Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Equazcion (talk | contribs) at 08:58, 21 March 2012 (→Medical Anthropology: a little cleaner). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

"Edgy" questions

Recently, I asked this question on the science desk: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=479505483

Soon thereafter, the question was deleted and I was blocked without warning by an administrator. Both ref deskers and administrators seemed to assume, without any evidence, that I must be a troll. I explained my reasons for asking the question on my talk page--namely, that I was curious about a historical practice described in our history of masturbation article. I admit that this isn't topic isn't everybody's cup of tea, but neither is the Holocaust, yet we don't suspect Holocaust historians of being secret sadists. Administrators who reviewed my block, however, seemed bent on assuming bad faith and refusing to engage in any dialog.

I had asked similarly edgy questions before, regarding controversial subjects such as racism and honor killings. Every time, a substantial number of reference deskers promptly labelled me a troll and dismissed my question out of hand. At the same time, OP's such as Whoop whoop are allowed to dominate the desk with trivial questions that they neither need or want an answer to. As an established Misplaced Pages user and ref desk regular, I cannot disagree more with this attitude. I believe that questions which challenge the fundamental moral basis of society, questions that are intimately relevant to the world's social problems, are the ones most worthy of discussion. To be sure, Reference Desk contributors can't solve the world's problems, and even if they could, the reference desk is no place for opinions or original research. But banning edgy questions robs the Reference Desk of one of its most potentially valuable roles: as one of the few places on the Internet with smart, talented volunteers willing to answer genetic questions, it could answer controversial questions more objectively than almost any other site on the Internet.

Because I care about Misplaced Pages and the Reference Desk, I make this request of every regular: please assume good faith, and rather than accusing questioners of trolling or censoring their posts, answer their questions as well as you can. You are some of the very few people on the Internet who can answer the most controversial questions with some measure of scientific objectivity. --140.180.6.168 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're asking questions because they are edgy, and you think society's moral views need to be challenged and this is the place to do it. You are wrong. This is a place for people to ask questions to which they don't know the answer - not a place to ask interesting stuff and watch the results. You geolocate to a university, why not walk out of the dorm room and have these deeply interesting (to you) discussions at your local debating society or pub? I can't exactly figure out why we need you here, or should be willing to accommodate your "edgy" questions. Franamax (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not asking questions because they are edgy; I'm asking them because they're relevant, and because I want to be informed. For example, I recently asked a question about whether people who practice honor killings justify their actions based on the Quran, and if so, which verses they use. Given the rampant Islamophobia in today's society, don't you think that's a worthwhile question to address? I honestly didn't know the answer and wanted to be informed, if only because I wanted to have an educated opinion of Islam. I didn't ask it to "see what happens"; in fact, I honestly didn't expect half the responders to object to my questions. Finally, as for why you "need" me here, you don't, but I would humbly suggest that you don't need someone like Whoop whoop either. --140.180.6.168 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Starting a thread about yourself then turning it around into a thread about someone else is a pretty good sign of trolling. If you have a problem with Whoop whoop, start a separate section. Comparisons to others don't justify your own actions and it's curious how people always pick someone "worse" to compare themselves to, rather than someone "better". Franamax (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree, and I would like to clarify one point: I believe Whoop whoop should be allowed to ask his questions, and they should not be censored. This section is not intended as a personal attack. In the meanwhile, I would honestly appreciate it if you addressed my arguments, instead of accusing me of trolling. --140.180.6.168 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoop whoop has been discussed in the top thread of this page. Consensus shows that his questions shouldn't be answered. Also it is hard to not accuse you of trolling when using an IP that has been blocked previously due to vandalism. Uhlan 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this editor's history and offer no opinion his alleged trollhood. But I don't think there should be any necessary reluctance to honor "edgy" questions at these desks, since Misplaced Pages is, of course, not censored.

The story is told that a recurring question in the early days of the Reference Desk involved, um, dog poop -- and you can in fact see it being asked and answered in the second RD archive ever, at Misplaced Pages:Reference Desk archive 2. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no problem with edgy questions, the problem is with questions made up specifically to be edgy, or in this case because someone feels that society will or should be interested in the answer. This is a place for genuine curiosity, not some sort of erudite Socratic dialog where the competition os to ask the "best" questions to educate the masses. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So... what was wrong with IP's original question? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What was it? The IP said himself that he was asking questions about masturbation and other repulsive subjects, so I haven't looked at his specific questions. Uhlan 07:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions promoting child abuse are obviously inappropriate for any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Medical removal

I have removed a question and series of answers from the Science desk regarding treatment of gallstones. Per past discussions, I doubt the involved editors will concur. Per past discussions, I expect this to be an otherwise consensus removal. — Lomn 13:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The question is a completely general one about how gallstones are treated. There is no medical advice here; we have not been presented with a case at all. This is an example of how this policy is abused to suppress any coverage of the science. I will revert this. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The question was probably OK, it is Wnt's answer, which deliberately sets out to mislead and endanger health, which should be removed. This is a science desk, not the local fortune-teller's. Franamax (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even begun answering the question, but I find the dogmatic rejection of herbal medicine to be unscientific. Many modern medicines originated in ancient times as herbal remedies, and the process of research is far from complete. Of course, any evidence you can contribute to the thread to argue for the ineffectiveness of any of these notions is much welcome. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence to argue for the ineffectiveness? You do realize it's a Science desk, right? Things are not accepted as fact unless there is specific evidence to refute them. Nothing at all refutes the Christian Bible's account of creation (since an almighty god can do whatever they want with radiocative dating) - are you going to start quoting Holy Verse next? Franamax (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We've seen more than a little Biblical quotation around there already. I presented these as hypotheses, and I was hoping to work through them all to figure out which have evidence for them, though between the deletions, the attitude, the confusing state of the literature, and the near-total lack of relevant Misplaced Pages articles about the plants, herbal terms, and medical practices involved this appears to be a much larger and more frustrating task than I'd thought. I started with Lysimachia christinae, which seems promising, though it turns out that Jin Qian Cao (just made that) can refer to a lot of things, which is why we see sources using Lysimachia interchangeably with "Herba Desmodii". Let's be clear - people are using these herbs, selling these herbs, with the notion that they are good for gallstones, and in China, they apparently actually do expel gallstones with these methods (with some hair-raising accompaniments like 50 mls of 50% magnesium salt). It is well within the purview of answering a question to try to figure out what people are doing, then see what the evidence is for or against it. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good removal. Not only is it medical advice, but it's abusing wikipedia to try to push a fringe theory. It's equivalent to advising the OP to pray for recovery. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OP asked for a "fringe theory", or at least, information about alternatives to surgery. I was not "pushing" these ideas at all - indeed, I haven't even sorted through them yet. Would you people be saying we shouldn't discuss fuzzballs because GR black holes are the One True Canon? Wnt (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because someone asks for fringe-theory advice doesn't mean we should provide any. The last thing we need is lawsuits against wikipedia over someone dying because they thought some herb would cure their gallstones. And don't give me some lecture about wikipedia being somehow "immune" from lawsuits. Let's not put ourselves in the position of testing that theory. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Web is full of people selling these pills and making expansive claims about them. I dare say I can summarize these claims, look for scientific evidence, and say what I could find without getting sued. The Refdesk normally entertains very wide-ranging conversations, and we should not exclude consideration of ideas simply out of fear that they might threaten the medical cartel's sacred right to control - or deny - treatment as it deems fit. We are talking here about a condition for which the "normal" treatment is a permanent mutilation of the human body, which guarantees long term adverse effects; the risk of which can rather likely be reduced, to some extent, by simple nutritional preventative measures such as the amount of magnesium consumed, and for which medical practice in non-U.S. countries can be very different. I will not feel guilty for surveying what is being mentioned on the Web, or what is known scientifically about these ideas. Wnt (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The internet is populated by all manner of saints and sinners, upstanding citizens and con artists. It is not wikipedia's place to promote quackery. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with discussing it though - we have threads about water-powered cars and perpetual motion machines rather often. By contrast, a lot of these "fringe" ideas from Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese medicine and the Western herbal tradition were regarded as good medical practice for thousands of years by some of the greatest physicians of antiquity. They're not all right all the time, but the ideas with a historical basis are always worthy of respect and serious research. Wnt (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Which water-powered cars and perpetual motion machines are being considered as treatments for serious medical problems? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why punish the OP for a respondents failure to follow the medical advice rule? The question itself was not asking for medical advice, it was asking for verifiable information on a medical topic. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1) The question itself did not solicit medical advice, therefore it's removal was improper.

2) They certainly are entitled to ask about any treatments used for a certain problem, whether Western medicine or not. As for the question of it being on the Science Desk, a case could be made for moving it to the Misc Desk. However, there will be many questions where part of the answer is science and some is not, and it's a judgement call as to which get moved. I suppose we could dual post all such questions, with the scientific answers on one desk and the rest on another, but that seems rather silly. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I will take the concerns and disagreements about the removal of the question to heart when acting in the future. Beyond that, I'm disappointed that Wnt -- who is repeatedly at odds with RD consensus on what is and is not acceptable medical content -- is the one who unilaterally re-added (and appended) all of his content. I find the provided rationale of "but I haven't even evaluated any of the medical opinion I'm offering" to be even worse than offering that same content with no comment at all. That said, I don't see that there's any further need for my action on this one. — Lomn 15:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this question or the response to it. If Wnt had followed through with his plan to start evaluating the claims, then he would have been getting into dangerous territory, but just providing a whole load of references is precisely what the ref desk is here for. --Tango (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So if the OP follows one of those quack remedies and dies, we can quote from Animal House: "Hey! He f'ed up! He trusted us!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked "Can we treat gallbladder stones in a non-surgical way?". Wnt did not provide one single example of treating gallstones in a non-surgical way, NOT ONE. They provided a list of scams and unproven folk medicine with not a word in the later summary to affirm that none of them are actual remedies. And they went further, in their zeal to use the Science desk to promote their own notion of the usefulness of unproven "medicine" simply because someone, somewhere, used it once or has it for sale today - they mention in their summary for silymarin it is "well known for hepatoprotective qualities", referring to a source that has the phrases "no definitive evidence that it is effective", "failed to prove effective", "little to no evidence as yet that it really helps these conditions", "did not find any significant differences". I call that actively misleading the reader. Franamax (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing of the question could go either way in my mind, but if we interpret the question as a request for general knowledge (Then "we" must imply mankind in general?), then I don't see a problem the question or with Wnt's post. Those are certainly treatments used for that problem. I would have preferred if it was more clear that they were crazy fringe treatments that almost certainly won't work, but anyone could have noted that simply by replying to Wnt.

The argument that Wnt's posts should be removed because they're unscientific doesn't seem to hold water. We don't routinely remove "unscientific" refdesk answers do we?

If the question is allowed to stand, then Wnt's answer should have also been allowed to stand. APL (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the OP didn't make any further edits after that one, we can't know for sure what he was thinking, but his contribs (Eugene CKG (talk · contribs)) at least suggest that he's talking about himself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the question did stand, and I sorted through a few things - meant to get back in it in more detail, but somehow I ended up on both sides of the grandest witch hunt ever to run through Commons... Wnt (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article

I thought this blog post by Jeff Atwood was relevant to the Ref Desk. Both because I've had the same experience, but it's one of the reasons I think that trying to coax a good question out of an OP can be valuable. Just sending it around as food for thought, not with any obvious changes implied by it. I worry that our "how to ask" header is too long and mostly skipped. I don't see much of a way around that, though I wonder if an Misplaced Pages:Editnotice might be worth thinking about for adding new sections on Ref Desk pages. Maybe not. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we could do well by simplifying and shortening our "how to ask" section. Brevity has merit. Nimur (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

One way to make the rules more succinct without losing detail is to move the details to pages accessed by links. For example, we could have a rule Don't ask us to do your homework, with the link fully explaining how we will help them with their homework, once they show us what they've done and where they've encountered the problem. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Should questions in other languages be permitted/encouraged in some circumstances?

Recently, a question was asked at the the Reference Desk on language. It was unclear exactly what was being asked, but it was a non-native speaker asking for help with English, which definitely would have made an answer from the English-language Ref Desk relevant and desirable. I wonder whether perhaps in certain circumstances questions in other languages should be allowed, and this possibility specified in the posting guidelines.

True, the OP didn't return to clarify their question. However, this may well have been out of embarrassment that they hadn't been understood the first time, because of their poor English. One response even made light of it.

It is likely that many people who understand English but are uncomfortable writing it would benefit from being able to use the Reference Desk. This may be because the question is especially relevant to English-speakers (e.g., a question about the English language or English-speaking countries), or because the Reference Desk of their own language Misplaced Pages is inactive or nonexistent. In most cases, one of us will be able to provide a translation, after which anybody can answer. Since this would be an exception to the general understanding that English should be used on the English Misplaced Pages, potential posters would need to be informed that this was consistent with etiquette here.

What are your views on this? 96.46.202.232 (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We have had questions posted in other languages, and I agree that this is better than an incomprehensible question written in what the OP thinks is English. One common problem, though, seems to be that they think they know English better than they actually do, so they may not see the need to post in their own language. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's one thing that bothers me - when somebody makes fun of someone else's English like that. Learning a language is not easy. The last thing I would want when I post something on the internet to strangers is for somebody to belittle the effort that I've put into learning another language. Falconus 09:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

However, we do need to let them know that their question is incomprehensible, and that posting in their native language would work better, but it's difficult to find a way to say that which doesn't sound insulting. StuRat (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing that has a greater propensity to cause offence is putting the focus on them and their writing ("Your question is hard to understand"). If, however, we talk about our own experience ("I'm having difficulty understanding your question"), the message is conveyed with less risk of them feeling accused of saying the wrong thing. They'll still understand they've said the wrong thing, but it's not something they'll get defensive about. -- Jack of Oz 10:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the point of allowing questions in other languages, but there must be no answers in other languages, unless accompanied by translations into English. Without a translation all non-speaker of that other language would be being excluded from the conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above. I was thinking of including wording like this in the posting guidelines:

• Although we prefer questions be asked in English , you may ask your question in another language. If we're able to, we'll translate it into English, and you'll generally receive answers in English.

If we ever see a question in a language we don't understand, we can ask the language desk for help. I think we should answer in English. Pointing out that we'll be translating questions ought to keep them short.

If it seems warranted in a particular case and one of us has time, we can offer to translate/summarize some or all of the answers, but this is really an extra. In most cases, if people are here, they probably understand English reasonably well (well enough that it's less of an effort for them to look words up than for us to translate). My point is mainly to help people who understand English but write it only with difficulty.

One thing I don't know is whether there's a real danger of inappropriate material being posted in an uncommon language and potentially causing trouble. If so, how can this be dealt with? 96.46.206.92 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I have to make comments on another language's Misplaced Pages, I'll leave two messages: Google Translate's version of my English message, and then the English original; at the end of my foreign-language comments, I'll say "I'm sorry, but I can't speak your language, so I've used Google Translate, but if you understand English, you can read my original comments below". That way, the average viewer of the message will be able to understand something, while those who speak English can understand me well and can make a proper translation if they're so inclined. See here for an example of what I mean. Perhaps we could encourage people to do that? Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good idea. I have something of a dislike for Google Translate, but it might be better than letting something sit there unanswered for a long time in a language none of us understand. Or maybe one of us can do this if after a while none of us has translated or summarized the question. 96.46.193.139 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's our chance to try it out. We now have a post from somebody who barely speaks English and whose native language is apparently Hindi: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#about_to_editing_and_get_published_my_Hindi_articles_and_poems_etc.. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Saw that. Any Hindi speakers around? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Medical Anthropology

Hi there. Some days ago there was a (somewhat disruptive) discussion of medical anthropology. I don't especially want to resurrect or discuss that argument, but I've just watched a couple of episodes of the American edition of One Born Every Minute. It occurs to me that other people who were interested in or confused by the idea of culturally-specific components in modern Western medical practice might also find it interesting to watch a few episodes of both the UK and US editions of this programme, if available where you are, and notice the differences and similarities, given that both programmes follow births in modern mainstream Western hospitals.

So, that's all really. Not looking for a discussion (as I don't really want anything like the one people had before), just a possible programme of interest to some people here. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Since your only previous edits were about female disciples of Jesus, and swimming pools, it's a little hard to know what you're getting at here. Instead of talking in riddles, please provide a link to whatever discussion you're vaguely referring to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't read or follow the discussion on medical anthropology, you're unlikely to be interested. Hence, it is not directed at you. No riddles: just not something you found interesting. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't make any assumptions about what I'm interested or not interested in. Meanwhile, maybe the item in Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 4 is what you're referring to? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bugs, the OP is perfectly within his rights to make that assumption. Since you didn't take part in the original discussion, there's nothing here of relevance to you and hence no need for you to make any intervention. --Viennese Waltz 15:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked him about it and he effectively gave me an "F.U." response. The fact that I asked about it ought to send him a clue that I AM interested in it. Unless he's just deliberately trying to be a jerk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If he's trying (which I doubt), he's not succeeding. You, Bugs, on the other hand . . . . I'd suggest a nice cup of tea, if that's not too British for you :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.131 (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, he's trying, for sure. Whether he succeeds fully will depend on whether he actually answers my question instead of continuing to cop the "F.U." attitude (which Volkswagen did also, as usual, but at least he's an actual user). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this whole "the person doesn't use an account therefore they must be attacking me" routine ever get old? Your first reply to the OP was an accusation of "talking in riddles", which IMO falls short of assuming good faith. Perhaps a different approach such as asking "Hey OP, I didn't follow that discussion, could you link to it?" may have yielded a better response. Just a thought. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The tendency of some users to kiss up to drive-bys and say "F.U." to registered users gets old too. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, come on, Bugs. You were the one who launched into a forensic analysis of the OP's previous history here and concluded they're a lesser class of mortal than one who's spent lots of time here. Nobody suggests we should "kiss up to" anyone including unregistered users, but attacking them as your first response is hardly appropriate either. - Jack of Oz 04:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP was talking in riddles, and that's fair game for commentary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If a sentence doesn't appear to make sense, that is because of the sentence itself, and maybe with some of the immediately adjacent context. It has absolutely zero to do with the speaker's previous history on Misplaced Pages, or anywhere else on planet Earth. It's not like we maintain dossiers on every user so that we can keep abreast of their interests and their prejudices and their characteristic ways of expressing themselves, so that we can better work out how to understand them when they ask questions. (Or maybe you do keep such dossiers. I'd be keen to know what mine says.) To check out their WP history, and then conclude their limited experience here makes them fit only to be characterised as "drive-bys", a term that many of your colleagues have told you is deeply offensive to them, is a disgraceful way of operating. It is utterly contrary to the WP Pillar of "Assume Good Faith". That applies, if anything, MORE to new or unregistered users than it does to users we've had lots of dealings with, because, by definition, we know less about them. If you consider that adherence to that fundamental principle of how this whole project works is equivalent to "kissing up to" new or unregistered users, then what the hell are you doing here? -- Jack of Oz 07:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just want to state my support for the viewpoint that Bugs jumped down the OP's throat with no cause. I don't see any "F.U.", as Bugs characterized this. The OP rather specifically said he wasn't looking to get into a discussion with people who weren't privy to the past discussion, and he's under no obligation to. That doesn't make him a jerk. People can speak to a narrow audience without explaining for the larger crowd, if they like; at least they can here. It's not like article content is at stake. They're even free to "drive by" Misplaced Pages and/or this page for as brief a comment as they want, without explaining themselves to your satisfaction. Equazcion 08:09, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The OP raised a question without providing any links. He was talking in really vague terms... i.e. in riddles. And whatever he was referring to, he had never edited it, so it wasn't possible to find out what he was talking about. And as soon as he gave me the F.U. attitude, any good faith was out the window. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

People are allowed to speak vaguely about things they never edited before, and are even allowed to refuse to explain themselves. He was speaking to a narrow audience that didn't include you. There was no "F.U.". Accept the fact that the comment wasn't intended for you and move on. Equazcion 08:18, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

He said "Not looking for a discussion." Had he bothered to answer my question, instead of giving me the F.U. attitude, there wouldn't be this megillah. As far as who it was "intended for", this is a public website, and it's not his to control. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the F.U. was the essence of "If you didn't read or follow the discussion on medical anthropology, you're unlikely to be interested. Hence, it is not directed at you." He presumes to know what I'm interested in. It's not his place to decide what I'm interested in. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

His saying "You're unlikely to be interested" was a polite way of telling you he didn't want to get into the whole subject again with a new crowd. And he has that right. He was just looking to make a comment, not control anything. You're the one trying to impose an obligation on him, so as I see it you're the one who's trying to control things. Equazcion 08:25, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

He was not anything resembling polite. I asked for a link. I even said PLEASE. He ignored that request, choosing instead to give me that patronizing, nannyistic lecture. That's an "F.U." if there ever was one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe, just maybe, he was put off (to put it mildly) by your "Since your only previous edits were about female disciples of Jesus, and swimming pools .." comment. That was a disparagement, a lack of respect, a put-down, call it what you like. If you treat people with a "You can't join our secret society till you've proven yourself, and until then I'm gonna make it as hard as possible for you" attitude, then is it any wonder they react? It's to his credit that he remained as temperate as he did. I can't say the same for you. -- Jack of Oz 08:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He was not talking in riddles and he was not asking for your input on anything. His post would have been understandable to a few people, and you should have left it at that. Why do you feel the need to butt into every thread on this reference desk? Can't you just leave a discussion alone, if it has nothing to do with you? --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting plenty of F.U. from you two right now also. Which is par for the course. The difference is, we are not drive-bys and can be communicated with. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, he could've ignored you if he wanted to, which would've also been fine; but he actually did take the time to respond by declining your request for clarification, and further explained why: He simply didn't intend to address you. Which again, is his prerogative. I'm not sure if you just don't like being left out of the loop or what, but I find your reaction rather mystifying. Would it have been more acceptable to you if he had been less "patronizing" and just come out with "I don't want to explain this to you"? Somehow I doubt it. Something else going on here, I'm not sure what, but you frankly need to relax, especially where new editors are involved. Equazcion 08:37, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he could have said, "I'd rather not get into it", which would have been fine. Instead, he copped the F.U. attitude, and proceeded to lecture me on what I should or should not be interested in. I do not suffer nannies gladly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He wrote "If you didn't read or follow the discussion on medical anthropology, you're unlikely to be interested. Hence, it is not directed at you. No riddles: just not something you found interesting." That is not an "FU attitude", it's actually rather polite, a lot more polite than you usually are around here. --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

IF he's referring to this discussion, then I did, in fact, have a small part in it. So he's not only got an F.U. attitude (like you, typically), he's also WRONG. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure he didn't intend any attitude. As should be evidenced by the fact that your colleagues disagree so vehemently that it should've been taken that way, you might consider that you've misinterpreted this one. This is one of the reasons for AGF: It can be difficult to read people's intentions through text, so it's best to err on the side of good faith. Equazcion 08:43, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

He blew away good faith when he stonewalled my question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

His refusal to answer your question is no reason at all to abandon AGF. People don't have to explain themselves to you if they don't want to. That's no evidence of bad faith. Equazcion 08:49, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

He didn't just "refuse to answer", he lectured me on what I should or should not be interested in. That's neither polite nor good faith. It's F-U. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that comes back to assuming good faith. You said AGF was out the window when he refused to answer, but when challenged on that you say his wording in the refusal was the problem. AGF takes care of that -- don't presume to know people's intentions based on their wording. But when that's brought up, you go back to the refual itself as reason to abandon AGF. You've got a circular argument going, and it doesn't hold up logically. Equazcion 08:53, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I said he had stonewalled, which is worse. Also, ironically, he himself was not a participant in the original discussion, while I was (to a small extent). So where does he get off lecturing anyone else about their alleged lack of participation? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Stonewalled" and "lecturing" are all solved by assuming good faith. You can slice it any way you like, but these characterizations of his attitude are in essence a refusal to abide by AGF. Equazcion 08:58, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Now you're wildly flailing about, mischaracterising as "F.U" all good faith and serious-minded attempts to explain things to you. You do us a disservice when you say that. But your dogged and obdurate refusal to drop your practice of calling people drive-bys (who in ordinary parlance are murderers), and to view every comment ever made about you through the prism of Victim Consciousness, is certainly your F.U. to the rest of us. Yet you've now accused 3 users of being FU-ists, yet you are the user who never, ever, ever accepts there's anything in his behaviour that needs a good hard look. Well, look again, Bugs, because nobody is that good. -- Jack of Oz 08:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

His lecturing me was NOT "good faith". And he himself had not participated in the original discussion. So he was in the wrong. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Metadiscussion on deletion of certain questions moved from main reference desk

Since discussion of reference desk procedures belongs here, I moved the discussion here from the main desk. --Jayron32 03:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Question that would bring the project into disrepute has been removed. See this, the spirit of which applies to Misplaced Pages space too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of some question is listed as having happened at 15:48 on 20 March, but I see no such edit in the history of this page or in your history of edits. Was it obliterated by Higher Authority? Edison (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AReference_desk%2FHumanities&diff=482918022&oldid=482917900 Equazcion 02:13, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

If Reaper Eternal is aware of some policy that says "Prostitution may not be discussed on Misplaced Pages" then it would be appropriate to cite that policy when he/she deletes the question (and its responses), on the talk page of the Reference Desk. "Disrepute?" Edison (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edison, I suspect you went to the history and picked on the arrow to take you to the relevant section. But, since the title was changed at the same time, no such section was found. I also agree that, while there may have been reasons not to answer the question, there was no reason to remove it. StuRat (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the page history and did not find the deletion or the post by Eternal Reaper, as having happened at the instant in question. I did not search for the title of the question. Maybe there are "Topics which may not be discussed," per some policy or guideline. All I request is that the policy or guideline should be cited on the talk page of Ref Desk when a question and well-intentioned responses are deleted. No individual "owns" the Ref Desk, and is entitled to delete content when it suits him/her, with no explanation or possibility for discussion. Edison (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He linked to an arbcom decision, which in my experience is has become as accepted as linking to a policy; although whether or not it should be has been disputed. I'm also not sure if a ruling against an editor's user page should apply here; most of that decision had to do with use of the user page as a soapbox. I would say as long as advice isn't being given on doing illegal things, the section probably should've stayed; and if there was a problem with any specific comment, it could've been removed without taking the whole section with it. We're not censored, so "disreputable" things can be discussed on an intellectual level, and the discussion actually looks to me like a rather intellectual exchange of the various legal methods that exist around the world. Equazcion 02:42, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The exact time of the edit versus the time I see in edit history might be an issue of GMT versus local time associated with the edit. The ArbCom case cited apparently said that one user may not post quotes by Hitler and Mussolini. on a user page. How in the hell is that even remotely relevant to this issue of questions about prostitution at Ref Desk? Edison (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He linked to a particular "principle" decided on, regarding user pages that would bring the project into disrepute. I'm not saying I agree with him, just saying, he doesn't necessarily need to link to something that mention prostitution explicitly. I agree that the question shouldn't have been removed though. I'd move this section onto the talk page and restore the original discussion, but not being an admin myself, I'd be a little timid about doing that without some more people behind me. Equazcion 03:02, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Looks like half the job is done anyway :) Equazcion 03:18, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

This thread could be collapsed on the mainpage, to continue discussion here. Edison (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe Jayron already removed the discussion from the main page. Equazcion 03:48, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I restored the question, as I don't see any support for the removal here. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

See the question in question (teehee) here: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#Engaging in prostitution? Is it possible?. Equazcion 04:28, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you! I'm getting rather tired of questions of any sort of sexual nature being removed, often without any edit summary. Dismas| 04:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in the history now, as well as in the deleter's contribs. The way I see it, it's not that it's of sexual nature - it's that the OP is requesting advice on breaking the law, which is not appropriate - hence the risk of "disrepute" on wikipedia. Note that the user expressly stated, "How does one dabble in prostitution? ... Assuming that it's both illegal and stigmatised in the society/country?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As StuRat notes on the main page, the question wasn't "how do i..." but "how does one..." I'd like to be able to ask questions about how people do things, even if they're against the law, such as how people rob banks or produce meth. Doesn't mean I'm gonna go do it, but it's nice to be able to be curious about these things without it being deemed too "disreputable" for mention in a supposedly open and uncensored information source. Of slightly less importance is the fact that although the discussion began with that question, the vast bulk of it became a discussion of legal methods around the world.

PS. I noticed you basically duplicated your comment here and on the main page. Might be best to keep discussion of the question's viability here, as that discussion was moved here for a reason. Equazcion 06:36, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

On if we should reveal or keep secret methods criminals use, I'd argue that whether they are public knowledge is the relevant point. If somebody asks what percentage of bank robbers have real guns, that should be answered. If somebody asks how to weaponize anthrax, then we probably should keep our mouths shut (if we know the answer). StuRat (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So, apparently you all have decided to repeal the prohibition against giving legal advice??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not a request for legal advice. He said "how does one", not "how do I". That makes all the difference between legal advice and legal information. --Viennese Waltz 08:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think it's appropriate for wikipedia to be eagerly providing advice on how to break the law? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my previous post? He was not asking for advice on how to break the law, he was asking for information on how the law may be broken. See the difference? --Viennese Waltz 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Did you read mine? How about actually trying to answer my question? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant, since we are not talking about the offering of legal advice. --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. As the original deleting editor said, answering a question like this runs the risk of making wikipedia look bad. Or maybe you don't care about that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You also run the risk of making Misplaced Pages look bad with your posts, but no-one's talking about blocking you. Although that might not be such a bad idea... --Viennese Waltz 08:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)