![]() | 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 |
The article currently cites two separate op-eds by Cathy Young, both with quotations. First, is she noteworthy and qualified enough for us to cite her twice? I think once is sufficient, since they're both op-eds and therefore their purpose here is to note her opinion rather than to imply a statement of fact (ie. she opposes the term for these reasons.) Second, if we do cite both, should they be condensed in one place, or presented as two separate paragraphs? Young is a journalist and commentator, not an academic, so I'm unsure why we're giving so much weight to what she thinks. Beyond that, I feel that there's a risk of the page turning into a WP:QUOTEFARM; it might be better to paraphrase one or both quotes. (On reflection, after considering both quotes, I think the first one is actually the one we should drop, since it's not really saying much that isn't said in more pointed terms in the second one.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
After reviewing her "work" (such as it is) I don't think she's even notable enough to cite once in this topic area. The most honest way I can think of to describe her in the topic area of feminist writing or gender issues is as a Concern Troll. Morty C-137 ( talk) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem remains: virtually every source (especially the forum-shopped opinion columns and concern-trolling of Cathy Young) amount to extremely WP:FRINGE content. After thorough review there's so little valid content that even having a criticism section is WP:UNDUE. Morty C-137 ( talk) 15:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Denby Weller, a Feminist writing in The Sydney Morning Herald points out the hypocrisy of its use, describing it as "generalist sexism" and a "gendered slur" she draw attention to that fact that "gendered slurs are the kinds of things we feminists are supposed to hate."ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 09:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Whatever the reasons for the current cycle of misandry — yes, that's a word, derided but also adopted for ironic use by many feminists — its existence is quite real. Consider, for example, the number of neologisms that use "man" as a derogatory prefix and that have entered everyday media language: "mansplaining," "manspreading" and "manterrupting."
As I should have expected there are some sensitive feelings regarding this article. Not sure what to say about that.
Anyway the lead as I found it was fairly problematic:
-- MC
The lead sentence contains plagiarism; there is an unattributed quote in the sentence (and as hopefully everybody understands, providing a ref is not the same as attribution). I have tried 3 times to fix the plagiarism and at least twice so far editors have put the plagiarism back (if you dislike the way I fixed it, re-inserting plagiarism is still not acceptable). As a related problem, the quote itself was modified slightly, so not only was it a plagiarized quote but an inaccurate one (and mind you, modifying one word in a quote does not suddenly make it OK). Anyway, since the editors for whatever reason seem to want to preserve the quote, I have attempted to add attribution in my latest edit:
Mind you, this is a terrible way to do a lead sentence but it is better than plagiarizing. -- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The lead sentence attempts to provide an etymology for the term. This is generally fairly excessive detail for a lead sentence, arguably for the lead as a whole. In one edit I attempted to move the etymology into the next section though that met with disapproval as well. -- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is more of an opinion but the lead really was not providing a good introduction to the concept. It seemed to be jumping right into what people said about the concept (again, filling the lead with quotes is generally not a great idea). I attempted to add a little perspective by explicitly describing this as a form of sexism regarding intellect. Here's how I tried to start it out in my original edits:
Not that this is necessarily the best way to word it but in general more of an encyclopedic introduction.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Atlantic
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NinjaRobotPirate, I apologize for the "ce" edit summary. I had intended to write more (rmv/swap poorly sourced, rmv repetition, fix writing), but I was distracted as I was saving and forgot to do it. I'm about to restore the edit, because it fixed several problems on the page, including some poor writing.
If anything is still unclear, please ping me and I'll explain more. SarahSV (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.thelocal.se/20161114/mansplaining-campaign-faces-sexism-backlash -- TheMightyAllBlacks ( talk) 01:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
the verb is explain. pls fix it Holy Goo ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be great if we had an image file of the sculpture Classmates by sculptor Paul Tadlock to illustrate this article. See this article, 'The story behind the “Mansplaining: The Statue” photo that went viral on Twitter' of 27 May 2015 on Women in the World. This image is not yet on Commons as far as I can see, and I don't know about copyrights of photos of artworks. I'm just hoping this would be possible.... (Maybe someone can either explain or mansplain to me why this would or wouldn't be possible? ;-) ) Laurier ( talk) 10:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Bookku (
talk)
07:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is heavily editing by the opponents of the term and is obviously and stealthily biased. For example, there is a collection "critic" section with full descriptions and quotes, but the evidence and examples (Romney, Trump, O'Donnell, etc) are just named fast in one sentence in the "usage" section, and for example there is no section for awards. Or in the lead the persons who describe the term are written as Solnit said this and Rothman said that, but in the criticism section a sentence from one website is ascribed to the whole world.-- Taranet ( talk) 07:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
"Mansplaining" (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".
I know that "original research" is forbidden on Wikipedia, however, I think that the exact opposite should also be pointed out since it does happen.
"Femsplaining" (a blend word of female and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a woman) to comment on or explain something to a man in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner". 50.107.152.106 ( talk) on 12 Feb 2019
My rationale for removing the reference to Ann Widdecombe is that she's an anti-feminist, post truth politician, and her "criticism" is based around the "argument" that "women are more equal than ever". This is not a serious criticism of the concept of mansplaining, or even the idea of feminism. It is merely her asserting her partisan views for political clout. This may be appropriate to be featured on her own article, among her political views, back to back with criticism that SHE HERSELF received, but it's not appropriate as a legitimate criticism on a completely unrelated subject. I carefully reconsidered my first edit, which removed most of the criticism section and conceded that it was going overboard, which is why i decided to just remove this one reference, and justify my decision to the best of my abilities. My edit, which was previously approved by User:Nithin, has been reverted, and i got an "edit war" warning, so I'm getting mixed messages here. 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 05:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
After waiting several days for some form of response, I have decided to remove the reference to Ann Widdecombe a second time. I have done everything that can be expected of me and it's not my fault that the only feedback i got was one AGREEING with my decision. I cannot "discuss the issue" if the peoole who keep reverting my edits and sending me edit war warnings refuse to explain to me what i did wrong. I'm seing no clear explanations as to why it should be here, and Ann Widdecombe's contentious claim that "women are more equal than ever" has absolutely nothing to do with what mansplaining is. 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There's a Commons category. Should any of the images be added to the article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
“Splain” was used several times as a punchline in the top rated 1950s I Love Lucy TV show. It was used by Cuban Ricky Ricardo as a punchline with emphasis on his Spanish accent.
I have accepted an edit that added this article to the category Misandry, as it did not appear prima facie to be disruptive. However, I imagine this may be controversial. Please feel free to engage BRD if you feel this is inappropriate. Best, BrxBrx( talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead seems to be a quote from a dictionary (the first cited source) - any reason why this isn't paraphrased in our own words? Girth Summit (blether) 14:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Does this article meet the criteria for existence as an article under the guidelines in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary ? Kuralesache ( talk) 16:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gjpingle (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Gjpingle ( talk) 04:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gjpingle (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Spicyjennd ( talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gjpingle (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by ChristopherH13 ( talk) 00:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I don't see how renaming the "Criticism" section to "Misandry" addresses the issues brought up by the {{ Criticism section}} template. Perhaps the way to resolve the template is to turn the "Criticism" section into a "Reception" section, and add any positive or neutral reception (not just negative) that the term may have received. Bennv123 ( talk) 20:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bananaapplekiwi (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bananaapplekiwi ( talk) 01:56, 7 November 2023 (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 |
The article currently cites two separate op-eds by Cathy Young, both with quotations. First, is she noteworthy and qualified enough for us to cite her twice? I think once is sufficient, since they're both op-eds and therefore their purpose here is to note her opinion rather than to imply a statement of fact (ie. she opposes the term for these reasons.) Second, if we do cite both, should they be condensed in one place, or presented as two separate paragraphs? Young is a journalist and commentator, not an academic, so I'm unsure why we're giving so much weight to what she thinks. Beyond that, I feel that there's a risk of the page turning into a WP:QUOTEFARM; it might be better to paraphrase one or both quotes. (On reflection, after considering both quotes, I think the first one is actually the one we should drop, since it's not really saying much that isn't said in more pointed terms in the second one.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
After reviewing her "work" (such as it is) I don't think she's even notable enough to cite once in this topic area. The most honest way I can think of to describe her in the topic area of feminist writing or gender issues is as a Concern Troll. Morty C-137 ( talk) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem remains: virtually every source (especially the forum-shopped opinion columns and concern-trolling of Cathy Young) amount to extremely WP:FRINGE content. After thorough review there's so little valid content that even having a criticism section is WP:UNDUE. Morty C-137 ( talk) 15:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Denby Weller, a Feminist writing in The Sydney Morning Herald points out the hypocrisy of its use, describing it as "generalist sexism" and a "gendered slur" she draw attention to that fact that "gendered slurs are the kinds of things we feminists are supposed to hate."ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 09:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Whatever the reasons for the current cycle of misandry — yes, that's a word, derided but also adopted for ironic use by many feminists — its existence is quite real. Consider, for example, the number of neologisms that use "man" as a derogatory prefix and that have entered everyday media language: "mansplaining," "manspreading" and "manterrupting."
As I should have expected there are some sensitive feelings regarding this article. Not sure what to say about that.
Anyway the lead as I found it was fairly problematic:
-- MC
The lead sentence contains plagiarism; there is an unattributed quote in the sentence (and as hopefully everybody understands, providing a ref is not the same as attribution). I have tried 3 times to fix the plagiarism and at least twice so far editors have put the plagiarism back (if you dislike the way I fixed it, re-inserting plagiarism is still not acceptable). As a related problem, the quote itself was modified slightly, so not only was it a plagiarized quote but an inaccurate one (and mind you, modifying one word in a quote does not suddenly make it OK). Anyway, since the editors for whatever reason seem to want to preserve the quote, I have attempted to add attribution in my latest edit:
Mind you, this is a terrible way to do a lead sentence but it is better than plagiarizing. -- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The lead sentence attempts to provide an etymology for the term. This is generally fairly excessive detail for a lead sentence, arguably for the lead as a whole. In one edit I attempted to move the etymology into the next section though that met with disapproval as well. -- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is more of an opinion but the lead really was not providing a good introduction to the concept. It seemed to be jumping right into what people said about the concept (again, filling the lead with quotes is generally not a great idea). I attempted to add a little perspective by explicitly describing this as a form of sexism regarding intellect. Here's how I tried to start it out in my original edits:
Not that this is necessarily the best way to word it but in general more of an encyclopedic introduction.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Atlantic
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NinjaRobotPirate, I apologize for the "ce" edit summary. I had intended to write more (rmv/swap poorly sourced, rmv repetition, fix writing), but I was distracted as I was saving and forgot to do it. I'm about to restore the edit, because it fixed several problems on the page, including some poor writing.
If anything is still unclear, please ping me and I'll explain more. SarahSV (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.thelocal.se/20161114/mansplaining-campaign-faces-sexism-backlash -- TheMightyAllBlacks ( talk) 01:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
the verb is explain. pls fix it Holy Goo ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be great if we had an image file of the sculpture Classmates by sculptor Paul Tadlock to illustrate this article. See this article, 'The story behind the “Mansplaining: The Statue” photo that went viral on Twitter' of 27 May 2015 on Women in the World. This image is not yet on Commons as far as I can see, and I don't know about copyrights of photos of artworks. I'm just hoping this would be possible.... (Maybe someone can either explain or mansplain to me why this would or wouldn't be possible? ;-) ) Laurier ( talk) 10:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Bookku (
talk)
07:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is heavily editing by the opponents of the term and is obviously and stealthily biased. For example, there is a collection "critic" section with full descriptions and quotes, but the evidence and examples (Romney, Trump, O'Donnell, etc) are just named fast in one sentence in the "usage" section, and for example there is no section for awards. Or in the lead the persons who describe the term are written as Solnit said this and Rothman said that, but in the criticism section a sentence from one website is ascribed to the whole world.-- Taranet ( talk) 07:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
"Mansplaining" (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".
I know that "original research" is forbidden on Wikipedia, however, I think that the exact opposite should also be pointed out since it does happen.
"Femsplaining" (a blend word of female and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a woman) to comment on or explain something to a man in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner". 50.107.152.106 ( talk) on 12 Feb 2019
My rationale for removing the reference to Ann Widdecombe is that she's an anti-feminist, post truth politician, and her "criticism" is based around the "argument" that "women are more equal than ever". This is not a serious criticism of the concept of mansplaining, or even the idea of feminism. It is merely her asserting her partisan views for political clout. This may be appropriate to be featured on her own article, among her political views, back to back with criticism that SHE HERSELF received, but it's not appropriate as a legitimate criticism on a completely unrelated subject. I carefully reconsidered my first edit, which removed most of the criticism section and conceded that it was going overboard, which is why i decided to just remove this one reference, and justify my decision to the best of my abilities. My edit, which was previously approved by User:Nithin, has been reverted, and i got an "edit war" warning, so I'm getting mixed messages here. 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 05:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
After waiting several days for some form of response, I have decided to remove the reference to Ann Widdecombe a second time. I have done everything that can be expected of me and it's not my fault that the only feedback i got was one AGREEING with my decision. I cannot "discuss the issue" if the peoole who keep reverting my edits and sending me edit war warnings refuse to explain to me what i did wrong. I'm seing no clear explanations as to why it should be here, and Ann Widdecombe's contentious claim that "women are more equal than ever" has absolutely nothing to do with what mansplaining is. 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There's a Commons category. Should any of the images be added to the article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
“Splain” was used several times as a punchline in the top rated 1950s I Love Lucy TV show. It was used by Cuban Ricky Ricardo as a punchline with emphasis on his Spanish accent.
I have accepted an edit that added this article to the category Misandry, as it did not appear prima facie to be disruptive. However, I imagine this may be controversial. Please feel free to engage BRD if you feel this is inappropriate. Best, BrxBrx( talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead seems to be a quote from a dictionary (the first cited source) - any reason why this isn't paraphrased in our own words? Girth Summit (blether) 14:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Does this article meet the criteria for existence as an article under the guidelines in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary ? Kuralesache ( talk) 16:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gjpingle (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Gjpingle ( talk) 04:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gjpingle (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Spicyjennd ( talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gjpingle (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by ChristopherH13 ( talk) 00:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I don't see how renaming the "Criticism" section to "Misandry" addresses the issues brought up by the {{ Criticism section}} template. Perhaps the way to resolve the template is to turn the "Criticism" section into a "Reception" section, and add any positive or neutral reception (not just negative) that the term may have received. Bennv123 ( talk) 20:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bananaapplekiwi (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bananaapplekiwi ( talk) 01:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)