- Again, nope. Responding to different points as they're made != shifting the ground. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense again. You wrote abovethe whole argument has been that we needed to use the specific terminology "actresses". That is demonstrably untrue. Please stop this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is not untrue. The argument that we needed the gendered category specifically because women who act are commonly called "actresses" rather than "actors" has come up repeatedly in all of these recent discussions -- see also the "Lesbian actors" --> "Lesbian actresses" discussion, which hinged entirely on using the specifically gendered term because the category specifically contained women. Nobody in this discussion ever proposed that we could use a different name to sidestep the ghettoization problem posed by "actresses" until about an hour ago. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, your repeated untruths become no more truthful by repetition. Please stop.
- No alternative was suggested because nobody said that the name was the problem. When you posted twice in the discussion before sneakily emptying-it out-of-process, you didn't mention the name as a problem ... and nor did anybody else. Your unilateral sneak-deletion was done without any mention by you or anyone else of what you now claim was "the whole argument"; in fact it was not even a part of the argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly was the core of the argument -- the arguments have repeatedly hinged on competing assertions about the gender terminology. It may not have been the crux of your position, but the argument has been made by more than one other editor. And if you call me a liar or accuse me of "unilateral sneak deletion" one more time, then say hello to an WP:RFC. You don't have to agree with my decision -- but you do have to assume good faith. You're allowed to have my decisions reviewed and revisited -- but you're not allowed to decide that I must be lying just because my explanation of the situation doesn't match your assumptions. If you were putting half as much energy into making a coherent case for why the category should be allowed as you are into throwing ad hominem attacks at me for simply making an admin decision that you didn't agree with, you might even have already gotten the new consensus you're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you can produce the diffs to show how terminology was raised as an issue in this discussion before your [sneaky out-of-process emptying/failed-atempt-close-a-discussion in which you-were involved] then I will continue to assert that your repeated claim that the issue in this CFD was one of terminology is yet another falsehood. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination rationale for Category:Lesbian actors: Actresses is the term for female actors, and lesbians are female. The current category names just jars for me. The only support arguments in that discussion: the claim that actress is obsolete is just hogwash, and the change seems better wording. Plus the fact that before today you were the only other person besides those three commenters to support any of these at all, and until JohnPackLambert proposed "female actors" as an alternative just a couple of hours ago, you too seemed much more hung up on the name than on whether actors could be subdivided by gender at all. I'm willing to acknowledge that that may have been a misreading of your actual intention, but it was a wholly understandable reading of what you were actually saying. The potential ghettoization problem with "actresses" was actually made quite clear quite early on in the process -- but you still didn't consider or propose any other approach until one was suggested by somebody else today.
- And just for the record, I also see no evidence that you ever asked anybody for clarification of why WP:CATGRS might say what it says -- which, again, was the fact that it's ghettoizing women to hive them off into a subcategory of the men instead of having sibling male and female categories within a common ungendered parent. You simply decreed it invalid without even attempting to understand why CFD had come to the consensus it had, or attempting to propose any alternative that might actually resolve the concerns that led people to that consensus. If you've got an idea for how the categories can be gendered without running into the ghettoization problem, then please, by all means, propose it instead of attacking other people for simply having that concern. And furthermore, I also see that it was suggested to you in the DRV discussion that a full RFC around whether we should consider allowing gendered actor categories would be a better approach than simply recreating deleted categories just to take them back to CFD again. (And, incidentally, if you actually want to build consensus for a new approach, it is generally a good idea to at least try to understand why the old one was implemented the way it was. You don't have to agree with it, but you'll get a lot farther in changing it if you at least understand where the people who made that decision were coming from.) Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, your sustained and blatant dishonesty is staggering.
- I ask for diffs from this discussion; you respond with quotes from a different discussion.
- You say that I "seemed much more hung up on the name than on whether actors could be subdivided by gender at all". That is a barefaced lie: I repeatedly posted about the fact that gender is a defining characteristic of someone whose profession is acting, and none of my comments were about the name other than in response to you, in a separate discussion. Why do you continually post things which are demonstrably untrue?
- In the discussion on the naming of Category:Lesbian actors, you posted that "no particularly meaningful or encyclopedic distinction between being an "actor" and being an "actress" beyond what type of sexy bits happen to be sitting between your legs", to which I replied [1] was about the fact that it is a gendered profession ... and you replied about the name. Please try to find the honesty to stop trying to attribute to me an obsession which you have pursued.
- As to your complaint, that I should have "asked somebody" what CATGRS says, there is no oracle on these matters. I have read the guideline and its talk page archives for many years, and discussed it in many discussions; I have also read every one of about a dozen CFD discussions about actress categories going back to 2005 or 2006. The dominant issue which have arisen time and time again in regard to these categories has been the assertion by some editors that gender is not a defining characteristic of an actor's career, with a secondary concern about the ghettoisation risked by any gendered category. It is dishonest of you to claim that I misunderstood this. The notion that the problem is is the word actress seems to be a particular fixation of yours; try to learn to distinguish between your own view and what was actually discussed at previous CFDs of actress categories.
- Now, on the DRV: I created the Portuguese category as a test case because it was suggested at DRV that I do so. Once again, if you read the DRV, you would have seen that discussed there.
- Your repeated claim that it is "ghettoizing women to hive them off into a subcategory of the men instead of having sibling male and female categories within a common ungendered parent" is also nonsense. Please look at the section in WP:CATGRS which describes how ghettoisation can be avoided while having a common category and one-gendered subcats. It has been there in CATGRS for years, and it describes a solution which works fine across thousands of occupational categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|