to recentism, an attitude of pointofviewist condemnation, or just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do compliment Athaenara for wanting to remain a 'she', no longer PC in some circles. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. I didn't get into it in this particular page, though this has been a matter of fairly frequent discussion over the last couple of years here, on various talk pages (including Talk:Rose McGowan and Talk:The Matrix Revolutions, among many others): The transgendered and non-binary are not some hive mind. They're individuals with highly variable preferences. We have a serious problem with language reform activists (most of them not TG but self-styled "allies", and often criticized by actual TG people as terrible allies) constantly making one-size-fits-all assumptions and demanding that WP editors write the neologistic way the activistic like. We are finally getting pretty close to acceptance of singular they, and I think that's about as far as it'll go. We do need strategies for referring to non-binary subjects, and those for whom current gender identity isn't well-sourced. But it's not going to be with pseudo-pronouns like e and s(h)e.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this type of discussion my one and only point is that Wikipedia doesn't censor. And here we have a censorship issue. The discussion following the essay has now evolved into keeping this page mainly because of the discussion which, remember, because of the way The Signpost is set up the discussion becomes part of the article. I just don't like censorship, no matter what emotions a certain creation brings out in ourselves or others. Once The Signpost editor and the page writers agreed to include this essay in this edition of The Signpost as its humour essay, an organized attempt to remove it is censorship, and we don't do that on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • • What special authority is conferred upon the Signpost editor which allows them to make this decision? Do they WP:OWN this part of Wikipedia? –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia doesn't censor academic, encyclopedic topics when the content might offend someone. Wikipedia censors all the time meanspirited things that are offensive with no other purpose. Natureium (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the author has explained his point of view above and below these comments, and the points he wanted to make in writing the essay, so, taking one of Wikipedia's institutional beating hearts into consideration, the author has to be assumed to be acting and communicating in good faith. From his point of view there is nothing offensive about it. I don't really have a horse in this race, the article is actually well written but with a too-often repeating punch line, but in reading it over again, by assuming good faith to the author, I can "see" both points of view quite easily. Removing an already published article seems pointofviewist, after both points of view have been discussed and shared. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Lighten up folks! This is one of the funniest bits of humor I've enjoyed in awhile. If you are offended stop reading and let the rest of us enjoy the laugh. Honestly, we need laughs where we can get them because humor isn't funny anymore. Not Wilkins (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins[reply]
  • As an expression of social non-acceptance and fairly mean-spirited disregard of the autonomy of others, it's hard to really ignore, especially when it's published in a publication you otherwise really respect. It's frustrating to see an opinion piece about how your identity should probably just be disregarded completely on formal channels. I'm lucky I am able to find humor in a lot of things these days. Sadly, I cannot see it here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't suggest anything about disregarding identity; it's all about whether someone's identity preference magically translate into a requirement that WP write mangled English just to keep them (or, more to the real point, a bunch of "English is broken" activists claiming to speak for them) happy. There's a world of difference between WP actually writing in such neologisms as zir and e, versus recording as a reliably sourced fact that the subject uses such a neologism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ignoring the fact that it's entirely tasteless, what part of this is funny? Natureium (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It (the usually uncapitalized version in a capitalized beginning-of-sentence situation that seems contrary to the first bullet point) doesn't make any sense. Oh, It does, but it doesn't! And while we're at it, does this mean that It will continue It's (or Its?) usually long-winded harassment of the rest of us shes, hes and Its who disagree with It? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  15:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have gone ahead and raised Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour. No doubt those involved will paint me as a figure of ridicule or hatred, but genderqueer, nonbinary and transgender people are real and should be treated with dignity. This "humour" essay does not. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't hate you, just as I don't hate any other person who attempts to force us to abandon one of our basic principles (Wikipedia is not censored). If anything, I feel sorry for you. It must be awful (apologies to any middle-English speakers reading this) to go through life being offended again and again, yet somehow being unable or unwilling to simply avoid the things that offend you.

As for ridicule, I will try not to ridicule you, despite the fact that your ham-handed (apologies to any Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu contributors that I may have just triggered) attempt at censorship is completely ridiculous and deserving of ridicule. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going with "appalling" and "disgraceful", and endorse Headbomb's call above for the article to be retracted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia should be better than this. It's appalling that, in 2019, this sort of content is still seen as fit for publication. - Sdkb (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Jesus christ, folks. Let's maybe not post transphobic shit on the signpost? Thanks. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I found the comments above more amusing than the article. I shall revisit in a day or two in the hope of some more chuckles. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It'll likely be deleted by then; see the MfD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not transphobic in the faintest. You've utterly missed the point if you think it is. It's about Wikipedia editors engaging in language-change activism trying to push non-mainstream stylistic strangeness, including a) fake pronouns like zie and hirm, b) unusual trademark stylizations, and c) excessive honorifics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with off-site usages or the values (or value) of those who engage in them somewhere else. It's about and only about encyclopedic usage.

  Anything can be offensive if a) you're desperately looking to be offended, and b) if you have trouble telling the difference between "entity A writes like X, off-site" and "Wikipedia is required to use exactly X because A says so". It's the exact same thing over and over again with adherents to various religions, with trademark holders, and with people convinced that English is broken and must be fixed right-now-or-else.

  If you want to go change WP:MOS to say "It's okay to exactly mimic the appearance of logos, to write of Jesus and Mohammad with "Our Lord" and "Peace Be Upon Him" before and after (respectively) their names, to inject made-up pronoun shenanigans like ze and xir into our articles", well, good luck with that. Never going to happen. That's the entire point of the essay. Given that these are all sacred oxen to their various camps ("my identity", "honoring my Prophet", "my profits"), it is not possible to address the matter without tweaking some people. I gored them in the gentlest manner I could, with explicit silliness. So, grow a sense of humor.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your next trick, could you write one that targets us Jews instead of us queers but pretends not to because, "humour". Thanks so much --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I already included criticism of excessive language-related demands by religious groups. Not only was it obvious, I even pointed it out really clearly above, in the post you're responding to. It's seems you are not actually reading but have already made up your mind; you made this clear yourself, over here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is either extremely misguided, or one of the most shocking bits of incivility I have ever seen on Wikipedia. This horrific attempt at "humour" pokes fun at people who are already marginalized by society and by the English language, and makes them feel shitty. I am appalled at the temerity of those who wrote this article, and even more dismayed at those who thought this was okay to publish. This reflects poorly on us all. Bradv🍁 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I may actually prefer "It" to the singular they. However, I submit that "per," sourced to an otherwise forgettable science fiction novel from the 70s or 80s, is a better choice and allows one to distinguish between animate and inanimate, uh, entities.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Piercy, Marge (1976). Woman on the Edge of Time. PS: I actually wrote this essay in the particular form I did (bending an existing pronoun to a new, non-standard purpose, instead of just inventing another neologism like hrim, which would be closer to the demands being satirized, because I actually use "It" pretty frequently as a self-reference ("It needs coffee!"); people who know me personally could vouch for this. :-) I simply exaggerated it into a bunch of stuff, like religious connections, to broaden the point: WP doesn't use the wording (or pseudo-wording) you tell it to use just because you say so. At best, we'll report what RS tell us about your idiolect if it seems encyclopedically pertinent. [Damned pronouns ... I am of course using the "generic you" here, I don't mean Gaaryvet.] We do of course respect "he" and "she" preferences, and increasingly "they", but not because of how loud someone is about it, but because the real world tells us this is a contemporary norm. WP follows usage, it doesn't blaze the trail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a nasty piece of writing that belittles those who have perfectly reasonable reasons to make others aware of their pronoun preferences. Such preferences are easily accommodated in Wikipedia and have never caused any disruption to our mission - whereas this "humour" may well drive good editors away. I'm certainly thinking far less of the Signpost right now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It has nothing at all to do with people making others aware of their pronoun preferences. It has only to do with whether some editor aware of or assumptive about an article subject's pronoun preferences can make WP's own wording use them when they are not real pronouns, like zim or e.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 09:48, March 1, 2019 (UTC)

• And now we have intimidation and junk accusations from the Signpost editors. Kudpung should resign or be kicked out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And they just keep making them! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what's worse ... the fact this even exists or the fact it's under "humour", Needless to say I'm frankly appalled this even exists here!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• And yet, Pennywise wearing a cape and makeup still feels like a heteronormative male a**hole.  Spintendo  23:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding my voice to the chorus of editors who think that this article is in poor taste. The fact that it's a humor piece does not absolve it of its offensiveness. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is extremely misguided, and the author's appeals absolutely do not look like they are done in good faith. Moreover, every their next comment makes me lean into the bad faith waters. This is not a good outlook. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That translates to "You are lying, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise because I read minds". All you're doing is indicating "I'm aware of of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:ASPERSIONS, and refusing to follow them."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trying to invoke this reflects bad on you, and does not help your position, and instead, makes it completely usupportable. Rethink your conflict escalation. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Up until the last paragraph ("All of the above ...") it is still possible to believe, albeit barely, that this was written in extreme ignorance rather than malice. But the cut of the last paragraph is plain: the implication is that non-binary gender people who call out gendered language as discriminatory, exclusionary, or hurtful are being either frivolous and precious or insincere, and the intent is to ridicule them. It is a stain on the Signpost that this piece made it to publication. --Ori Livneh (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You're just making stuff up out of thin air now. Obviously, the actual point of the paragraph (you have to try really hard to miss it) is to tie "You must write about topic X exactly as I say, or else" unreasonableness which results in mangling English, to similar "You must write about topic Y exactly as I say, or else" demands from other quarters, such as honorifics and trademarks (and the kinds of "not doing it my way is a grievous offense" stuff this entails, sometimes with pseudo-legal handwaving). The people editwarring things like zie and s(h)e into articles – not as sourced mentions of what a subject prefers but as how WP itself writes about them – have a similar "there is only One True Way and I will never stop" behavior pattern as people demanding strange logo-mimicking stylizations of company names and song titles, and those who refuse to understand why you can't refer to Jesus as "Our Lord Jesus Christ" in Wikipedia's own words or stick "Peace Be upon Him" or "PBUH" after every mention of Mohammad here. It's the same WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH / WP:ADVOCACY kind of mindset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 09:48, March 1, 2019 (UTC)

• In all my years of reading the Signpost, this is by far the most shocking and appalling stinking pile of crap that I have ever read in this usually useful publication. I am speaking as a 66 year old straight white male who has spent my entire life trying my best to treat other people fairly. I remember at age 17, way back in 1969, meeting a transgender person in New York's East Village, and spending a couple of hours learning about their profound pain and the social rejection that burned their soul. Those memories from almost half a century ago are seared into my memory. People who get their jollies by mocking the weakest and most marginalized among us are deserving of nothing but contempt. For shame. For shame. Shame on you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not mocking transgendered people. I'm criticizing language-change activists, including those who want to abuse WP as a platform for advocacy of made-up pronoun alternatives like ze and ey. (It's perfectly fine if someone wants to use such a construction in their private life and try to get people they know to follow suit; it is not okay to try to make Wikipedia use such pseudo-words. We're happy to use he, she, or singular they [some editors don't like that last one though], as sources indicate is appropriate for the subject in question, since they are actual English words and our readers understand them.) I intentionally constructed a farcical example (of a fictionalized "I am a space-god" cult leader, bending an existing pronoun to a new purpose rather than inventing a new one) to divorce it from TG matters entirely, because the principle is general. The whole point is that it doesn't matter why someone is advocating the use of non-standard writing and style on Wikipedia; this simply is not the site for it, ever. PS: The TG people I know well would take offense to be labeled "the weakest ... among us". There's something akin to inspiration porn happening here, and it's rather unseemly.

  If anyone cares, the "It" page was inspired in large part by Scientology (a fake religion centered about a space-god, and banned as a criminal enterprise in various countries), which commingles supposedly religion-based demands, abuse of intellectual property and other laws, and misuse of language, all together as a programmatic agenda. (Though I don't know of them making up pseudo-pronouns, they certainly are chock full of neologisms like "thetans" and "engrams", and do plenty of warping of everyday words to mean things no one else would understand.)

  Anyway, if people can't understand that "I want to force Wikipedia to do idiosyncratic and reader-confusing stuff to the English language for personal and socio-political reasons" is wrong, and that calling it out as wrong isn't an attack on TG people, then Xenu help us all. Same goes for not being able to understand the difference between "I identify as female" (or "as non-binary"), and "I use the new pronoun hrim"; Wikipedia is happy to respect the former, just like any good publisher would. We'll largely ignore the latter (unless RS mention it enough it seems encyclopedic to neutrally mention it on WP, too); like virtually any other publisher, WP not actually use that "pronoun" in our own writing. However, I don't think either of these "can't understand" things are real; it's an WP:ICANTHEARYOU act. It simply feels really good to some people to work up a heady sense of outrage and engage in a witch-hunt against someone who wasn't quite as sensitive about something as they would have been. It's much easier and funner to attack the author and the style of the piece to earn points with your friends than to actually address the meaning of the piece substantively.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Even after a full day of tiresome and time consuming debate, you are continuing to use Wikipedia discussion spaces to mock and deride nonbinary people. It must be clear to the vast majority of readers that you clearly do have a personal problem, and are unable to sit back, listen, and admit that your actions were unwise and disruptive for Wikipedia and Signpost. Deriding less commonly used pronouns as "pseudo-words" and repeatedly targeting them as a butt of your unfunny jokes despite overwhelming good faith critical feedback, is transphobic. Nobody has been lobbying to "make Wikipedia" use these pronouns as a default for BLPs, but if the subject has defined such a preference then we already have many trans and queer related biographies where this is both respected and mentioned. If a Wikimedia commons editor has asked to be addressed with gender neutral alternatives like "Mx", "Dr" or "'e", then it is a matter of respect and civility to try to apply them in discourse, or try a little harder to avoid pronouns. Using Wikipedia to mock minority groups and using Signpost to target and troll your fellow contributors based on their gender, is the very definition of NOTHERE and HARASSMENT. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum to clarify the grammar here, "is transphobic" refers to the "jokes" being published or the language used, not their author. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're tired, then stop. You're just making up weird stuff out thin air, Fæ. I said nothing at all "to mock and deride nonbinary people" in any of that (or anywhere else). You're having reading comprehensive problems, or going far out of your way to pretend you are. Both are WP:CIR issues. See also WP:IDHT. If you think no one has been lobbying to make WP use neo-pronouns like zie at articles on subjects who use them in their private lives, you're just completely ignorant of the issue history at such pages. Given that you were topic-banned from the entire subject area and then some from 2012 to mid–2017, this does not actually surprise me; something of the Dunning–Kruger effect is at work here, with you presuming expertise in the on-WP editing record that you do not actually possess. I'm probably skipping over some of that above hand-waving, but I'll close with an observation that I have no earthly idea why you're lecturing me about politeness in WP discourse, since a) you lack any and have been severely sanctioned for it for most of your editing career here, and b) nothing anyone is talking about here has anything to do with pronoun usage on talk pages between editors. Yet you presume to hassle someone else below about staying on topic?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great way to game the system, painting yourself a "victim" with the complainants as attackers, even though that skips the logic that nobody forced or harassed you into writing this article or publishing it on Wikipedia.

Well done for using Wikipedia Signpost to add to the sum of human knowledge by teaching us that "Also, marginalized, discriminated-against transgender people are fun to mock."[1] No doubt that's the niche role in the community you were gunning for.

P.s. this is of course, a humorous comment. Naturally everyone with any sense of humour gets that. If not, then that's your fault, not mine. --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great way to engage in hand-waving. I've never claimed to be a victim; that's your kind of game. Disagreeing with being mischaracterized, and correcting it, is not anywhere near equivalent to claiming to being victimized by it. More to the point, the post you're replying to has nothing to do with any of that, but with your own long-term behavior problems on Wikipedia; you're engaging in transparent deflection and no one's going to buy it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• it is absolutely humorous to see how the User:SMcCandlish's campaign to promote It's singular_they as backfired. And now, we have a multi-worlds/many_words war, between SMcCandlish It-self and Fae Fae-self, with an avalanche of hyperbolic sentences about self-identification. It is also humorous to see each of plural_them trying to appear as the St Georges himself of each of plural_them just cause, while each of plural_them are rather self-advertisers of each of plural_them good opinion about herself (her is here a generic pronoun, chosen by my-self: a generic has to reflect the demographics of the genus, i.e. the whole humankind). Pldx1 (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there is no humour here and is it not "clever" to ridicule the participants with smartass argument, it just shines an unflattering light on you. What has been exposed is the entrenched Wikipedia heteronormative culture of trolling, harassment, disruption and the marginalization and driving away of collegiate LGBT+ contributors. At this point, I cannot recommend Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects as a civil place for volunteers to contribute as openly an LGBT+ minority, it is not safe to do so. The handful of genderqueer and nonbinary people that have given a personal perspective to these discussions are only the bravest, and have to be prepared to be mercilessly mocked for doing so. Off-wiki I have had queer Wikipedians, allies, and WMF employees thanking me and others for taking this forward, and I completely understand why they look at this transphobic shit storm and have chosen to steer clear. --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ...said every Internet censor, everywhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Last I looked God did not appoint Fæ the arbiter of all humor. Nor does anything in this discussion have anything to do with heteronormativity; that was the first time anyone mentioned sexual-partner preferences here. I find that hilarious, since the point of Fæ's mini-rant was to browbeat someone about staying on-topic.

  Anyway, @Pldx1:, I'm not actually campaigning to promote anything, but doing the exact opposite. The whole point is that WP is not a place for campaigning for doing strange stuff to English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  

• I have a message for the censors. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.

As you travel through life you will encounter attempts at humor that you find to be offensive. See [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw ], which documents and complains about some very offensive material that is for some reason widely accepted as being OK. Go ahead and flame the "comic", boycott its sponsors/advertisers, etc., but do not attempt to censor. Besides being morally repugnant (who are you to tell me what I am allowed to see?) you are extremely likely to end up experiencing the Streisand effect up close and personal.

I have further advice for the censors. Don't read things that you find to be offensive. Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to The Signpost. Simply stop clicking on the links marked "editorial" or "humor". The fact that you have a choice about what you read means that if you encounter something that you are offended by you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away its keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided getting into this side of the issue, as a former professional freedom-of-expression activist. If you think I get long-winded already, don't get me started on that. It'd be like asking a pastor to tell you about the Bible. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't have to look at it, we are not responsible for it", said Facebook and Twitter, until they were exposed for being the cause of multiple child suicides, and their marketing departments started to see this seriously damaged their "brand" and income.

Guy, based on your words, you will never do anything to harm "free speech". Do you think that for improvement to happen without your "permission", we need something like a series of PR disasters? --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to have some feedback here on how critics of this "humorous essay" can fairly complain, including the deletion discussion, and which words they are allowed to use or not use in compliance with Wikipedia policies. One of the authors SMcCandlish has repeatedly responded as if what is intended as criticism of the article were a personal attack, so it would benefit everyone to be clear about what is reasonable criticism allowed in comments or the MfD. Many participants in the MfD have already stated that the article appears transphobic and intended to cause offense, some of those contributors have also identified as trans or genderqueer, which you may see as giving them a special perspective on appropriate use of related language or "humour", maybe not.

My understanding of NPA and related policies is that:

1. Criticising a humour essay as reading as, or being, transphobic is within policy and is not a personal attack.
2. Calling the author transphobic would be a personal attack, unless the author has self identified as this.
3. Debate about the article may be robust, including invective language, but if not directed at an individual and does not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, should not be censored or result in sysop action.

To date, I do not believe that anyone has claimed that the author is themselves transphobic, so there have been no NPA violations that would need a warning. Should anyone do so, then warnings for incivility would be entirely justifiable.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you aren't "Criticising a humour essay". You are trying to censor a humour essay. And yet if anyone was to attempt to censor your expression of your point of view, you would complain loudly. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:General attacks ~ R.T.G 15:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt it would apply. The 'pronouns' essay does not claim that trans people are taking over the encyclopaedia, and even if it did, one would easily wikilawyer around this particular proposed guideline by using the "humour" get out of jail free card; apparently. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is more of a protest than a genuine bitter or innocent offence. However, it had me going there... ~ R.T.G 17:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Repeat: This is not about trans people (or, more the point, the non-binary); it's about people insisting on doing weird stuff to English, in Wikipedia's own voice, whether that be for religious, corporate, or sexual-politics reasons. That some editors advocate such things sometimes in relation to TG/NB people is entirely incidental. This isn't about the subjects of the articles at which non-encyclopedic writing is injected; it's about a small subset of editors who defy WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (censored) And now you are writing the book on bad faith. I can see you are trying to tell me what the intentions were, but it's lost, as though you were trying to tell me what the argument was. What is the argument? Let freedom reign in every sense? Well, Fae wants to delete your newspaper article as an expression of disapproval. You can write whatever you want as long as Fae can delete it. ~ R.T.G 08:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Given that your co-author was in violation of a TBAN by creating the humour essay, and has now been blocked for it, does that potentially change anything about what you have said so far here or in the MfD, or help illuminate any of the issues that others have raised during discussion? I presume that you were the main editor, but I have not checked who did or instigated what. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And because of a lack of common understanding of words like 'gender', the block is under discussion. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just more non-neutral canvassing, this time to "go after" someone at ANI for politicized reasons. You're going to end up there yourself real soon now. At this point I would bet cash money on it. Done; I opened the ANI myself, despite my distaste for the dramaboards, because your topic ban from sexuality, broadly construed, was lifted only on condition that you not return to canvassing and incivility the topic area. In point of fact, Barbara_(WVS)'s block was removed because the topic ban in question is limited to medical and health topics and thus it wasn't a valid block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC); updated 06:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would drama surrounding some other party have anything to do with how I formulate my own opinions? How does whether someone violated a rule imposed on them in particular have an effect on the rationales of unrelated parties commenting here? Not everyone is nearly as concerned with tweaking perception spin as you seem to be, Fæ. (See also WP:NOT#MMORPG; this is not a game you can play to earn a high score and some virtual "achievements".) For the record, Barbara (WVS) was not a co-author of this (it long pre-dated this Signpost re-use), but simply did a compressing pass on it. I'm unaware of anything about the history of that editor or any restrictions they might be subjected to, or why. They simply asked to use the piece in Signpost, and I assented, albeit with some misgivings (to which I should have paid heed). Anyway, please stop WP:DRAMA-mongering. It's really distasteful. WP isn't a battleground for your agenda-pushing and individual-level vindictiveness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've caught up over at the ANI. Obviously a wrongful block (which has already been undone), as the topic-ban is constrained to health and medical topics. As usual, your ranting is simply off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (copied from Meta) These messages about "censoring" are very misguided, and instead they boil down to "we should not have standards at all". And moreover, "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn’t even describe relationship between editors. For example, if I will call any editor a very strong and offensive word, I will be censored and banned, and rightly so. If I do it on a different page with vague references, it will still be understood as such and likely censored, and rightly so.

Gotta love how free speech seemingly only is important because "I want to hurt minorities and say slurs". So much for "I didn’t want to offend" by doubling down on every possible point of offence... --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who this is in reference to, since I haven't made any free speech arguments. Who is "doubling down" on what, exactly?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is, quite frankly, some of the worst of humor. "Punching down" doesn't even begin to describe it. Even as someone who's trans, I was willing to write this off as a joke that simply horribly misfired, but the author's comments here have been most illuminating. Pinguinn 🐧 01:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you don't appear to actually understand any of them if you come away with that conclusion. You're just seeing what you want to see.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Been on Wikipedia for nearing 14 years & I thought I'd seen it all. First, Justin Trudeau (the current Prime Minister of Canada) says use peoplekind instead of mankind. Now? we've got censuring taking place at Wikipedia's Signpost. It makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know that Trudeau was poking fun at a couple of feminists with that comment. Watch the whole video: [2]. Bradv🍁 05:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JT had to backtrack & cover his behind, when there was a backlash on media over it. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, that's the actual video where he made the comment. The backlash is only from people who only heard that one line. Seriously, watch the whole thing, you'll enjoy it. (The link is in my comment above.) Bradv🍁 05:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the whole thing on Youtube. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay—and you still believe it was straight-faced? Do you believe he admires China's government as well? You'd fit right in at the National Post's comments section. Not a fan of JT, but this deliberate, conscious context-stripping is disgusting. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you upset that I oppose the removal of the Signpost story in question? GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm disgusted at the continued spread of disinformation. I haven't commented on the Signpost story. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone who supports a more inclusive Wikipedia, a humble suggestion:

1. Go to your Preferences page: Special:Preferences

2. Add your preferred pronouns to your signature (he/him, she/her, they/them, etc.)

...While you're at it add them to your email signature, your Twitter profile, etc. You do not have to be trans or queer to do to this. In fact, it's incredibly helpful to the trans community when cis folks help to make declaring pronouns and respecting pronouns routine. Also it's legitimately very practical! I can't tell you the number of times I've wanted to use pronouns to refer to someone on a talk page only to be like, wait, I didn't know which ones to use. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that {{gender}} exists, for those who may not know. It has options but I don't know if it can be safely subst:'d. It would be better if the Foundation cared about this stuff and implemented automatic pronoun insertion, but I'm not opposed to pronouns in signatures if that's what some prefer. wumbolo ^^^ 21:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo Actually, they did! I just found out about it, so this is cool. You can see the full documentation here. To give an example, your pronouns are he/his/him. Cool, right?! ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 06:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is disgusting for reasons of transphobia but beyond that it's simply not funny. A 12 year old could write a funnier article with more mature humour. SMcCandlish has wasted thousands of words on this page claiming that everyone in the comments doesn't have basic reading comprehension: well I've got news for you. If everyone thinks an article means something different to your intention, then it's you expressing yourself wrong, not everyone else failing to interpret correctly. What you wrote is degenerate transphobic cliches. As for what you intended, a very obscure point about Wikipedia not using pronouns in its own voice until these pronouns are mainstream enough to be used widely in reliable sources, I agree with you, and presumably you agree with me that the solution in these cases is to avoid pronouns (in Wikipedia's voice) in the article altogether. But this isn't a problem on Wikipedia. The problem is exactly the opposite; MOS:GENDERID not being concrete enough, clear enough or applying to non-biog articles, leading to misgendering and deadnaming where it doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose. That would be a much better subject for satire, but that would take some ingenuity and clever humour rather than the bottom of the barrel "I'm a trans-biological explicate manifestation" jokes that every boy in eighth grade makes on a daily basis. And one final comment: SMcCandlish's mention of WP:CIR in reply to Fæ is an act of deep patronisation that violates our civility policies, and SMcCandlish will apologise for it if he has any decency. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for anything, Bilorv, but I think it's YOU who should apologize to SMcCandlish. I applaud your expression of your opinion, especially the part where you agreed with Mac; however, I think that your idea of "MOS:GENDERID not being concrete enough, clear enough or applying to non-biog articles, leading to misgendering and deadnaming where it doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose" being "a much better subject for satire" is grossly naive if you think for a moment that it would engender less controversy than Mac's essay has frothed over with. Essays like this are always fraught with controversy. The biggest surprise for me is that all participants seem to be so surprised by its publication in The Signpost. It is also surprising that concious, thinking editors have allowed the blanking of this page, a classic case of gross censorship. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, hell, a humor piece that went after GENDERID (from any angle) would create a much larger shitstorm. Its exact wording has been excessively fought over. I've done a tip-of-the-iceberg summary of that drama in the first paragraph of the big reply near the top of User talk:SMcCandlish#Pronouns.

      Bilorv, not "everyone" agrees with you; opinion at both MfDs is sharply divided, and those against deletion actually have much better policy arguments, while those for deletion are mostly having knee-jerk reactions about what someone told them the page was about in several canvassing "calls to action" posts by Fæ (seems you are too, since you mischaracterize it badly; it does not contain what you claim it does). I think you might want to read CIR closely, then look at Fæ's behavior in the multi-page drama about this essay, and in the ANI thread that's open; it's characterized by constant pretense to "not understand" anything critical; this is a CIR problem (of one sort or a different sort) whether it is genuine inability to get it, or an act to dodge criticism and cause text-walling through re-re-re-explanation. If you know eight-graders who make jokes about being a transcendental space-god with strange demands about language, then you know some really weird kids. Finally, whether the piece was funny to you is irrelevant (and it's satire, which tends toward irony, not slapstick). The words humor and humorous are not synonyms; one is authorial intent (or critical classification of it), the other is perception.

      Anyway, I'll depart with Paine a bit, in that blanking of the Signpost page isn't surprising or terrible to me, because this isn't an independent news source, it's a house organ produced by [a small subset of] the editorship, and it's in projectspace. The community arguably has a collective editorial oversight rationale. They don't have one for doing something like that to the userspace copy, and they don't have one for outright deletion of the Signpost copy. As I argued at the latter's MfD, doing so would render all of this community discussion moot, because no one in the future would be able to tell was the debate was about.
       — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • I !voted against deletion at that MfD. I'm not saying that anyone agrees with you, but there's a clear consensus that the piece was offensive, unfunny and quite simply didn't have the message that you claim it did. Words have no intrinsic meaning; they are vessels of communication and if a majority of people interpret a passage to mean one thing then it does mean that thing and if it's a meaning the author didn't intend and they are made aware that it has caused a great deal of hurt, then the most mature thing to do is to acknowledge that they made a mistake with their wording and to learn from it. CIR is an essay primarily about young children, people with an inability to communicate in English effectively etc. and the fact that you use it against an established editor who clearly knows how to edit is absolutely disgraceful. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 00:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea that everyone who's critical of the piece has been duped by Fæ is pretty insulting and unreflective. People are capable of reading it for themselves and making up their own minds about it. I've read it a couple times now and I've come to the conclusion that it's kinda gross. When I read it I see a long history of humor that demeans trans people, including the "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" meme and the South Park episode comparing gender reassignment surgery to trying to surgically become a dolphin. Now, maybe your intentions were good and maybe you didn't mean to demean anybody. Well, intentions are important but they aren't everything.

Here's analogy: someone writes an article for The Signpost comparing President Obama to an orangutan. People are outraged and call it racist. The author responds "no, no, I'm not a racist at all! I was just making a play on how Obama and the word orangutan both start with the letter o!" Let's say this is true: deep down, in the author's heart of hearts, they didn't mean to be racist and had no idea about the long history of vile racist humor comparing black people to monkeys. Well, how should the author respond? Should they apologize and strive to be more thoughtful in the future? Or instead go on and on about how this is a witchhunt, and the piece is really really really not racist, and everyone just isn't smart enough to understand my writing, and everything offends somebody, and people are just trying to be offended.... WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you know eight-graders who make jokes about being a transcendental space-god with strange demands about language, then you know some really weird kids. That sounds exactly like the sort of writing I'd do in middle school and, yes, I was a very weird kid. :) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Onion video for everything. -- Ununseti (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to humbly suggest to the Signpost that they stop doing humor pieces because they are unfailingly not funny. I mean, the only thing one can laugh at here is how horribly this has backfired.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beg to differ with all respect. This essay and its generated controversy is one of the funniest things I've read in more than 14 years on Wikipedia. I'd be laughing my bells off if the people here hadn't made me cry so much! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouch, that one stung a little. Just too real. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 20:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You'd think that actually having to type what amounts to "people being upset is enjoyable to me" would prompt some introspection. Parabolist (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy to twist and give it a spin? Why should you be different? People being upset is never enjoyable. Controversy can be vastly entertaining. Thank you for your participation and tolerance or lack thereof. There's a clap! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with humour is that it is in the eye of the beholder. What is mild satire to one person is an opportunity to incite political outrage to another. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nasty, small-minded, and heartless. Tone-deaf. The author should ponder To a Louse, and the Golden Rule. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As should so many of the others posting here. Many of these comments fall into those categories. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peter, I've not seen anything directed at the author that is as nasty as the original piece, and believe me I've looked. Still, there are always some who like to dish it out but cannot take it themselves. The original author for one, and many of his defenders for others. As to the alleged humour of the piece, it just isn't funny. It's not in the realms of "well, I can see how someone else might enjoy it, but it's not for me", it's in the realms of "it just isn't funny, and I don't see how anyone who wasn't on coke could think it was". DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of tone... -- Ununseti (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy shIt, People are taking this personally. I don't see why, when I read it, it looked like a satire on the Manual of Style. Not rolling on the floor laughing, but wry smile humour. Also reminded me of similar humour offsite starting here. Or maybe that should be humor - it is an American webcomic.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. It took my reading the first few comments and even some of the deletion page before I realized that some of these people weren't kidding. Isn't it great to have editors from all walks of life with many and varied colorful backgrounds working to improve Wikipedia? All that remains is to see whether we'll all spiral downward into Hell, or upward into WisdoM. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Mean-spirited and unkind. Not helpful towards making Wikipedia a friendly, welcoming, inclusive place for all editors. IMO running this was a poor editorial judgment. Jheald (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not exactly a great article. Although I did like the image caption. I'm more of a 'they/them' person anyway.--Auric talk 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I correctly predicted, had Headbomb and Fæ had simply ignored the page, it would have had comparatively few readers (most people who get the signpost notifications don't bother reading the subpages), but by attempting to remove that which they found offensive, they triggered the Streisand effect and insured that before this is over tens of thousands of people will have read the page. On the Internet, attempts at censorship almost always backfire, generate a ton of free publicity, and result in the material being reproduced on dozens of websites and in hundreds of online discussions. See AACS encryption key controversy for another example of attempted censorship having the opposite effect. --16:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Stupid Rosa Parks. Had she stayed at the back of the bus, and kept her mouth shut, none of those race riots would have happened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa parks wasn't trying to censor an encyclopedia. The Streisand effect and AACS encryption key controversy are far better analogies. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? House photos and AACS encryption keys aren't exactly important to draw attention to for being harmful to marginalized groups. Also, wow, just wow. How is anyone defending this article in the comments here and MfD, never mind it getting *published*? Did this get run past *any* meaningful number of people who are actually affected by it?! (Blanking is better than deleting, don't just sweep shit under the rug.) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 04:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand the concept of someone simultaneously agreeing with every bad thing said about an article while at the same time opposing censorship of that article, right? Freedom of expression is not freedom of expression if it only applies to things you approve of. When the ACLU defended a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived, they were not approving of the Nazi's message. They agreed that holocaust survivors were, as you put it, a "marginalized group." (what they went through was actually much worse than marginalization). They agreed that Nazis marching through the street with "Kill the Jews" signs was harmful to holocaust survivors. But they rejected the basic idea that the Nazis should be silenced. And you should also be against silencing things that you disprove of.

Don't forget, times change and cultures change. One day you may find that y6ou are the one being silenced, and you may find yourself thanking people who defend your right to speak out despite disagreeing with your message.

BTW, The Streisand effect is already starting: [3][4][5][6] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, they're posting on Reddit about it! Curses, how dare we try to remove transphobic bullshit, now they're on Reddit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it should be illegal to say whatever. Rather, I'm saying it shouldn't have a platform on Wikipedia, where our collective goal is "trying to create an encyclopedia", and making groups of editors feel unwelcome obstructs that goal. Important difference. That argument could perhaps be countered by considering that the group of people who a free-speech zone similarly feel unwelcome, but that is not compelling to me: if everyone has absolute freedom of speech, at least some people will inevitably use that freedom to criticize others' positions. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One day it may be you who are the target of people who say that you shouldn't have a platform on Wikipedia because groups of editors feel unwelcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So? If I say something that hurts people, then of course it shouldn't just be quietly let stand. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 19:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago I was involved in the political campaign to defeat 2008 California Proposition 8, which attempted to put "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" into the California constitution. During that campaign, many fundamentalist Christians claimed that allowing gays to marry hurt them and attempted, through advertiser boycotts and write in campaigns, to force various media outlets to remove "hurtful" editorials supporting gay marriage. Would you have suppressed those who supported gay marriage on the grounds that "If I say something that hurts people, then of course it shouldn't just be quietly let stand"? Or is your censorship based on suppressing what you disagree with and not, as you claim, that which some group of people says hurts them? I say that everyone -- gay, straight, transgendered, Christian, Satanist, Nazi, Socialist, Republican, Democrat, etc. -- should be allowed to freely express their opinions in an editorial. The right answer to unpopular speech is more speech opposing the objectionable content. It isn't censorship. To be blunt who the hell do you think you are, deciding what I am allowed to read and not allowed to read?? That is the question everybody should be asking here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you think you have a right to read (or write) something does not require Wikipedia to hand its platform over to you to host that thing. Is the national news also censoring you by not letting you air your opinions on their nightly broadcasts? -sche (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the national news decides not to publish something I have no problem with that. If the national news decides to publish something and you decide that I should not be allowed to read it, I have a big problem. Who are you to decide what I am allowed to read and not allowed to read?? If The Signpost decides not to publish something I have no problem with that. If The Signpost decides to publish something and you decide that I should not be allowed to read it, I have a big problem. Who are you to decide what I am allowed to read and not allowed to read?? I don't mind people who own websites, newspapers, etc. deciding what they think I should read. Self-appointed censors who try to do the same thing are my enemy, and I will fight them any legal way that I can.

BTW, I couldn't help but notice you evading my question about censoring supporters of gay marriage because many fundamentalist Christians claim that allowing gays to marry hurts them. Do I detect a double standard here? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "Who are you to decide what I am allowed to read and not allowed to read??" — You indeed have a right to read the published article: that's why it was blanked rather than deleted.

Regarding your question on gay marriage: The issue of editorials supporting (or opposing) gay marriage is somewhat complicated, so bear with me here. (That complexity makes it a bit hard to apply meaningfully as a direct analogy to the situation of this Signpost article, but I think it is an interesting question to try to tackle separately regardless.)

Government recognition of gay marriage is an improvement over the status quo, as it reduces gender discrimination by the government, but it is merely treating a symptom of an underlying problem, rather than solving the problem itself. Marriage is a social interaction between individuals; it is irrelevant to government. Likewise, gender is irrelevant to government. So when the government considers marriage or gender in laws or in the way it treats people, it's overstepping its proper bounds. The real solution isn't allowing married gay people to be treated like married straight people; instead the solution is treating all people equally, regardless of whether they're married and regardless of gender. Thus, governments recognizing gay marriages as equivalent to straight marriages is reasonable as it reduces discrimination based on gender, but from the perspective of some religious communities, it is perceived either as the government trying to legislate private religious practice (which governments should not do), or as the government implicitly critiquing religious restrictions on marriage (which governments also should not do).

So, to get back to the issues of editorials. Consider two hypothetical editorials, accepted for publication in a major newspaper. The first editorial argues for the addition of government recognition of gay marriage to the current status quo, with the rationale that the government should not discriminate based on gender. That is a reasonable argument, but does not acknowledge that it is not an actual solution to the underlying problem, but is, rather, a suboptimal solution limited by political expediency. The second editorial argues that the status quo is preferable, as it avoids the government implicitly critiquing religion. That is also a reasonable argument, but does not acknowledge that the only reason that the current government recognition of marriage is accepted by the concerned religious communities is because that recognition, as a consequence of its history, is done in a way that happens to align with those communities' existing religious beliefs. So, both of these editorials are flawed, and miss part of the picture. They both could be plausibly accepted for publication, as each presents a reasonable argument.

If those two hypothetical editorials were published by a newspaper, should that newspaper's decision to publish either or both of them be criticized? That depends on how hurtful they were to people, so let's try to assess that. In the case of the pro-gay-marriage editorial, it is arguably hurtful to religious people by advocating for the government to adopt legislation that implicitly critiques their religious practices. In the case of the anti-gay-marriage editorial, it is arguably hurtful to gay people by advocating for the government to retain legislation that treats them differently than straight people. So, there's some room for criticism of both editorials. However, the anti-gay-marriage editorial is more hurtful overall to gay people than the pro-gay-marriage editorial is to religious people, as gay people are both historically and presently more marginalized than the concerned religious people are, and in this case the harm of laws that discriminate based on gender is greater than the harm of laws that implicitly critique religious practice. So, the criticism of the choice to publish the anti-gay-marriage editorial is more compelling than the criticism of the choice to publish the pro-gay-marriage editorial, as the publication of the former is more harmful. The pro-gay-marriage editorial shouldn't be suppressed, on the basis of it ultimately doing more good than harm, but it also is not perfect.

In conclusion, governments should remove any consideration of marriage or gender from their laws and actions. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 10:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "that's why it was blanked rather than deleted" Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour was not an attempt to blank the page. It was an attempt to delete the page. The !votes were:

Keep outright = 39

Keep and blank = 22

Delete OR blank = 10

Delete outright = 57

Re: "should that newspaper's decision to publish either or both of them be criticized?", and "So, the criticism of the choice to publish the anti-gay-marriage editorial is more compelling than the criticism of the choice to publish the pro-gay-marriage editorial", Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour was not a criticism of the page. It was an attempt to delete the page. Acting like this is about criticism rather than censorship is a red herring.

Re: newspapers deciding what to publish and governments deciding what laws to pass, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour was not either. It was an attempt by third parties (57 of them) to remove content that The Signpost had already decided to publish.

Re: "the anti-gay-marriage editorial is more hurtful overall to gay people than the pro-gay-marriage editorial is to religious people, as gay people are both historically and presently more marginalized than the concerned religious people are" I agree with that but the concerned religious people clearly do not. You appear to be saying "when deciding whether to let third parties censor material that The Signpost has decided to publish, it is OK to let the censorship by third parties happen if we agree with the censors but it is not OK to let the censorship by third parties happen if we don't agree with the censors". I am saying that it is never OK to let censorship by third parties happen.

You don't seem to be listening when I say that there was a time in the past when anti-gay opinions completely dominated the public discourse, and that it may happen again sometime in the future. We happen to be in a period where anti-gay opinions are becoming less and less popular -- which is a good thing -- but you don't seem to hear me when I say that if we allow third parties to censor newspapers the day may come when popular opinion swings the other way and we find that we are now the ones who are censored. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Ch. II, "On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion":

We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any object is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental objection. Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct.

With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely, invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feels much interest in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause. In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion.

It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candor, or malignity, bigotry or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves, but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own; and giving merited honor to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favor. This is the real morality of public discussion; and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.

EEng 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy Macon Yeah, I absolutely agree it shouldn't be deleted once published. You're preaching to the choir, as far as I'm concerned. That said, calling for its retraction is absolutely justified. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. If those 57 editors who supported censorship had instead called for a retraction, I would have joined them after reading their arguments. And if I ever end up on the unpopular side of an issue, I would have no problem with anyone criticizing me or asking for a retraction. The John Stuart Mill quote above sums it up nicely. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<Bows, acknowledges applause> Thank you. Of course, some credit goes to Mill as well. EEng 02:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon: It occurs to me upon further reflection: deletion is, in a sense, Wikipedia's own form of retraction: articles published in mainspace cannot be read by the public after being "retracted" by Wikipedia; their only legacy is an entry in the deletion log. So, MfDing this sort of is calling for a retraction, in Wikipedia terms, although I consider it better to retract it through blanking... Personally, I think that once it becomes practical, pretty much all published knowledge should remain public, and all knowledge should become public after enough time has passed (e.g. a couple hundred years) that it is only of historical interest and won't affect anyone but historians. The problem preventing that is that society doesn't have the necessary systems in place to (1) allow all knowledge to be public and to (2) ensure everyone is safe (such as from harassers knowing their contact information) and able to support themselves economically (including people who, for instance, write books or produce music for a living). I hope that can eventually become possible somehow. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 22:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two completely different concepts:

[1] You are free to publish or not publish this, but I and these X other people really think you should not publish this, so we are asking you to voluntarily remove it. This is known as "Calling for a retraction."

[2] I and these X other people are going to force you not publish this. You, the author who wrote it and the editor(s) who approved it, have no say in the matter. This is known as "censorship". ^{(Not to be confused with the narrower concept of "first amendment violation".)}

Please don't confuse the two. It isn't a retraction if it is shoved down your throat against your will. It isn't censorship if someone pressures you to remove it of your own free will. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view it as us telling them what they can and cannot publish in their newspaper. This is the community deciding what we do and do not want to publish in our newspaper. The idea that a small group of self-appointed editors can publish anything they wish in a widely-circulated newspaper in Wiki space, with no community accountability or review, is the opposite of the normal collaborative editing process that builds everything from articles to policies. –dlthewave ☎ 12:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, Dlthewave, if articles get published in The Signpost that the community ultimately disagrees with, the community itself is at fault for not responding to the multiple calls by The Signpost's editors for greater community collaboration, participation, and control in the newspaper's newsroom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon: I was trying to share my thoughts regarding how some of the delete-voters might have been thinking of it, since it seemed like you took issue with their position above. I don't know why it sounds like you're trying to argue with me now, given that I support blanking over deletion, and pretty much agree with you regarding this as far as I can tell... :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. That wasn't my intent. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise apologize, not my intent to accuse you of anything although I can see how my comment still kind of comes off as that. It's all cool :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Help, my foot's stuck in my mouth and I can't get it out —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[GROUP HUG] :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The root of the controversy is that the so-called Signpost is not a newspaper, and the people writing into this in-house publication are not journalists, in any usual meaning of the words newspaper and journalist. Moreover, the said Signpost is not the representative spokesperson of a community. We simply have people who try to do some job (whatever this job is) and other people who don't want to do this job by themselves, but nevertheless try to decide how people_1 should do what they want to do. When I see that people_1 are not so prone to obey to people_2, I am not so surprised. Pldx1 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully disagree with the that first part. The Signpost meets any reasonable definition of an online newspaper, and the editors meet any reasonable definition of journalists. In house publications are not free to criticize the "house". Until this recent failed attempt at censorship, nobody attempted to tell the signpost editors what they could and could not publish. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Pldx1, while Guy Macon respectfully disagrees with your statement, I find it offensive. It attacks an identifiable group of people about whom you have no idea of their experience in journalism. If you were to do some easy research yourself before you make such sweeping claims you would see the a diferent perspective. I call for a retraction of your comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]