25 Years of Wikipedia

Does it happen? What’s wrong with handling it on a case by case basis? Is "some men could lie" more important than "incarcerating trans females with men will get them raped"? I’m assuming real trans people can be detected pretty easily: do they look like the opposite gender? Are they on HRT (boobs on men and beard on women are pretty clear giveaways that they’re actually trans)? Did they present as the opposite gender before being incarcerated?

> Do you build special quarters in every prison? For the 47 individuals in 50~70k detainees?

I don’t know, what’s wrong with debating it? Is it that weird to think some population should get a different treatment if they’re wayyy more at risk of getting raped, or worse?

Sounds to me like "a bias towards humanity" is unacceptable

> In your link I don’t see Hasan white knights protecting their master from bad publicity

Yes, because it's not overt. Nobody says that when they're doing it. What's happening is claiming that the story is not notable so it can be removed because it's bad publicity for him:

> This is a nothing story and not encyclopedic.

> it seems to be "drama" amongst the terminally online

Then it turns out that it's notable because some sources are reporting it, but the editors make every effort to discount all of those sources:

> The Australian is noted as a center-right newssheet. I think there has been no rfc on it, but it seems an opinionated source.

> WP:NEWSWEEK has been noted to have had some quality decline according to RSP.

> WP:DEXERTO states not to use it for BLP and that its very tabloidy.

> WP:DAILYDOT also states its highly biased and opinionated. It seems rather tabloidy as well.

> See WP:TIMESOFINDIA but its not reliable enough for this

...and this is used as a reason to not even put a single-paragraph summary at the end of his article, despite the fact that the event is extremely notable as part of his career, and is exactly the information that someone reading the Wikipedia page would want to know.

> I see Hasan haters trying to bludgeon the change into the article by ignoring any objection and just reverting edits.

Yes, I see some of those people too. But, in response, the editors are reverting the changes and locking out the topic. An impartial editor concerned about the truth and curating a useful encyclopedia would not do that - they'd create new changes to remove specifically only the offending unsourced material and rewrite sourced material to be neutral.

> if this was so important then why hasn’t any major news outlet written about it

Along with the other sources listed in the talk page that the editors did their best to discount, The Guardian wrote about it - that certainly counts as a "major news outlet".

Nobody wants a ton of drama on Wikipedia, but this clearly surpasses the threshold of "drama" given that (1) it's still being discussed months afterwards (2) it has transcended the cultural circles around Hasan (which is the main metric for "drama") and (3) it's received reporting from many news outlets, including large and reliable ones like The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/11/i-love-when-...

For example, look up Tremaine Carroll and Karen White. Both of them men who claimed to be women, were transferred to women's prisons based on policy that allows "gender identity" to override sex, then raped and sexually assaulted female prisoners who were locked up with them.

The whole reason we have sex-segregated prisons is to prevent imprisoned women from being subjected to male predation and violence. Letting men into women's prisons because these men claim to be women completely undermines this.

Someone biologically being your parent, doesn't mean you're required to call them your dad.

The claims around whether these things would be true or not are questionable. We don't know whether these things were solely his decision or not, or if others were involved in the process. We don't know that his early involvement lead to the success of the project or not.

I added HTTPS infrastructure to wikimedia foundation sites. Even if I weren't there, that would have eventually happened, though potentially much later. I moved wikimedia from svn to git, for development, and maybe that never would have happened and some other source control system would have been used, but would that have led to failure of the project? Almost certainly not.

You're giving this person far too much credit, especially as they've spent decades trying to destroy something they "created".