Revision as of 21:52, 10 September 2014 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →WP:OR of new name?? Requesting change back: correct way to do moves to a new name← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:47, 10 September 2014 edit undoSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,510 edits →WP:OR of new name?? Requesting change backNext edit → | ||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:::. ]. I actually asked as "undiscussed move" but the edit summary says "uncontroversial." FYI, not that it makes that big a difference. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | :::. ]. I actually asked as "undiscussed move" but the edit summary says "uncontroversial." FYI, not that it makes that big a difference. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
::Moves to a new name can be made after discussion and consensus. Also see WP:Move for correct way to have a discussion of a contested move. Hopefully the editor who did it initially will not just do it again. <small>'''] (])'''</small> | ::Moves to a new name can be made after discussion and consensus. Also see WP:Move for correct way to have a discussion of a contested move. Hopefully the editor who did it initially will not just do it again. <small>'''] (])'''</small> | ||
It's not a "neologism". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22trans+people%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=js0QVNHiBOrH8gfRh4HACw I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. Don't try that one on me. ] (]) 22:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:This just looks like wikilawyering to push POV. There's nothing wrong here, and it should not be raised as some sort of policy issue without any link or policy source to back up that claim. ]] 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:47, 10 September 2014
Feminism C‑class | ||||||||||
|
LGBTQ+ studies C‑class | |||||||
|
Very Informative Article
I spend a certain amount of time on Misplaced Pages pointing out issues of bias.
So it's only fair that I give praise where praise is due.
It is articles like this that make Misplaced Pages an extremely valuable resource, more than just a distillation of information already available on the web- which in itself is useful, but not groundbreaking.
This article really taught me something I did not know, and did so in a very balanced way, not taking one side or the other, but merely presenting both sides of the argument in an unbiased way. This is the real power of an encyclopedia- the unbiased presentation of arguments. 116.55.65.71 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the article had problems with POV, sourcing and chronology which I fixed. Haven't investigated actual sources yet. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Fringe issue
Some weird baby-boomer philosophers made a living condemning the 'metaphysical implications' of transgenderism for 'conceptual feminism.' But most modern feminists don't read this tosh. Today, anti-trans sentiment is on the fringe of feminism. If you poll self-described feminists, you will find that they overwhelmingly support TLGB rights. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- It may be fringe, but it's vocal enough to be notable. Cathy Brennan is all-too-well-known on feminist forums. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- But she's not notable enough for WP. Steeletrap (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Steinem content
Notable feminist Gloria Steinem used to hold anti-trans views. Now she has repudiated and apologized for them, and identifies as a trans ally. I can't see the rationale for deleting her change of heart from the article. Memo to Boomers: You're not living in the 1970s anymore, and much of what was relevant and topical back then seems stupid, arbitrary, and perverse to modern feminists. Steeletrap (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Steeletrap - Don't insult other users please. While most feminists disagree with it, those writings are still very influential today. (Unfortunately) even Gen-Xers like myself and Millennial ascribe to it, though they are a minority. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Cowgirl up and carry on, EG. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Steeletrap's reply rather abstruse; not Misplaced Pages collaborative discussion. Anyway, we don't just remove relevant sourced material because we don't like it and it's against our intensely held personal POV. Also, since criticism of transgenderism came first, that should go first. (And section and whole article needs updating with massive amounts of new material being generated. Another project for another time.) I have added Steinem's change of view, minus unnecessary POV editorializing, to her original statements. Please do not edit war. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Cowgirl up and carry on, EG. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR of new name?? Requesting change back
You'd really have to have some sources that show feminists use that phrase to keep that name. Add it, and the problem is solved. Otherwise it's original research. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- We need sources for section names? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The NEW name of the article as of today is "trans people". Where are sources saying that feminists use it, or which feminists use that phrase? Also, transpeople forwards to Transgender, so that doesn't even solve the problem.
- And when talking history, terms used at that time should be used, not new terms. (Just took "transpeople" off description of 25 year old book where it didn't belong.) So I'm not sure if it usable even with proper references. Since I can't revert it requested a technical change. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Link to request. Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests. I actually asked as "undiscussed move" but the edit summary says "uncontroversial." FYI, not that it makes that big a difference. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Moves to a new name can be made after discussion and consensus. Also see WP:Move for correct way to have a discussion of a contested move. Hopefully the editor who did it initially will not just do it again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)
It's not a "neologism". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22trans+people%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=js0QVNHiBOrH8gfRh4HACw I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. Don't try that one on me. Alyxr (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- This just looks like wikilawyering to push POV. There's nothing wrong here, and it should not be raised as some sort of policy issue without any link or policy source to back up that claim. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)