| Revision as of 23:53, 1 April 2015 editAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits →Transphobia: vandalism, plain and simple← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:55, 1 April 2015 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 editsm →Transphobia: c/eNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| :::::::::That is what I meant - the article doesn't support the claim. Making the claim 'intentionally misleading', plain and simple, unless it can be sourced. In which case, it should have been sourced in the article. Legitimate April fools content is based on sourced content represented in a misleading manner, which becomes apparent when reading the linked article - not on made-up bilge that ''isn't even discussed in the article in question''. ] (]) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::That is what I meant - the article doesn't support the claim. Making the claim 'intentionally misleading', plain and simple, unless it can be sourced. In which case, it should have been sourced in the article. Legitimate April fools content is based on sourced content represented in a misleading manner, which becomes apparent when reading the linked article - not on made-up bilge that ''isn't even discussed in the article in question''. ] (]) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::The sourced content is that the girl was presented as boy. That's undisputed. Presenting it as crossdressing is slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::::The sourced content is that the girl was presented as boy. That's undisputed. Presenting it as crossdressing is slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::No, it isn't 'slightly fudging it', it is intentionally making shit up, and adding it to |
:::::::::::No, it isn't 'slightly fudging it', it is intentionally making shit up, and adding it to Misplaced Pages - which is ''vandalism'' plain and simple. I am going to report this gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy at ANI, and call for appropriate action to be taken. ] (]) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *Dressing the girl in boys clothing is not described anywhere in the article. the masquerade went on immediately after her birth for a month and a half, so I suppose it's possible there were "boys" and "girls" infant clothes at that time in China, but that isn't mentioned in the article. Per Andy, I'm inclined to remove this as pushing our "flexibility" too far. It appears two admins disagree, so I won't do it unilaterally. --] (]) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | *Dressing the girl in boys clothing is not described anywhere in the article. the masquerade went on immediately after her birth for a month and a half, so I suppose it's possible there were "boys" and "girls" infant clothes at that time in China, but that isn't mentioned in the article. Per Andy, I'm inclined to remove this as pushing our "flexibility" too far. It appears two admins disagree, so I won't do it unilaterally. --] (]) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:55, 1 April 2015
Shortcuts | Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page. |
 | National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:
|
To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.
Main Page toolbox- Protected pages
- Commons media protection
- Associated
- It is currently 04:35 UTC.
- Purge the Main Page
- Purge this page
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
- Offer a correction if possible.
- References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
- Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 04:35 on 26 December 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems because this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
- Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
- Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article
Errors in In the news
Errors in the current or next Did you know...
|
DYK queue status
Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Current time: 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 4 hours ago( ) |
Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day
General April Fools Day Front Page Complaints
Although, the one about Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Gladiators is coming in a close second. Michael Cockrell (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
For some reason I think the one about Stonewall Jackson is my Favorite. Michael Cockrell (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ha Ha Got you good! Just kidding. April Fools Day! LMAO Michael Cockrell (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. clowns. Ha Ha its April fools day. You've had your fun now clean up this mess. This is exactly the reason the educational establishment in this country doesn't take Misplaced Pages seriously and tells their students not to trust us even though we are at least as accurate as any other media source. Michael Cockrell (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see you're a teacher. How deadly dull your classes must be. EEng (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Lighten up. According to Misplaced Pages, studies have found that people who lack regular laughter in their lives are at increased risk for heart disease, depression, and muscle atrophy of the face. Randhuck (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Michael. I think one reason "the educational establishment in this country" has problems is because the people it produces don't realise there's more than one country in the world. I think Misplaced Pages is struggling manfully to change that perception, despite our problems with WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Now, what error were you looking to fix when you posted here? --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hope you're not trying to move the goalposts, like they did on BBC Radio 4 this morning. What a bunch of untrustworthy idiots. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- To be fair, were I an academician, I would not ask my students to trust Misplaced Pages either. I'd ask them to check the article for reliable sources, go to those sources for information, analyze the sources, and then document any verifiable information. There is a reason why WP:V states not to use Misplaced Pages as a source.--WaltCip (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- And were I to be an academic, I'd urge likewise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
In all seriousness
To spare the humor-impaired their agonies, and save needless discussion here, maybe next AFD (that's April Fools Day, not, um, you-know-what) we should post a little cheat sheet here in advance, explaining all the jokes. Or, at least, have a big headline saying, TODAY IS APRIL FOOLS DAY -- PLEASE THINK TWICE BEFORE POSTING HERE. EEng (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I was tempted to move this section to Talk:Main Page, as it isn't really an error report, but I suppose its probably best to leave it here until 0:01 2 April 2015, or else something similar will get recreated on this page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was all going rather well. Most of the complaints are just niggling bad tempered "bah humbug" style with just the odd exception about the attempts at humour by the OTD section. A roaring success I think, probably because TFA bottled it and didn't feature Jenna Jameson. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe if the bah-humbug crowd tried Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators they'd loosen up a little and find it easier to just let things go. EEng (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Some folks are too tight, even for Dr Young. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe if the bah-humbug crowd tried Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators they'd loosen up a little and find it easier to just let things go. EEng (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- In all seriousness we have the same complaints every 4/1 because the attempts at humour are pathetic. My ass isn't the least bit tight if you judge that by the ability to fart long and loud, but I just don't see the point. Unless you can pull a spaghetti harvest hoax, don't bother.--ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I am definitely one of the humor-impaired tight-assed bah humbuggers. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It's bad enough to have to deal with everyday vandalism, but I find this officially sanctioned mass vandalism that occurs every 4/1 to be totally puerile. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Transphobia
Calling someone a 'crossdresser' is transphobic.—chbarts (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, it's a dictionary definition of someone who dresses in the clothing of the opposite sex. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's transphobic to call a trans person a crossdresser.—chbarts (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, dictionaries can be transphobic. Don't hide behind them.—chbarts (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence of your response is a repeat of your original post. The second sentence is probably true. The third sentence is false, I'm not "hiding behind" any dictionary. But thanks for the advice. Loathe as I am to do this, what is your preferred term for people who dress in clothing of the opposite sex? And don't just say "trans" because that has thousands of possible meanings. Including something I find very upsetting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I've missed something, the article doesn't actually support the claim that the unnamed female child was dressed in the clothing of the opposite sex. It says that the child was falsely claimed to be male - which is something else entirely. If the article can't support the claim of 'crossdressing', we shouldn't be stating it on the main page, regardless of whether it is transphobic or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bad day for OTD then, already having had one hook pulled. It's supposed to be mildly humorous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a term for hiding behind a dictionary in other gender attire? (A non-phobic one, obviously). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I imagine the Vatican has something appropriate, but otherwise, I'm all out of clues, as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a term for hiding behind a dictionary in other gender attire? (A non-phobic one, obviously). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: It's supposed to slightly misleading. @Chbarts: The person in question is technically neither crossdresser nor a transsexual, so your argument is moot. Besides, it's not phobic to call a transvestite a crossdresser. —howcheng {chat} 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- So you admit it's a lie, @Howcheng:, and you claim that it isn't transphobic. I guess the only joke around here is the project's tolerance for trans people.—chbarts (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Crossdressers are not the same as transsexuals. —howcheng {chat} 23:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- And you still refuse to admit the transphobia, @Howcheng:. This is nothing less than a deliberate attack, now, a deliberate attempt to make people feel unwelcome.—chbarts (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm seriously thinking of taking this to WP:ANI if we can't come to a better conclusion here, @Howcheng:.—chbarts (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Crossdressers are not the same as transsexuals. —howcheng {chat} 23:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it is intentionally misleading, it has no business being on the main page - lying to our readers is no more acceptable on April 1st than any other day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Andy, but major mainstream news outlets do this every year. If you equate "intentionally misleading" in an attempt to honour April Fools' Day to "lying" then that's really your personal issue to deal with. Having said that, of course if the article itself doesn't verify the claim then it should be excised post-haste. And that wouldn't be the first time that DYK gets a spanking for pushing unreferenced bilge to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- That is what I meant - the article doesn't support the claim. Making the claim 'intentionally misleading', plain and simple, unless it can be sourced. In which case, it should have been sourced in the article. Legitimate April fools content is based on sourced content represented in a misleading manner, which becomes apparent when reading the linked article - not on made-up bilge that isn't even discussed in the article in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The sourced content is that the girl was presented as boy. That's undisputed. Presenting it as crossdressing is slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier. —howcheng {chat} 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, it isn't 'slightly fudging it', it is intentionally making shit up, and adding it to Misplaced Pages - which is vandalism plain and simple. I am going to report this gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy at ANI, and call for appropriate action to be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The sourced content is that the girl was presented as boy. That's undisputed. Presenting it as crossdressing is slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier. —howcheng {chat} 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- That is what I meant - the article doesn't support the claim. Making the claim 'intentionally misleading', plain and simple, unless it can be sourced. In which case, it should have been sourced in the article. Legitimate April fools content is based on sourced content represented in a misleading manner, which becomes apparent when reading the linked article - not on made-up bilge that isn't even discussed in the article in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Andy, but major mainstream news outlets do this every year. If you equate "intentionally misleading" in an attempt to honour April Fools' Day to "lying" then that's really your personal issue to deal with. Having said that, of course if the article itself doesn't verify the claim then it should be excised post-haste. And that wouldn't be the first time that DYK gets a spanking for pushing unreferenced bilge to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- So you admit it's a lie, @Howcheng:, and you claim that it isn't transphobic. I guess the only joke around here is the project's tolerance for trans people.—chbarts (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bad day for OTD then, already having had one hook pulled. It's supposed to be mildly humorous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I've missed something, the article doesn't actually support the claim that the unnamed female child was dressed in the clothing of the opposite sex. It says that the child was falsely claimed to be male - which is something else entirely. If the article can't support the claim of 'crossdressing', we shouldn't be stating it on the main page, regardless of whether it is transphobic or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence of your response is a repeat of your original post. The second sentence is probably true. The third sentence is false, I'm not "hiding behind" any dictionary. But thanks for the advice. Loathe as I am to do this, what is your preferred term for people who dress in clothing of the opposite sex? And don't just say "trans" because that has thousands of possible meanings. Including something I find very upsetting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dressing the girl in boys clothing is not described anywhere in the article. the masquerade went on immediately after her birth for a month and a half, so I suppose it's possible there were "boys" and "girls" infant clothes at that time in China, but that isn't mentioned in the article. Per Andy, I'm inclined to remove this as pushing our "flexibility" too far. It appears two admins disagree, so I won't do it unilaterally. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture
Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list
Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.
Category: