![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Knowyourmeme is not WP:RS and NYMag does not say mansplaining is a meme but instead describes a meme containing a mansplainer, Paul Ryan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Pinging NeilN for input has they have edited here before. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
According to EvengreenFir [1], 'The people who "decide" [a word]'s a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it."' Where are the scholars cited this word is a social phenomenon? Since EvergreenFir has said in an edit summary " I'm an academic, so..", [2] I'd expect some academic sources to cite calling Mansplaining a social phenomenon. Please provide or remove the term.
And please provide some reliable sources and not a book review by a food editor [3]. Does EvergreenFir considers such a person an academic scholar, like herself? Rebecca Solnit who "coined" the term isn't a scholar either. EvergreenFir should know the difference between a writer and a scholar. EChastain ( talk) 01:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Two other items that continue to inspire lexical innovation are mansplain and hate-watch. The patronizing act of mansplaining has been extended beyond gender divisions to racial and political ones, as in whitesplaining and rightsplaining (Clarence Page, "Rand Paul has Lots a 'Splaining to Do," Chicago Tribune, Apr. 13, 2013, http://articles.chicag0tribune.com/2013-04-i3/news/ct-oped-O4i4-page-2Oi3O4i3_i_rand-paul-conservatives-u-s-senate). dead link
( edit conflict)::Where are the "RS on this page supporting the term"? (Opinion pieces, essays are just that: opinion.) And please read Verifiability: Newspaper and magazine blogs. Also, your "scholarly source", which I've now read, barely mentions mansplaining and doesn't say it's a social phenomenon but rather a term that's a "patronizing act". EChastain ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate: Where is the evidence that this essay review of Rebecca Solnit's article on the blog has been fact checked per WP:NEWSBLOG? The Antidote to Mansplaining:Rebecca Solnit Explains Things to You? Also, do you realize it's just another opinion piece about the original essay? Do you consider it WP:NPOV? And do you consider repeated reviews of the same essay evidence that this is a scholar determining mansplaining is a social phenomenon and a portmanteau, as EvergreenFir has stated is necessary? See her statement: The people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it.
The blog review of the essay says Solnit had doubts about the word:
In a postscript, Solnit marvels over the response to her essay, which seems to have inspired the coining of the word "mansplaining." (Solnit admits that she has "doubts" about that word "and don't use it myself much.") Not all the response was positive. "Some men explained why men explaining things to women wasn't really a gendered phenomenon," she writes. Sometimes identifying a phenomenon brings it right out.
Note: Solnit says her essay "seems to have inspired the coining of the word", not that she coined it herself. Shouldn't this page strive for accuracy and reliable sources? EChastain ( talk) 23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Having come across the topic at RSN and being dissatisfied with the lede sentence (not primarily because of any NPOV or RS related reason, but because I didn't think it complied with WP:LEDE as well as as it could) I have been bold and rewritten the lede ( previous version; updated version). I have tried to use the first paragraph to explain the meaning of the term and the second to describe its origins and growth. If you have any particular questions about the new version just ping me; and of course, you all are welcome to tweak, expand, or rewrite the lede as you all see fit. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 05:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Should this article be used to mention other portmanteau's that the term "mansplaining" has influenced? Notably, Manslamming and Manspreading? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Does an obscure neologism only used by fringe movements really warrant its own article? Akesgeroth ( talk) 16:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this: Know Your Meme is probably not a reliable source and the insertion makes it seem the Urban Dictionary entry garnered widespread media attention. The second half is a redundant definition. -- NeilN talk to me 20:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@ EChastain: Can you please show the text in the reference you used to source, "Mansplaining is considered a patronizing act in gender divisions..." Thanks. -- NeilN talk to me 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course, it's also impossible to know how far it actually happened the way Ms Solnit retold the Muybridge book incident. Exaggerating, fixing up and streamlining a story to make it into a good meme are the bread and butter of that kind of talky column writing. Discussing social and gender strategies from this term and from its ballooning use within a few limited bands of people, that's a bit like constructing models of sociological and language analysis out of something that happened in a few episodes of South Park. 83.254.154.164 ( talk) 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not hugely familiar with how the whole Wikimedia project works, but it seems to me that this article would be better suited for Wiktionary than Wikipedia, if it deserves a place on Wikimedia at all. YM Industries ( talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, "Mansplaining" appears to be application of an interactive technique between men and women called "amused mastery." (Google the term) From a man's perspective it is "amused mastery" to respond to women's criticism or the feminine imperative with this type of psychological approach. It follows that some would classify it pejoratively as "mansplaining" as it if was patronizing and misogynist. FWIW. Cla68 ( talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't complain how sexists is this article, Also, i won't complain how its POV (and citing articles with personal viewpoint is still POV) but how it suits perfectly with wikipedia : editors (not only men) that are clueless in the matter giving over-lenghty explanation usually in a patronizing manner even when they are clueless. For example, let's check a wikientry about medicine, you will find several "experts" writing in those articles that aren't neither chemical engineer nor doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.200.196 ( talk • contribs)
Is there some reason that this article from New York is not a reliable source? This is a published magazine, not a blog. I don't understand where Padenton is coming from. I guess we could go to WP:RSN over this, but let's see what a discussion on the page results in. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Gossip is "so-and-so did such-and-such! Isn't that naughty?"That's an accurate description of what is said in the 'source'. ― Padenton| ✉ 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Since 2010, journalists have described people including ... then-vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan...). Two additional sources: [5] and [6]. If Padenton feels compelled to list the names of the journalists, ok sure. I agree that it's obviously not a BLP violation or unreliable source(s). -- SonicY (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Cla68: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we follow WP:BLP and therefore avoid applying non-neutral labels to Living people. Especially when the only sources are opinion articles that use as their sole source the author's opinion ( WP:PRIMARY comes in here) and a Tumblr account run by some random person on the internet. ― Padenton| ✉ 22:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"I've used them before during my nine years of editing WP"these specific sources? You've used opinion articles by random people who use as their sole explanation of their claim that Paul Ryan is mansplaining, the existence of a Tumblr account by a random anonymous person on the internet? And you use these sources to attack subjects of WP:BLP articles? Or that you've used a factual news article from HuffPost by a journalist with editorial oversight to support a statement of fact? ― Padenton| ✉ 23:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is womensplaining? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.151.211 ( talk) 13:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
no less than mansplaining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.87.247 ( talk) 13:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The term is the same regardless of gender. I'd have thought that was obvious.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/fifield-accuses-gallagher-hypocrisy-over-mansplaining-criticism/7159178 Arkon ( talk) 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting article. I am curious: might the term have its origins in I Love Lucy? In that show her husband, Ricky Ricardo (Desi Arnaz), was famous for his line "Lemme 'splain it to you", and of course the related line "you got some 'splaining to do!" - combining his Cuban accent with his patronizing attitude toward Lucy. Has any reliable source made that connection? -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
What justifies Category:Sociolinguistics? And why isn't it considered for Category:Pejorative terms for people? And why isn't it considered a Stereotype threat? EChastain ( talk) 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this article reads like a blog. Plus the huge quote by isn't warranted. She's a writer and an advocate, not a neutral source. Most sources in article are blogs. EChastain ( talk) 23:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@ User:NeilN, Sorry about adding "sp?" although there's no such work as "explainee". What tag should I put for a nonexistent word?
And why did you revert cited material in Mansplaining? For example the material from the NYTimes was cited. ' The New York Times named it as one of the "puns, slang and jargon" words in The Words That Made the Year. [1] You reverted to an inaccurate version of the NYTimes statement.
Since there has been discussion over what kind of word it is, that source is at least a reliable source. Rebecca Solnit isn't. The article fails to follow WP:LEAD which User:EvergreenFir told me on my talk page that it should. And the whole article is a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Are there any reliable sources stating Rebecca Solnit, described as an essayist, "coined" the term? If not, then this article is using primary sources which is considered original research. WP:NEWSBLOG (which you said to read) says of news blogs: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). This article fails to do that. And there is no evidence that Men Explain Things to Me; Facts Didn't Get in Their Way is anything but an opinion piece and not a fact checked news article. EChastain ( talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the main problems with the article is the repeated political censorship of attempts to introduce a discussion of the similarities between the term "mansplaining" and other derogatory terms that only apply to a particular race or sex, intended to disempower, silence, side-line and belittle opinions based mainly on the fact that the person stating the opinion is of a particular group. MathewMunro MathewMunro ( talk) 08:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This article suffers from a NPOV. For instance, the section on Contorversy starts out with this:"There has been disagreement among women regarding the usefulness of the term." WTF!? Since when do women constitute the (only) relevant commentators? If "males" are consitutionally incapable of providing valid commentary on this word, a reference needs to be provided. If the criticism is valid, the gender of the author is immaterial, if it isn't its also so (unless you're a femnazi or ...what's the male mirror image? male chauvinist? (now THERE's a need for a new word!)). My mild suggestion is to leave the sex of the authors out of the analysis. 173.189.72.93 ( talk) 00:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, please post your comments about this article here and not on my talk page. EChastain ( talk) 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
So fix the obvious. I rephrased. I am going to remove the tag. That said, we don't need to let this disintegrate into some sort of a men's rights discussion, either. Montanabw (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the state of the article when I first came across it: in October 2014 I fixed many things, and some editors agreed with my comments on the talk page and fixed others. But reversions of some of my edits by EvergreenFir, and after her reversion of valid comments on the talk page by an IP, I decided to put the POV tag on the page as a last resort.
I have removed much uncited info, but EvergreenFir reverted Category:Pejorative terms for people. EChastain ( talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I would also revert adding perjorative terms as a category, it isn't a noun, it's a verb. I apologize if I implied that anyone here is a MRM advocate, I've just been a little gunshy after being on the fringes of the GGTF arbcom thing and also seeing my name added to an off-wiki "enemies list" for posting one comment related to GamerGate. (Sigh) I have absolutely zero patience with trolls these days. Having just been subjected to "mansplaining" less than a week ago, I hope to continue lurking here and commenting if there arises further disputes. I have too many irons in the fire in other areas to give this issue tons of my time, but I will at least lurk. Montanabw (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
NPOV is a joke anyway. Two totally biased people quoting one another does not make them unbiased. You ought to be able to make a statement of fact without having to hide behind a quotation. A fact is a fact, regardless of whether you are the first to utter it, if you are quoting someone who said it before you. MathewMunro ( talk) 08:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Are there any opinions on the xoJane source that was removed in this edit? I thought it was reliable. I'd prefer we kept it in the article. Given the amount of contention over every sentence in this article, I thought it best to discuss instead of revert, though. I'm open to being convinced it's a blog, but, if I recall correctly, I've used this site as a source before without too much controversy. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
One of the main problems with the article is the repeated political censorship of attempts to introduce a discussion of the similarities between the term "mansplaining" and other derogatory terms that only apply to a particular race or sex, intended to disempower, silence, side-line and belittle opinions based mainly on the fact that the person stating the opinion is of a particular group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
In the lede, the definition suggests that this is a phenomenon which is "often" or "typically" behaviour that is directed from a man to a woman.
However, the paragraph on the definition of this neologism is less ambiguous, stating that the bahaviour differs from "other forms of condescension" because it is "specifically" gender-related and that it is "rooted in a sexist assumption that a man" will be more knowledgeable.
It is either "typically" or "often", OR it is "specifically". It is not both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.92.247 ( talk) 03:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I notice that any attempts by previous editors to improve the quality of the article appear to be reverted by this user. Is there a conflict of interests present? Most of claims on this article are baseless - e.g. it lacks any kind of empirical evidence to back claims on how often this is reported etc - but this user seems to automatically revert any changes.
Actually if I'm honest, the article reads a lot like a subjective blog. Perhaps it could be nominated for deletion instead?
(BTW-- IP address should show that the majority of people operating from this area hold a PhD --- just mentioning this as I see many editors automatically undo changes from people who have not signed up to an account). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
147.143.252.71 (
talk)
20:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A glance at you changing edits to an article on animal models is pretty amusing too. Have much experience with animal models of psychiatric disorders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.132.163 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the article seems to be objectiv. The article is based on facts from turstworthy sources. -- R3focus ( Diskussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3focus ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. On June 22, 2017, a sourced addition of mine was reverted. I would welcome a more detailed explanation than "reverting a plain example of someone mansplaining on the mansplain article. Irony!" Thanks. 79.180.91.199 ( talk) 23:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There's been quite an uptick in vandalism on this article lately, we need a bit more vigilance from regular editors. Thanks. TheValeyard ( talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Knowyourmeme is not WP:RS and NYMag does not say mansplaining is a meme but instead describes a meme containing a mansplainer, Paul Ryan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Pinging NeilN for input has they have edited here before. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
According to EvengreenFir [1], 'The people who "decide" [a word]'s a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it."' Where are the scholars cited this word is a social phenomenon? Since EvergreenFir has said in an edit summary " I'm an academic, so..", [2] I'd expect some academic sources to cite calling Mansplaining a social phenomenon. Please provide or remove the term.
And please provide some reliable sources and not a book review by a food editor [3]. Does EvergreenFir considers such a person an academic scholar, like herself? Rebecca Solnit who "coined" the term isn't a scholar either. EvergreenFir should know the difference between a writer and a scholar. EChastain ( talk) 01:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Two other items that continue to inspire lexical innovation are mansplain and hate-watch. The patronizing act of mansplaining has been extended beyond gender divisions to racial and political ones, as in whitesplaining and rightsplaining (Clarence Page, "Rand Paul has Lots a 'Splaining to Do," Chicago Tribune, Apr. 13, 2013, http://articles.chicag0tribune.com/2013-04-i3/news/ct-oped-O4i4-page-2Oi3O4i3_i_rand-paul-conservatives-u-s-senate). dead link
( edit conflict)::Where are the "RS on this page supporting the term"? (Opinion pieces, essays are just that: opinion.) And please read Verifiability: Newspaper and magazine blogs. Also, your "scholarly source", which I've now read, barely mentions mansplaining and doesn't say it's a social phenomenon but rather a term that's a "patronizing act". EChastain ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate: Where is the evidence that this essay review of Rebecca Solnit's article on the blog has been fact checked per WP:NEWSBLOG? The Antidote to Mansplaining:Rebecca Solnit Explains Things to You? Also, do you realize it's just another opinion piece about the original essay? Do you consider it WP:NPOV? And do you consider repeated reviews of the same essay evidence that this is a scholar determining mansplaining is a social phenomenon and a portmanteau, as EvergreenFir has stated is necessary? See her statement: The people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it.
The blog review of the essay says Solnit had doubts about the word:
In a postscript, Solnit marvels over the response to her essay, which seems to have inspired the coining of the word "mansplaining." (Solnit admits that she has "doubts" about that word "and don't use it myself much.") Not all the response was positive. "Some men explained why men explaining things to women wasn't really a gendered phenomenon," she writes. Sometimes identifying a phenomenon brings it right out.
Note: Solnit says her essay "seems to have inspired the coining of the word", not that she coined it herself. Shouldn't this page strive for accuracy and reliable sources? EChastain ( talk) 23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Having come across the topic at RSN and being dissatisfied with the lede sentence (not primarily because of any NPOV or RS related reason, but because I didn't think it complied with WP:LEDE as well as as it could) I have been bold and rewritten the lede ( previous version; updated version). I have tried to use the first paragraph to explain the meaning of the term and the second to describe its origins and growth. If you have any particular questions about the new version just ping me; and of course, you all are welcome to tweak, expand, or rewrite the lede as you all see fit. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 05:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Should this article be used to mention other portmanteau's that the term "mansplaining" has influenced? Notably, Manslamming and Manspreading? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Does an obscure neologism only used by fringe movements really warrant its own article? Akesgeroth ( talk) 16:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this: Know Your Meme is probably not a reliable source and the insertion makes it seem the Urban Dictionary entry garnered widespread media attention. The second half is a redundant definition. -- NeilN talk to me 20:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@ EChastain: Can you please show the text in the reference you used to source, "Mansplaining is considered a patronizing act in gender divisions..." Thanks. -- NeilN talk to me 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course, it's also impossible to know how far it actually happened the way Ms Solnit retold the Muybridge book incident. Exaggerating, fixing up and streamlining a story to make it into a good meme are the bread and butter of that kind of talky column writing. Discussing social and gender strategies from this term and from its ballooning use within a few limited bands of people, that's a bit like constructing models of sociological and language analysis out of something that happened in a few episodes of South Park. 83.254.154.164 ( talk) 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not hugely familiar with how the whole Wikimedia project works, but it seems to me that this article would be better suited for Wiktionary than Wikipedia, if it deserves a place on Wikimedia at all. YM Industries ( talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, "Mansplaining" appears to be application of an interactive technique between men and women called "amused mastery." (Google the term) From a man's perspective it is "amused mastery" to respond to women's criticism or the feminine imperative with this type of psychological approach. It follows that some would classify it pejoratively as "mansplaining" as it if was patronizing and misogynist. FWIW. Cla68 ( talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't complain how sexists is this article, Also, i won't complain how its POV (and citing articles with personal viewpoint is still POV) but how it suits perfectly with wikipedia : editors (not only men) that are clueless in the matter giving over-lenghty explanation usually in a patronizing manner even when they are clueless. For example, let's check a wikientry about medicine, you will find several "experts" writing in those articles that aren't neither chemical engineer nor doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.200.196 ( talk • contribs)
Is there some reason that this article from New York is not a reliable source? This is a published magazine, not a blog. I don't understand where Padenton is coming from. I guess we could go to WP:RSN over this, but let's see what a discussion on the page results in. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Gossip is "so-and-so did such-and-such! Isn't that naughty?"That's an accurate description of what is said in the 'source'. ― Padenton| ✉ 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Since 2010, journalists have described people including ... then-vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan...). Two additional sources: [5] and [6]. If Padenton feels compelled to list the names of the journalists, ok sure. I agree that it's obviously not a BLP violation or unreliable source(s). -- SonicY (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Cla68: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we follow WP:BLP and therefore avoid applying non-neutral labels to Living people. Especially when the only sources are opinion articles that use as their sole source the author's opinion ( WP:PRIMARY comes in here) and a Tumblr account run by some random person on the internet. ― Padenton| ✉ 22:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"I've used them before during my nine years of editing WP"these specific sources? You've used opinion articles by random people who use as their sole explanation of their claim that Paul Ryan is mansplaining, the existence of a Tumblr account by a random anonymous person on the internet? And you use these sources to attack subjects of WP:BLP articles? Or that you've used a factual news article from HuffPost by a journalist with editorial oversight to support a statement of fact? ― Padenton| ✉ 23:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is womensplaining? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.151.211 ( talk) 13:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
no less than mansplaining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.87.247 ( talk) 13:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The term is the same regardless of gender. I'd have thought that was obvious.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/fifield-accuses-gallagher-hypocrisy-over-mansplaining-criticism/7159178 Arkon ( talk) 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting article. I am curious: might the term have its origins in I Love Lucy? In that show her husband, Ricky Ricardo (Desi Arnaz), was famous for his line "Lemme 'splain it to you", and of course the related line "you got some 'splaining to do!" - combining his Cuban accent with his patronizing attitude toward Lucy. Has any reliable source made that connection? -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
What justifies Category:Sociolinguistics? And why isn't it considered for Category:Pejorative terms for people? And why isn't it considered a Stereotype threat? EChastain ( talk) 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this article reads like a blog. Plus the huge quote by isn't warranted. She's a writer and an advocate, not a neutral source. Most sources in article are blogs. EChastain ( talk) 23:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@ User:NeilN, Sorry about adding "sp?" although there's no such work as "explainee". What tag should I put for a nonexistent word?
And why did you revert cited material in Mansplaining? For example the material from the NYTimes was cited. ' The New York Times named it as one of the "puns, slang and jargon" words in The Words That Made the Year. [1] You reverted to an inaccurate version of the NYTimes statement.
Since there has been discussion over what kind of word it is, that source is at least a reliable source. Rebecca Solnit isn't. The article fails to follow WP:LEAD which User:EvergreenFir told me on my talk page that it should. And the whole article is a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Are there any reliable sources stating Rebecca Solnit, described as an essayist, "coined" the term? If not, then this article is using primary sources which is considered original research. WP:NEWSBLOG (which you said to read) says of news blogs: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). This article fails to do that. And there is no evidence that Men Explain Things to Me; Facts Didn't Get in Their Way is anything but an opinion piece and not a fact checked news article. EChastain ( talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the main problems with the article is the repeated political censorship of attempts to introduce a discussion of the similarities between the term "mansplaining" and other derogatory terms that only apply to a particular race or sex, intended to disempower, silence, side-line and belittle opinions based mainly on the fact that the person stating the opinion is of a particular group. MathewMunro MathewMunro ( talk) 08:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This article suffers from a NPOV. For instance, the section on Contorversy starts out with this:"There has been disagreement among women regarding the usefulness of the term." WTF!? Since when do women constitute the (only) relevant commentators? If "males" are consitutionally incapable of providing valid commentary on this word, a reference needs to be provided. If the criticism is valid, the gender of the author is immaterial, if it isn't its also so (unless you're a femnazi or ...what's the male mirror image? male chauvinist? (now THERE's a need for a new word!)). My mild suggestion is to leave the sex of the authors out of the analysis. 173.189.72.93 ( talk) 00:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, please post your comments about this article here and not on my talk page. EChastain ( talk) 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
So fix the obvious. I rephrased. I am going to remove the tag. That said, we don't need to let this disintegrate into some sort of a men's rights discussion, either. Montanabw (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the state of the article when I first came across it: in October 2014 I fixed many things, and some editors agreed with my comments on the talk page and fixed others. But reversions of some of my edits by EvergreenFir, and after her reversion of valid comments on the talk page by an IP, I decided to put the POV tag on the page as a last resort.
I have removed much uncited info, but EvergreenFir reverted Category:Pejorative terms for people. EChastain ( talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I would also revert adding perjorative terms as a category, it isn't a noun, it's a verb. I apologize if I implied that anyone here is a MRM advocate, I've just been a little gunshy after being on the fringes of the GGTF arbcom thing and also seeing my name added to an off-wiki "enemies list" for posting one comment related to GamerGate. (Sigh) I have absolutely zero patience with trolls these days. Having just been subjected to "mansplaining" less than a week ago, I hope to continue lurking here and commenting if there arises further disputes. I have too many irons in the fire in other areas to give this issue tons of my time, but I will at least lurk. Montanabw (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
NPOV is a joke anyway. Two totally biased people quoting one another does not make them unbiased. You ought to be able to make a statement of fact without having to hide behind a quotation. A fact is a fact, regardless of whether you are the first to utter it, if you are quoting someone who said it before you. MathewMunro ( talk) 08:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Are there any opinions on the xoJane source that was removed in this edit? I thought it was reliable. I'd prefer we kept it in the article. Given the amount of contention over every sentence in this article, I thought it best to discuss instead of revert, though. I'm open to being convinced it's a blog, but, if I recall correctly, I've used this site as a source before without too much controversy. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
One of the main problems with the article is the repeated political censorship of attempts to introduce a discussion of the similarities between the term "mansplaining" and other derogatory terms that only apply to a particular race or sex, intended to disempower, silence, side-line and belittle opinions based mainly on the fact that the person stating the opinion is of a particular group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
In the lede, the definition suggests that this is a phenomenon which is "often" or "typically" behaviour that is directed from a man to a woman.
However, the paragraph on the definition of this neologism is less ambiguous, stating that the bahaviour differs from "other forms of condescension" because it is "specifically" gender-related and that it is "rooted in a sexist assumption that a man" will be more knowledgeable.
It is either "typically" or "often", OR it is "specifically". It is not both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.92.247 ( talk) 03:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I notice that any attempts by previous editors to improve the quality of the article appear to be reverted by this user. Is there a conflict of interests present? Most of claims on this article are baseless - e.g. it lacks any kind of empirical evidence to back claims on how often this is reported etc - but this user seems to automatically revert any changes.
Actually if I'm honest, the article reads a lot like a subjective blog. Perhaps it could be nominated for deletion instead?
(BTW-- IP address should show that the majority of people operating from this area hold a PhD --- just mentioning this as I see many editors automatically undo changes from people who have not signed up to an account). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
147.143.252.71 (
talk)
20:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A glance at you changing edits to an article on animal models is pretty amusing too. Have much experience with animal models of psychiatric disorders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.132.163 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the article seems to be objectiv. The article is based on facts from turstworthy sources. -- R3focus ( Diskussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3focus ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. On June 22, 2017, a sourced addition of mine was reverted. I would welcome a more detailed explanation than "reverting a plain example of someone mansplaining on the mansplain article. Irony!" Thanks. 79.180.91.199 ( talk) 23:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There's been quite an uptick in vandalism on this article lately, we need a bit more vigilance from regular editors. Thanks. TheValeyard ( talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)