/lit/ - Literature

>>19653722
Go back and follow your leader.

>>19653722
Sounds like that nerd BTFO you. Come back with a rebuttal to support the deletion or take the L

>>19653744
I want /lit/'s advice. The was a guy in the other thread who was giving sound advice about this issue. I'm sure there's some wiki rule that can prevent this nonsense. In some other page that I was involved with they mentioned how wikipedia is not meant to just publish all information related to a subject, that the information must be verified, not just some retard's opinion or fan fiction theory. But I don't know the exact rule.

>>19653823
You don't really have a basis for deletion because it's relevant to the topic even if you don't like it. I think your best bet is to argue that Lord Sudley didn't advance any "transgender theory" because Chevalier d'Éon was not demonstrated to have been transgender and Lord Sudley didn't consider him transgender. So basically find a way to remove "transgender" from the header and replace it with something like "speculation about influence" or something that makes more sense. You have a case in removing trash like

>Sudley goes on to suggest that Dumas might have found inspiration for Milady from the Chevalier d'Éon, a transgender spy who acted as Louis XV's secret envoy to Russia and England.

Chevalier d'Éon was NOT transgender. That's just a modern theory, not something proven or something he identified himself as. Basically, that whole paragraph should be chiefly about Lord Sudley's speculation about the influence and nothing about transgenderism. But good luck fighting with the TRA spergs and wokepidia.

>>19653823
>that the information must be verified, not just some retard's opinion or fan fiction theory.
Well it's in the introduction of an edition of the book, so that alone confers it authority and relevance

>>19653722
I'm the guy who brought this to your attention. Just give up. It's over. The trannies have won.

>>19653823
Off site attempts to gain attention and support is a violation of Wikipedia policy that results in bans. Enjoy!

Reminder that gender theory is false.

>>19653855
SHIMBOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

>>19653855
He's asking for advice about Wiki guidelines and expertise, which is in line with Wikipedia rules. Tranny

>>19653843
>it's relevant to the topic
Is it, though? It seems kind of an irrelevant wacky theory. There were some guys in the George Floyd page who were trying to mention his porno acting career but wokipedians wouldn't let them saying it was irrelevant bla bla bla, even though it was covered by news and is documented. I'm sure some similar rule can apply here.

>>19653929
>Is it, though?
Yeah, especially cause it adds that
>One of Dumas' collaborators, F. Gaillardet, wrote the Mémoires sur la Chevaliére d'Éon, of which Dumas is known to have owned a copy.
So perhaps Dumas was indeed inspired by this character which is an interesting fact.

>There were some guys in the George Floyd page who were trying to mention his porno acting career but wokipedians wouldn't let them saying it was irrelevant bla bla bla
Well that was relevant too, but they're obviously going to bend the rules and purposefully misintepret the guidelines to favor themselves.

>>19653964
Can I make a case using this rule? I seem to remember this was the rule they used to remove the porno Floyd stuff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

>To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Even if it's from a published source, it's not a verified fact, but merely a baseless theory.

>>19654021
Go for it

>>19653964
>So perhaps Dumas was indeed inspired by this character which is an interesting fact.
Published 20 years after The Three Musketeers. Try again tranny.

>>19654057
Maybe he started researching 30 years earlier

>>19654067
>Maybe
This isn't what Wikipedia's about.

>>19654077
Then go cry about it there fag

>>19653722
>state of Wikipedia

Trannies always win chudlets

Bump for updates. Sounds like they'll make a poll or something?

>>19657851
It's amazing how they fight tooth and nail to keep the tranny stuff up. I have never seen such intense simping.

>>19656546
>be unwittingly molded into an ideological pawn
>ruin yourself physiologically, psychologically, spiritually
>even when you realize what you're doing is a mistake, sunk cost keeps you from admitting it to yourself
>double down on your commitment to the cult, dedicate your life to recruiting more people into the cult as a way of validating your choices
>"I win"
better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, eh?

>>19657892
>better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, eh?
Correct

>>19657868
is this guy a tranny btw?

>>19657868
>>19657908
>I think it's a questionable theory myself
Shimbo doesn't care about trannies he's just not sure it's appropriate to delete it

>>19653843
Chevalier D'eon lived as a woman for years, clearly that's a transsexual.

>>19657851
>muh consensus! it's le consensus because it wasn't questioned!
fuck, wikipedia is a worse shithole than reddit lmao didn't think this was possible

>>19657975
ywnbaw

>>19657892
Man, John Money really did a number on Western civilization, didn't he? lmao

>>19657851
Holy shit they keep insisting on it

>>19657851
It's over. He's going to get a bunch of tranny supporting wiki mods to slant the vote.
The next mode of action is to take change the title from Transgender Theory to Possible Character Influence.

>>19660436
OP is already compromised. If he continues his battle, they'll just assume he's a transphobe for insisting on it

>>19653722
i believe that by bringing transgenderism up in completely needless situations is a method of normalizing the topic. That's called subversion right anons?

>>19653722
the absolute state of English wiki articles lmao

>>19657851
Kek

bump

huh.. i dont remember the milady dilate's scene inbetween all the swashbuckling and drinking. whats the source on this?

I mean men dressing as women has been used as a plot point in fiction especially for spies but does that mean theyre trans?

didnt a couple of the protags sleep with milady too or am i mixing up the chars?

>>19663374
>but does that mean theyre trans?
When you have a tranny brain, you see everything as tranny adjacent

People really seethe about trannies

>>19663374
>whats the source on this?
A shitty translator's introduction. The translator was homosexual by the way.

>>19663418
I find it really bizarre. It seems everyone on 4chan is utterly obsessed with trannies.

>>19663498
You'll understand when you're no longer a newfag. Most people don't care about transgenders themselves. It's a symbol detached from the signified.