Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:31, 21 November 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Men's Issues High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article quality

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 the edit history and what I've reverted shows your claims are pretty laughable. Your PhD statement is pretty amusing too. --NeilN 20:36, 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)

I know how not not to draw conclusions based on synthesis. --NeilN 22:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Meme

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)

Agreed on both counts. It should be obvious as the Ryan article comes from 2012. --NeilN 22:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Re article quality

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)

She coined the term, so quoting her make sense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSBLOG (and please don't add notes like "sp?" to the article). --NeilN 23:49, 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. You reverted to an inaccurate version of the NYTimes statement.

1. Sifton, Sam; Barrett, Grant (18 December 2010). "The Words of the Year". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 August 2013.

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)

1. "Explainee" is in a quote. You shouldn't put any tag on it.
2. NY Times - Not inaccurate at all. The title of the Times article is "The Words of the Year". In fact, both versions are inaccurate as the Times lists mansplainer, not mansplaining.
3. Why are you ignoring these sources: ?
4. Yes, material in the lead should be moved into the body.

--NeilN 00:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead was recently expanded, and now half the article is in the lead. I agree that we should fix this. Also, the huge quote box is a bit overkill, and it may even run into copyright issues. This should probably be removed. We can just link to the article instead of replicating a large paragraph multiple paragraphs here. The NYT summary was fine. The NYT article itself never specifically labeled it a slang term, and I don't think we should, either. I'm not even sure why we're arguing over this. Why is it important? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How is this socialinguistics?

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)

Regarding pejorative terms - because the article is about a verb, not a adjective or noun. --NeilN 00:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Has any reliable source labeled it "pejorative"? I did a few searches, but I didn't see anything. We can't just decide that random words or phrases are pejorative. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, none have nor have they related it to stereotype threat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I need to explain it to you? Claiming someone is condescending (or has used condescension) is, by definition, perjorative. But, hey, keep up the clear thinking! (the fact that it is only condescending if the listener (reader) is already aware of the conveyed information is besides the point, right? (meaning that there is a philosophical problem with this normative judgement (especially in a multi-cultural global context))173.189.72.93 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Scholars decide what's a Social phenomenon

According to EvengreenFir , 'The people who "decide" '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..", 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. 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)

Here

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).

Source: Zimmer, Benjamin and Charles C. Carson. 2013. "AMONG THE NEW WORDS". American Speech 88(2):196-214. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-2346771.

They also give definitions used by various sources since its coining in chronological order. Also there are already RS on this page supporting the term. But now we have an academic one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(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)

The sources mentioned in the journal article don't have to be RS. That a secondary reliable source mentioned them is all that matters. There are three pages of examples of "mansplaining" being used in that article. Not sure how that's "barely mentioned".

To be clear, the Chicago Tribune link is part of the direct quote from the journal article. I'm not offering that as a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the journal article (see below) and all it says about mansplaining is Mansplaining is considered a patronizing act, and has been generalized to include racial divisions and political divisions, for example whitesplaining, and rightsplaining. The other sources are the writer of the essay, people commenting on the essay, sometimes adding their own original take, and uses of mansplaining as a POV derogatory term for people like Mitt Romney. EChastain (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you didn't read the article. Here's the relevant portions. http://imgur.com/a2QhoeZ EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN or NinjaRobotPirate mind taking a look as a WP:3O? I don't have time to deal with battleground stuff at the moment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Gender divisions

@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 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I had to sign up to get the article and downloaded it. Here's the link I was given: https://www.academia.edu/3785173/_Among_the_New_Words_American_Speech_Vol._88_No._2_Summer_2013_pp._196-214_ EChastain (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain: Thanks. I was hoping that the source would have more content so we could go beyond a one sentence section. I'm wondering if we could re-title Controversy to Reaction and move it there. --NeilN 17:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: That's the problem with the article. Very little of it has reliable sources, like statements that it's a social phenomenon etc. No scholarly sources aside from the mention in article above are provided, nor have been offered that I can see. Only sources seem to be an essay by Rebecca Solnit and reviews and comments about a portion of the essay. And cited articles are using the word as a POV term in headlines to derogate or disparage the subject of the article, i.e. as a pejorative or term of contempt. EChastain (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for blogs per WP:NEWSBLOG

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)

1. Are you referring to WP:NOTESSAY? That's for Misplaced Pages editors. We can't write essays on Misplaced Pages. There's nothing wrong with citing an editorial, opinion piece, etc. These are often primary sources, but they're legit as long as you cite whose opinion it is. For example, "It was a bad film." is disallowed. "Roger Ebert called it 'a bad film'." is allowed.
2. As far as I can tell, it's not a newsblog. Where on that page is the word "blog"?
3. Newspaper articles don't have to neutral. WP:BIASED specifically allows biased sources.
4. I already removed a crapload of blogs, unreliable sources, and accumulated cruft. It's slowly becoming a better article, and not every source needs to be an academic journal. This is not a medical topic that requires WP:MEDRS sources.
5. I'm trying my hardest to ignore the majority of the edit warring and fighting. I honestly don't care if it's called a "social phenomenon". If EvergreenFir wants to call it a social phenomenon, that's good enough for me. If you don't want to call it that, then I won't fight it.
6. Yes, Solnit seems to have mixed feelings about the term itself. She expresses doubt about it in some articles and support for it in others.
7. I seem to recall an earlier version of this page asserted that she coined the term. I thought that got fixed.
8. A single sentence should not be its own paragraph, and it should almost never have its own section. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

New lede

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)

Looks good to me, but I tweaked it a bit for tone. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I don't think we should use the word "blogosphere" in an encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

I reverted this because I agree with the IP's statement and was about to add my comment when I saw the reversion. Please discuss on the talk page your reasons for the reversion, as the IP has a point that should be addressed. EChastain (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to put a POV on this article until this issue is addressed - please don't revert this whole section until it is. EChastain (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Under "Controversy", saying:"There has been disagreement among women regarding the usefulness of the term" without giving views that aren't necessarily "women", including reliable sources that aren't labelled as from women or men, plus also including men's views, (after all the word is a pejorative word for male behavior), is POV.

EvergreenFir, please post your comments about this article here and not on my talk page.EChastain (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Gender studies articles
• High-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• Top-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class Men's Issues articles
• High-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles