User talk:Sangdeboeuf

"You don't need to cite that the sky is blue."

There are countless published, reliable sources confirming that the sky is, in fact, blue. Beware of the use of WP:BLUESKY to justify inclusion of less reliably sourced information such as trivia or sensationalist gossip, especially regarding living people. Some people will insist that this information is vital to the project and will accuse others of censoring Wikipedia to suppress The Truth™. This comes from a misunderstanding of the purpose of an encylopedia and relies on confirmation bias in the absence of high-quality sources. See also Appeal to common sense.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 730 days are automatically archived 3 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 12.

Whats in a name?

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I saw that Sang de boeuf glaze had made it to the main page today as a DYK, and was admittedly somewhat confused, as I thought "Why'd they name a page after 'ol Wikipedia user Sangdeboeuf?" Regardless, made me chuckle and think of you :) I think it would be very fitting if you were to help take it to GA status... Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Introducing sfnlink

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hi, Sangdeboeuf,

We are both members of a probably smallish club of users that are comfortable creating CITEREF-based wikilinks; I've seen your work at various articles, including complex examples such as the "power-user" one at Talk:Toxic masculinity involving a citation from a specific version of an article, and many more. I've often thought it was tedious putting these links together and there had to be a better way. They're probably second nature to you now, but I bet you remember the initial learning curve. Plus, once you have them, they look mysterious in the wikicode to the average editor. At the same time, there ought to be an easier on-ramp for other editors who feel comfortable enough using {{sfn}}, but are too scared off by the intricacies of CITEREF to create links of that nature.

I finally decided to do something about it, and the result is {{sfnlink}} (alias: citelink). Here's one example; this code, adapted from a Talk page comment of yours at Talk:Rebecca Watson, and recast to use {{sfnlink}}, will look familiar:

Sources such as {{sfnlink|LeDrew|2016|p=198|rev=990826574}}) and {{sfnlink|Meagher|2018|p=101|rev=990826574}} do suggest the reaction was overblown ⟶ Sources such as LeDrew (2016) p. 198) and Meagher (2018) p. 101 do suggest the reaction was overblown

Sfnlink is configurable in several ways beyond this; you can find details at the template. I haven't advertised it yet, and I've come to a stopping point in development, so I thought I'd ask for your feedback before I do. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! I discovered WP:CITEREF anchors by just copying and pasting from the address bar of the article. The template looks much more logical and streamlined. I like the different options for linking to a named page as well as a numbered revision. What happens if neither the revision nor article are specified? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I did too, and started to reverse-engineer it, like you obviously did, too. Params rev and article are optional, and when neither is specified, it creates a link to the same page as the template (like sfn or harv). If you add the template to a mainspace article, it tries to link the full citation, hopefully found in "References" (or "Works cited", etc.); if the template is on a Talk page, it'll look for something resolved by a {{reflist-talk}} on the Talk page. For the link-to-same-page case, template {{harv}} is an almost equivalent option, although you can't change the link text in that one. Feel free to adjust the doc, if you think this needs to be clearer, or I could.

By the way, I did a bit of research before I started, and afaict, you're one of the major power users of #CITEREF, at least recently, assuming advanced search gives unbiased results. I'm hoping this template will make it easier for the power users, and make it possible for casual users where previously it was out of reach for them.

One other thing; I've been considering a change of name; feel free to opine at Template talk:Sfnlink#Title about that (or anything else). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: is it possible to suppress the parentheses around the date for Harvard-style referencing on talk pages etc.? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not currently, but that would be an easy change. I'm trying to think of the best way to handle it to keep it simple for users who like it one way, or the other. Maybe a new sfnlink param |nb=yes would suppress parentheses, and then we could then easily create a wrapper template {{sfnlinknb}} which would invoke sfnlink with the param, so you could code either {{sfnlink|nb=yes|other params}} or {{sfnlinknb|other params}} and get the same result; how does that sound? So, to make sure I understand: the new output would be exactly as it is now, except no parens, so there would be one space following the name, and YYYY would follow the space; is that right? Mathglot (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It's in the sandbox, but untested and I have to run. If you want, you can try it out by coding {{sfnlink/sandbox|nb=yes|other params...}} and see if it does what you want. (You don't have to put 'yes', you can put 'y', or '1', or 'true', or even 'no' and it will do the same thing.) Lmk if you find anything; also, it might not work at all. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, its working live, now: {{sfnlink|Meagher|2018|article=Rebecca Watson|nb=y}} → Meagher 2018. I don't have the wrapper {{sfnlinknb}} yet, but I'll get to it eventually, and in the meantime, it should work with the 'nb' param. The template doc page should answer any questions. Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I created the wrapper, so you should be able to use {{sfnlinknb}}, now, and not have to code |nb=yes anymore. I tagged it as beta until we have sufficient usage of it. In the meantime, please add any bugs or comments to its Talk page. Hope you find it useful! Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And to round out this thread, here's a link to {{Remoteref}}, which has a function similar to that of {{sfnlink}} of being able to link to any citation with a CITEREF-based anchor, but links it via a numeric superscript tag, just like a regular footnote or {{citeref}} does. Unlike citeref, it works from any page, like this.^[1] This completes my activity with these templates, at least for now. Bug reports, enhancement proposals, and feedback always welcome at Template talk:Sfnlink. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I can't say that I appreciate your flourish of dropping bad faith assumptions in edit comments - but you do you. Feel free to weigh in at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_Fox_News_on_Jo_Boaler. TheMissingMuse (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Can you please restore the 2023 Supreme Court case that you deleted from the Reverse racism article? Stonkaments (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to add the material yourself, provided you cite sources that support the addition in the context of reverse racism. The previous text I removed didn't do that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Not true. It would be nice if you could just admit you were wrong. Stonkaments (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Got to disagree with you there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Mia Khalifa

Her biography is very protected and is hard to add relevant information. Like her participation in a music video by Karol G and Becky G that has millions of views, her New York Times interview, her rebranding as influencer with the help of fellow influencer Bella Poarch along with appearing in her music video Build a Bitch, her participation in fashion week and her talk at Oxford University. It would be useful if you allow that data to be added, or you added it in case of being necessary. Sunem21 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevance is determined by published, reliable sources, not by what you or I think is necessary or popular. You're welcome to suggest additional sources at Talk:Mia Khalifa. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) edited 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't allowed me to add new information period. Independent of sources. Sunem21 (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have already made a request to add material at Talk:Mia Khalifa. There is nothing to stop you from making another such request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Test

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Reverted edits, Kagney Linn Karter

Question

Request for clarification on reverted edit

Contentious topic alert

"Anti-LGBTQ discrimination" listed at Redirects for discussion

"Areo Magazine" listed at Redirects for discussion

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Pending changes reviewer

Disruptive editing and edit war

Use of primary sources in Misandry article

Question about Recent Edit to Jia Lissa

Discussion of a reverting modification to the “Gauge (actress)” article

Given all the reverts on the topic, one can easily be discouraged to even participate in the first place.

MGTOW sock?

Incel Toby Reynolds topic

Honest question

Thread retitled from Honest question, doesn't it bother you that in the website that is seen as a "bible" by incels/blackpillers the blackpill article doesn't have a single mention of blackpill is inescapable.

Look for yourself https://incels.wiki/w/Blackpill where as the wikipedia incel article mentions stuff like "Adherents of the "black pill" believe it is impossible for low-status men to escape this social hierarchy" or "However, according to black pill ideology, improving one's looks is futile" ModernDaySlavery (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked as a sockpuppet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The Incel Wiki was started in an effort to rewrite history to make incels appear more mainstream and legitimate. It's nothing but a soapbox for incels to launder their own reputation.

More generally, wikis are user-generated and are not reliable sources of information. In addition, the incel wiki is a primary source that should not be cited for any interpretation or evaluation. This is all explained in detail at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't saying lets use incel wiki as a source in wikipedia, dont put words in my mouth. But I for sure hope you don't consider yourself more knowledgable than a state-of-the-art LLM trained on basically the whole internet and every book. I simply do not have the time to engage in an edit war with you. Let wikipedia be incorrect about incels/blackpills or whatever unfashionable but true ideas, as I'm very happy people are more and more moving to LLMs instead of Wikipedia for knowledge attainment anyways. People are being less exposed to wrong information either from you, or from a group of biased "scientists", generally gender studies "scientists". ModernDaySlavery (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean the same LLMs that told people to put glue on pizza? I foresee no problems there at all! Your comments suggest you are more interested in righting perceived wrongs than creating an encyclopedia. That won't get you very far here, I'm afraid. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

~~The same one that can pass exams named "Humanity's Last Exam". ModernDaySlavery (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)~~

They can name it Bob for all anyone cares. Still not a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, we are literally right now in the process of implementing a rule permitting speedy deletion of LLM-generated content due to persisting hallucinations. BD2412 T 22:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

And as LLM outputs are indexed by Google these hallucinations will get worse, not better. Simonm223 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

"Work of entertainment" (his theory, which is his)

Glad to see I wasn't reverted by a Weinstein apologist (bro-bot?). :-) I agree he's clearly trying to have it both ways, i.e. seeming scholarly to laypeople while giving himself an out when subject to scrutiny. The reason I made the edit was actually to highlight Weinstein's lack of seriousness (which I think is NPOV as it corresponds with the majority view of GU) in a BLP-compliant way, by taking his own words in context (he says it right on the first page ). But I don't think my edit quite succeeded at that -- it kinda comes off as apologetics -- so I agree w/ your revert. What do you think -- can it somehow be improved in the spirit of what I was attempting or is it better to just leave it? I'm not even sure we should be calling it a "theory of everything" without qualification -- more like it's masquerading as such a theory.

I'd also like to add a link to his paper but he's (conveniently?) made that difficult by not putting it up on the web, so there may not be an RS for it. --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 13:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The best approach, as usual, is to simply reflect the predominant views of published, reliable, independent sources. If such sources explicitly call the theory not serious, then we should just summarize that instead of trying to hint at something with cherry-picked quotes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; that's a good description of how WP works. (Or should work.) I wouldn't call his "work of entertainment" quote cherry-picked, but even if we found a bunch more independent RS it would have to be handled carefully in the lead as I agree w/ your opinion that it's an obvious cop-out to avoid academic scrutiny. (BTW I do not read said opinion as an invitation to add poorly sourced/weighted mat'l, nor would I wish my opinions expressed above to be read in such a light.) If I find or think of anything else I'll ping you from article talk. Thanks for your reply and happy editing --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 10:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Kat Abughazaleh

CS1 error on Sensational Janine

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

"Black pill"

3RR

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

October 2025

Anti-white racism

Hi Sangdeboeuf and thank you for your edits to anti-white racism. This is just to let you know that I have reverted two of your changes in the US section as they did seem constructive. Regarding your following edit summaries "Sources on 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers do not say anything about hatred for whites" and "sources on Cobb don't say anything about racism or hatred for white people", these seem to contradict the sources where the perpetrators' will "to kill white people, especially white police officers" and "threats to kill white people", respectively, are clearly stated as motives. The removal of the other anti-white crimes in this section, where the perpetrators have been charged but not (yet) convicted, is correct according to WP:BLPCRIME. However, updates to the cases (if convictions have been issued, as in the Cobb case) might be preferable to outright removal, since the information would then be relevant. Did you check this first? Bernard Lee (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.

Threats to kill white people are not the same as hatred for white people. The claims in the article that I have specifically looked into have been a mess of original research, WP:COATRACKing, and WP:POVFORKing.

Even having a section on "racially motivated violence" is stretching the meaning of "anti-white racism" too far. Implying that any living person – even a convicted murderer – was motivated by anti-white racism is a BLP and WP:NOR violation unless directly stated by published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, though I disagree with your assertion that threats to kill white people do not equate to hatred of white people or constitute anti-white racism. In several jurisdictions, notably in France, individuals have been convicted of hate speech and/or racism on precisely these grounds. I am less familiar with the American legal system, though it seems clear that if a US court sentences someone for threatening to specifically kill, harm, or incite violence against members of a particular racial group, as in the Cobb case, that would at least fall under racially motivated hate speech, and arguably qualifies as racism, regardless of the perpetrator's stated intent. What is more surprising is your removal, under the guise of WP:NOTNEWS, of the section on Julius Malema, who is a notable example of a South African political figure who has been found guilty of hate speech for his anti-white statements (1 2 3). I believe that the accusations of racism levelled against him have been sufficiently substantiated by courts, quality newspapers, specialist NGOs and other sources to merit inclusion. I do not wish to revert your edits as some are useful and there is no doubt that the article deserved some trimming and better sources, but removing entire sections that appear to meet the WP:DUE standard risks crossing into POV-pushing or whitewashing, so I believe a more balanced approach would be preferable. Bernard Lee (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The accusations against Julius Malema are already summarized at Racism in South Africa § Anti-White hate-speech. Isolated incidents are WP:UNDUE for an article on anti-white racism from a global perspective.

Whether something arguably qualifies as racism is beside the point. It's original research unless explicitly stated by a published, reliable source (or several in the case of a living person).

The entire Anti-white racism article is an exercise in POV-pushing and is going to need even more drastic trimming IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Malema's case, these are not mere accusations, nor an isolated incident by some obscure figure. He is the leader of South Africa's third-largest opposition party, with a membership of over a million, and formerly served as president of the ANC's Youth League — the country's ruling party. He has built a career on his inflammatory (often racist) statements, and is mostly known internationally for them, where he is seen by many as a symbol of the increasing anti-white rhetoric in the country. Including him as a notable example in a section about "anti-white racism in South Africa" or, more specifically, "anti-white hate speech", is a no-brainer imo...

And if a court conviction reported by high-quality news sources is not as good as, say, a biography covering Malema's entire career, to dismiss these as OR or not appropriate for use as secondary sources simply because they do not explicitly state the phrase "anti-white racism" is cherry-picking at best, and a misinterpretation of WP:BLUESKY. As you know, reliable sources on the subject of racism, including academic literature, typically use broader terminology such as "racial discrimination", "anti-[group] sentiment", "hatred against [group]", and so on. If we were to exclude them on the above basis, as you can imagine, we would not be making any progress. Bernard Lee (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Users who don't have sources to back up their claims love to cite WP:BLUESKY. You seem to be trying to use this article to set the record straight about an issue you feel personally invested in, which is not good encyclopedia writing.

Whether you or I think something is a no-brainer is irrelevant. NPOV means finding the best sources on a topic and then just summarizing what they say. Brief news reports that do not provide an overview of anti-white racism in South Africa are inappropriate sources for an article on anti-white racism in South Africa, let alone globally. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC) edited 17:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Malema has been on my watch list for quite some time. I will say that, while he is a very divisive political figure in South Africa, the idea that he represents anti-white racism IE: some sort of systematic discrimination against "whites" backed up with some reservoir of political or social power is simply not there. In fact his 2025 hate speech accusation demonstrates rather the opposite to be the situation in South Africa since the judge ruled that it was hate speech to call for the killing of a white person making racist statements in specific. While I have seen quite a few citations about Malema I have not seen any that would appropriately establish his prejudicial behaviour as racism within an appropriate academic sense of the word. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Malema's latest conviction seems to have been for using hate speech against racists per BBC News. I didn't even know that was a thing. Kind of a self-own for users citing it as proof that Malema is racist against whites. The Associated Press and Al Jazeera sources provided by Bernard Lee also say that Malema's 2011 conviction for hate speech against whites was later overturned, making any effort to present him as the face of "anti-white racism" even more WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no personal interest or investment in Malema. However, to characterise his hate speech as merely being against racists is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Again, we are talking about someone in a position of considerable political influence who has repeatedly called for the murder of white farmers and made racially charged statements against an entire group, such as "I am not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now" and (quoting Mugabe): "The only white man you can trust is a dead white man". He has also referred to plans of removing white political oponents as "cutting the throat of whiteness". Whether Malema's conviction, which the court ruled to be "a clear attempt to promote hatred", included calls for the murder of a white man who was also making racist statements, is irrelevant in this context, and is in no way diminishing his racism-fuelled career. That his name should be omitted from a section on anti-white racism in South Africa is baffling. That said, it is clear we disagree, so I will not pursue the discussion further. Have a good day, Bernard Lee (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

See the thing that you seem to be missing here is that academic literature treats racism as being different from prejudice or even bigotry. It's easy to demonstrate with reliable sources that Malema is prejudiced. You may even be able to find RS that call him a bigot. Racism, however, depends on an uneven power differential with an enforcement mechanism that is generally either social or political in nature. Basically racism is systematic bigotry backed with power. Finding reliable sources that describe Malema as being a figurehead of that will be difficult. You're somewhat correct to raise that all of this has to be viewed in the context of the repeatedly debunked farm-attack conspiracy theory. And that conspiracy theory is, in fact, an artifact of systematic racism. But, you know, by white people toward black people. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223: I am fully aware of the Racism = prejudice + power definition — a framework which, incidentally, has also been criticised by some social science academics as reductionist and heavily US-centric (see Anti-White racism#Concepts and study and Prejudice plus power#Criticism for more details) — but that is not the point here. At no point did I claim that Malema is the figurehead or face of anti-white racism in South Africa. I simply expressed my astonishment at the removal of a paragraph referencing a political figure who, regardless of personal opinions about him, holds significant power and influence in his country, and who has been convicted of racially motivated hate speech. Given that, his relevance to a section on anti-white racism in South Africa seems worthy of at least some consideration. If we were to apply the same logic from a US perspective (see Anti-White racism#United States), figures like Elijah Muhammad or Louis Farrakhan—and others associated with black supremacist ideologies—might also be excluded from discussions on anti-white racism, simply because their bigotry and prejudice were not enforced through systemic power. That omission would be equally debatable. But again, I am not going to go further with this discussion. Wishing you a good day, too. Bernard Lee (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Cherie DeVille for deletion

Hope it’s ok

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Regarding the lead wording that may imply synonymy

Nomination of MediaPost for deletion

"Endless chain" listed at Redirects for discussion

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Sophie Rain

Food desert -- source deleted

Regarding internalized sexism image

You recently removed this image (see below) on the internalized sexism page claiming that it was an unverified argument. How so? The article defines internalized sexism as "a form of sexist behavior and attitudes enacted by women toward themselves or other women and girls." Indiscriminately thinking women wearing heavy makeup must be superficial and assuming a woman is a golddigger based on that is pretty clearly a sexist (particularly misogynist) attitude. Where's the original research?

What kind of sexist thought example would not qualify as an "unverified argument"? I can edit the image, so I'm genuinely curious would be an acceptable example of a sexist thought to you.

Also the WP:OR page focuses on information being verifiable via inline citation. Do you expect a citation on a cartoon sexist thought example to prove the thought is sexist?

Urchincrawler (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You or I might believe the thought or attitude is sexist, but using an image to convey that idea is original research without a published, reliable source directly saying so. The cartoon also ~~implies that women who practice internalized misogyny are angry loners whose targets are generally pleasant, attractive people doting on their grandparents~~ puts undue weight on the idea of misogynists being angry loners whose targets are conventionally attractive people doting on their grandparents. (Not to mention presenting white people as the default race.) These are all unpublished ideas or arguments.

In general, images should not be used to convey textual information such as the words in the thought bubbles above. Abstract concepts, beliefs, or attitudes are basically impossible to present in visual form anyway. Such articles don't necessarily need images; see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC) edited 11:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

"The cartoon also implies that women who practice internalized misogyny are angry loners whose targets are generally pleasant, attractive people doting on their grandparents."

No offense but huh???

An example is going to be an example and show a particular situation. By your logic, no example is safe. An example were a woman in a tradwide dress judges a woman in a crop top because "real women don't dress so shamelessly" would imply all women with internalized misogyny are tradwives. An example where a conventionally attractive woman looks down on a tomboy would be seen as "well you're implying all victims are tomboys." No example or even set of examples can show every type of sexist or victim of sexism.

To say I'm implying all victims are internalized misogyny are attractive women doting on their grandparents is kind of obsurd. Also just because the misogynist is walking alone doesn't imply she's a loner. People with friends can go on walks alone. It kind of feels like you are imposing your interpretation. Urchincrawler (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the image itself is open to interpretation, which is part of the problem. There needs to be a published, reliable source directly supporting the idea that this is an example of internalized sexism. Images should look like the thing they are meant to illustrate, and this cartoon doesn't look like internalized misogyny to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It literally fits the article's definition of internalized sexism, but like I said I can edit the image. What would look like internalized misogyny to you? Urchincrawler (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said, an abstract concept like this is basically impossible to illustrate visually. You would need a published source directly stating that the scenario fits the definition of internalized sexism. I doubt such a source exists, and if it did it would probably put undue weight on the whole gold digger–hating angle anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

So no abstract concept can get an image example then? Like on the homophobia page there is a picture of a middle aged woman holding signs like "God hates pride" and "Repent or perish." I could make every argument you made about this picture to that image. It relies on text within the image, I could use it to say "this implies all homophobes are middle aged women", or I could say "that's not what homophobia looks like to me (even though it fits the article's description)." Urchincrawler (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

There's less of an original research problem there, since the image shows a protester associated with the Westboro Baptist Church, which is well-known for homophobic rhetoric. The slogans "God hates fags", "God still hates fags", and "God hates pride" are specifically mentioned as examples of homophobic rhetoric by published sources. That said, there could be issues of undue weight with the image being used to illustrate Homophobia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources?

Savannah Bond

I've found some stuff through ProQuest that I'll be adding. I've not really edited porn performers before so let me know if you see any issues. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the effort. The main problem in this topic area is the glut of recycled user-generated and tabloid content through various content farms (and even supposedly reputable outlets such as SCMP).

Industry sources such as AVN and XBIZ are considered reliable (apart from AVN performer profiles), but are often promotional, especially when repackaging press releases from various porn studios. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC) edited 12:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm used to doing bio on subjects where the reporting is from newspapers of record and there is generally some academic reporting. This is new for me. I promoted this to mainspace because it looked like it met WP:GNG and then I thought I'd nominate it for WP:DYK. After all the crap has been removed, I now need to get it back over 1500 characters, which I don't think will be a problem. I'm about to watch an interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSyNVSEv4s and I think some of that should be usable under WP:ABOUTSELF. TarnishedPath^talk 11:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Holly Randall Unfiltered is not a reliable source; self-published podcasts should not be used unless published by the subject themselves. There's an ongoing discussion centered on this very issue at WP:BLP/N#Sophie Rain. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC) edited 11:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't thinking of using it for anything Randall has to say; however, can it not be used for Bond's statements about herself per WP:ABOUTSELF? TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Second thoughts, screw that. I don't have the patience to listen to 50 minutes of that. I'll keep looking at the sources through ProQuest. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record, WP:ABOUTSELF has an exception for sources of information about themselves, meaning the publisher. That doesn't apply here, because the podcast was published by someone other than Bond. I've been arguing with others about this at WP:BLP/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

ProQuest didn't yield anything more than what I have already put in. I'll go through the rest of the AVN sources tomorrow. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Gianna Dior

The point of my ping was simply to bring the discussion to the attention of someone who otherwise might not notice it. In your case, I expected you would become fully aware of it, as indeed happened, so I didn’t think an additional ping was necessary. I don’t ping everyone by default. I only ping editors when I believe they’re unlikely to become aware of the discussion otherwise; if I expect they’ll see it on their own, I typically don’t ping. Please don’t assume negative intent or over-interpret the choice not to ping you and make unfounded accusations of "disruptive vote stacking." Assume good faith per WP:AGF. Failing to do so by default is itself disruptive. Thank you. IPIPIPIP (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

If you had wanted to bring attention to the discussion, you could have left a note at the relevant noticeboard or WikiProject. You specifically alerted a user whom you thought rightly reverted an edit similar to the one you disagreed with. That's disruptive vote stacking regardless of your intent. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I pinged only one editor when I started the talk page discussion because they've previously demonstrated strong understanding of the relevant policy and I wanted informed input. I was not recruiting numbers, and my notification did not ask for any particular outcome, so characterizing this as "disruptive vote stacking" is not justified. There is also no policy basis for implying that a good faith notification must be "proven" by also posting to BLPN or WT:BIOG or elsewhere. Those are optional venues and escalation routes used when broader community input is needed, not a required sincerity test, and choosing a narrower, topic-relevant notification doesn't become suspect simply because I didn't broadcast it more widely. Finally, "regardless of intent" is a category error in this context. WP:VOTESTACK is about trying to influence consensus by selectively notifying editors, so intent is not irrelevant, it is the substance of the allegation. If you are asserting intent doesn't matter, then the objection is no longer "vote stacking" as the policy defines it, but rather a generalized complaint about how I notified someone, without any persuasive evidence that the notification was made to sway consensus. My reference to that editor having "rightly reverted" a similar edit was cited as evidence of their familiarity with the policy area and their ability to apply it correctly, not as a recruitment pitch or an attempt to stack a predetermined outcome. Accordingly, the sole fact that I notified one policy-competent editor who had previously handled a similar issue does not support a claim of vote stacking, particularly where the notification did not advocate any outcome. Please assume good faith per WP:AGF. I’ve made my position clear and won’t be discussing this further. IPIPIPIP (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Someone does not have strong understanding of the relevant policy merely because they agree with you. If that's what you wanted, then the BLP noticeboard is a more reliable place for informed policy input than pinging random users. Your desired outcome was obvious, we're not that stupid. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Naming references that are not reused is just clutter

i don't understand your reversion to my clean-up at 15-minute city? Yes, if a source is actually cited more than once, it must be named to enable that. But it doesn't make sense to name every citation on the off-chance that it just might be refused sometime maybe. It is just clutter. I honestly believed that this had been done by an inexperienced editor who just assumed from observing a nearby citation that it is routine. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not just clutter, it's useful clutter. Per WP:NAMEDREFS, editors may optionally provide reference names even when the reference name is not required. This makes later re-use of the sourced reference easier. It may also help inform new editors of the named references feature, so that fewer duplicate citations are added. There are other ways to reduce clutter, such as by using list-defined references. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Personally I find that named references are easier to distinguish in the edit window (especially when using standard author–date notation) and relatively simple to find with the phrase ref name, which makes organizing Wiki-markup easier. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Let a hundred flowers bloom", I suppose. No accounting for taste.

Of course if you wanted to be really tidy, you would use {{sfnp}} (see User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Which makes arguing over relatively small bits of Wiki-markup seem like pointless nitpicking. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't set out to nitpick, I genuinely believed it to have been a "just copy the style of other citations without asking why they are formatted that way", a passive rather than active choice. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

15-minute city has a lot of dense, scholarly references that can and should be mined for further information, which often means citing the same reference more than once. Anything to make that process easier is worth doing IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 49,098 views (2,045.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2026 – nice work!

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,436 views (768.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2026 – nice work!

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks