Talk:Slut-shaming - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 16 August 2016 (WP:SYNTH has much to do with the title of the article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:10, 16 August 2016 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (WP:SYNTH has much to do with the title of the article.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benitakeziaho (article contribs).

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slut-shaming article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

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.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Gender studies

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating 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.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Jealousy

"or to express jealousy in a socially acceptable manner." I don't believe the Ringrose citation is appropriate. If "jealousy" is to be raised as a motive, in such a way that insinuates it is fact, an actual academic study should be cited, not the unsupported opinion of one academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.10.70 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Heavily POV

I'm not going to tag the article because I would prefer to engage the drive-by writer to improve it. You use blogs for sources (as opposed to scholarly or even popular news articles) for references. Blogs aren't allowed. You insert your own diatribes ("Instead of seeing one another as potential friends..."; "Instead of identifying with each other when they have things in common...") that taint the entire article. Since you invested so much time in writing this (I Googled the sentences and no apparent copyvio apparent from my limited effort) you might want to invest some time in finding sources for very simple ideas, in order to bolster the article. Also, "girls" is misogynistic terminology for "women". You can't introduce brand new concepts like "Girl Hate" and expect to define them here - see no original research. If improvements aren't made then this article could end up deleted. --David Shankbone 05:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Also, girls is misogynistic terminology for women." It's due to statements like this that some Feminists are embarrassed by male Feminists. There’s a difference between sincere, blatant misogyny and petty-minded assumptions.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This statement is an example of how the concept of misogyny has become so rife with male-hating that even a male Feminist gets sshamed by a feminist who does not identify their own gender but assumes we will know that she is a girl. QuintBy (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article definitely needs some refinement and especially better sources. Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on it right now, but I added one book source that might be useful. Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a reference to the term "slut"'s uses in human society. Like how it was likely developed as a response to the problem of pregnancy outside of a marriage before there were condoms, birth control pills and abortion. Many of the people who rely on this website most, the 12-30 age group, do not know this relevent bit of information for political reasons. At least where I live they don't, CA. I'm feeling descriminated against by feminists since my college english teacher this year is one and I need to get a good grade in the class so I have to sort of mind meld with feminists, or to put it more clearly; I have to act like I blame men for alot of things they didnt really cause. I want to be sure to get good grades since the grading of written work can be very subjective as opposed to objective. She said that she would grade objectively but based on the material she chose for us to read, I find that assurance highly suspect... A high percentage of it was focused on the worst aspects of 1950's America, the vast percentage of them emotional arguements with no contemporary analysis. Why not focus on something more relevent to today, it has been 60 years after all, the people in charge then are all either dead or too old to do anything more difficult than eating, pooping and watching television. Thi kind of narrowminded education is what spawns these rediculous New York gatherings over "Important Causes". Females cannot blame men for them calling each other sluts. You can blame a specific person for calling you a slut but how can you blame an entire group of people for something one person did to you? In short, I cant beleive these people got into law school. Sign of the times I guess, pandering to the nutjobs seems to be in fashion right now...Alon (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.133.66 (talk)

Indeed POV with highly loaded feminism cult language. But how would you word it. For starters, someone appears to be a slut and that behaviour gets shunned by other people. Isn't that what slut-shaming is? 197.228.55.126 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger?

For the record, I am against any merger, for the time being. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed issues tags

I just added a bunch of scholarly citations to help make this article more encyclopedic. As a result, I was bold and removed the issues tags, since I think the issues were addressed. Please feel free to add them back if needed. Phoenixred (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Term applied to non-females

Although the term "slut shaming" seems to have been coined to apply to females, the concept is applied in literature in discussions of general promiscuity in studies on all genders. I would like to see this article developed more in the direction of "society's shaming actions to discourage promiscuity" rather than just papers using the term "slut shaming", because that is kind of a neologism being applied to topic already well covered. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur. At the least, the first sentence should be modified to change "women" to "people." 50.12.57.79 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article no longer uses the term "women" at all, but your point is well-taken; the article still overemphasizes the slut-shaming of women and girls nearly to the point of implying that it doesn't happen to men and boys. As an outspoken sex-positive and non-monogamous male, I have been subjected to slut-shaming all my life, as has everyone, even prudes--that's what makes them prudish. The article's wording needs to be changed throughout to make it clear that, while females are more subject to slut-shaming than are males, everyone is targeted. It might also be a good idea to acknowledge somewhere in the article that there are more than two genders, and every gender is subject to negative conditioning about sex, i.e., slut-shaming. Dixon Wragg (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article currently uses the words "especially a woman." And that is correct because the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources apply/discuss this term with regard to girls and women, especially women (just like the term slut is usually applied to girls and women, especially women); we are supposed to follow the WP:Due weight policy on this matter and give more weight to the female aspect, including in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

A number of IP editors have reinserted this:

It is often used to provide support for women who lead or have led sexually promiscuous lifestyles. In such context, it is implied that women should not bear the burden of responsibility for indiscriminate sexual history, and that their current or former lifestyle should not affect perceptions of their social value as individuals. Specifically, it is emphasized by users of the term that potential sexual or life partners should not consider current or former sexual promiscuity as a factor during selection of female mating partners, and that social peers should not consider such behavior as a basis for public shame.

and sourcing it to (a) a copied reference of an article by Sharon Lamb with a quote that does not support the material and (b) a wordpress blog which, whether it supports the material or not, is not a reliable source for it. Further there is the unsourced addition to the lead that the term is used primarily in feminist literature. Maybe this is true. Is there a source? Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a thought: it's terribly written and poorly verified, and I wonder if there's just one editor behind all those IPs. Their lack of participation in talk page discussion, along with this slow edit war, made me semi-protect the article. Thank you alf, Drmies (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I made the last reversion edit. It just appeared to me through inspection of the edit war that there were a dedicated few devoted to maintaining non NPOV throughout the content page. The text that was removed (while not eloquently written in the Queen's prose) appeared to introduce a level of neutrality and was accurate in describing popular usage of the term. The source questioned appears to be directly reliable for usage of the term, and appears appropriate given the nature of the subject at hand. Bottom line: The page subject is a neologism that's used as platform speech for a certain political agenda. This has been discussed at length during a proposed page removal. I don't agree that the page should be removed - however the subject is currently presented as a universal practice (i.e. "defined as the act of"), rather than what it actually is (a term used in social propaganda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.88.39 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In what sense is that blog a reliable source for the usage of the term? Also, "defined as the act of" doesn't say anything about the universality of the practice, and neither does "neologism" say anything about the non-universality. If you want to say that this is an imaginary thing you need reliable sources to support the inclusion. If you want to say that it's "a term used in social propaganda" you need reliable sources to support the inclusion. Wordpress blogs are generally not considered reliable sources so you'll have to make extraordinary arguments if you want to use this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me chime in here. The argument for use of the source as reliable has been made, and it is sound. If you cannot read and comprehend, that is not your authorization to remove content based on your lack of understanding or personal political agenda. The blog clearly presents usage of the term in its most accurate form, and is a far more reliable source on usage in popular culture than most of the traditional secondary sources that are loosely referenced throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.16.23.13 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that, there's a noticeboard where people discuss and decide on what counts as a reliable source by Wikipedian standards. Since you and I obviously aren't going to convince one another, maybe you should start a conversation there. Let me know if you need any help in figuring out how to do that. The noticeboard can be found at WP:RSN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel no burden to discuss on a separate board, but you're more than welcome to since you're convinced of your position. I'm sure the noticeboard folks would be glad to hear your view. Let me know if you need any help in crafting your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel no burden, but the burden of making the case that the material is verifiable and the sources are reliable lies on those who wish to include it. See WP:BURDEN. If those who wish to add the material won't take the trouble to make that case in the face of opinions that the material is not verifiable because the source is not reliable then the material must stay out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice view, but I'm disinclined to lend credence to this notion as you will not take the trouble to make your case in the face of opinions that the material is verifiable because the source is reliable on the topic, and as such the material must stay in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Though a bit inappropriate in language used here, I agree with the unsigned. Seems like user Alf is using informal fallacy, diving down the source path in order to keep the article heavily biased toward feminist speech. Misplaced Pages is not a brochure for activism, and this page reeks of desperation for a voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And which informal fallacy would that be? If the material to be added is accurate then it should be possible to source it to something other than a random wordpress blog.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but you're really grasping at straws by repeating this argument. You've hastily generalized the source into a bucket of non-reliability based on its URL, rather than objectively examining the source content. You've repeatedly used the descriptor 'random' to support your case, but that's where the fallacy lies. I took a read through the source, and it's quite a detailed and centralized forum for publication of feminist ideology, and very descriptively speaks to use of the word. It's almost hilariously ironic that a feminist position seeks to beat down a feminist source, and it's only occurring because the source is indeed accurate on the topic, and this particular accuracy does not suit the agenda of maintaining sensationalism and removing NPOV within this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not grasping at straws, you're just ignoring the way things are done at Misplaced Pages. Really, it's not just me. Read WP:V for policies on verifiability, ask at the Teahouse, WP:TEAHOUSE, where they explain stuff to new editors, ask anyone. It doesn't matter if a wordpress blog says that the sky is blue and water is wet, we still wouldn't cite it as a source. I'm not sure what you're babbling about with your hilarious irony and all that, but I'm not taking a feminist position or trying to beat down anything. I'm just telling you that on Misplaced Pages we don't use wordpress blogs for sources no matter how plausible the material is that they contain.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So first you point to burden of verifiability and now you're making absolute arguments about exclusion. You're being inconsistent with your arguments because you're backed into a corner. This is just laughable. Here's some finality to it all: Yes, the source is a blog and blogs "largely should not be used" however a sufficient and reasonable argument for reliability has been made repeatedly (most recently by editor 167.219.88.140 above). As such, the source has been confirmed as reliable over use of the term, and the topic of inclusion has been addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Actually a sufficient argument for reliability has not been made. There are specific criteria for using blogs. Really, if you think that this blog is an exception somehow you should take it to WP:RSN and we'll see what others think. I will certainly abide by the consensus there, but there's been no discussion with substance here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The argument made here has sufficient substance, and you just don't want to hear it. There is no other consensus or posting on separate pages necessary. Your opinion has however been noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Provocative dressing in the lead

Exhibit A: Sandra Fluke, victim of slut-shaming.

The claim is advanced in edit summaries that the existing references say that slut-shaming is related to the way women dress. On the contrary, they do not say anything of the sort. The quotes from the two sources that the altered sentence was left cited to say:

In Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk About Sexuality (Harvard University Press, 2002), Deborah L. Tolman complained that we've "desexualized girls' sexuality, substituting the desire for relationship and emotional connection for sexual feelings in their bodies." Recognizing that fact, theorists have used the concept of desire as a way to undo the double standard that applauds a guy for his lust, calling him a player, and shames a girl for hers, calling her a slut.

Certainly the individualizing admonishment to 'think again' offers no sense of the broader legal and political environment in which sexting might occur, or any critique of a culture that requires young women to preserve their 'reputations' by avoiding overt demonstrations of sexual knowingness and desire. Further, by trading on the propensity of teenagers to feel embarrassment about their bodies and commingling it with the anxiety of mobiles being ever present, the ad becomes a potent mix of technology fear and body shame.

Not a word about the way women dress. The sources in the overview section uniformly talk about behavior rather than dress. If there are sources to support the addition of dress as a factor, let's see them, put info in the body of the article, and then discuss how to summarize them in the lead. It's not reasonable to put wording about dress in the lead and leave it cited to sources that do not discuss dress at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems to me you're trying to redefine the topic. The article already says:

The SlutWalk protest march started in Toronto in response to an incident where a Toronto Police officer told a group of students that they could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts".

If that's not slut shaming then why is it in the article? Also if you read the other references there's obvious references to girls criticising other girls for dressing with short skirts to attract boys etc. etc.

I also completely fail to see how you quoting a couple of paragraphs of anything disproves that slut shaming can be with regards a female's chosen style of dress.

So frankly, I find it difficult to understand why you're revert warring the lead like this.

I certainly agree though that my subject lines were not entirely accurate, there's not a sense that slut shaming is only about style of dress. But if you actually look at the text I crafted, that's not what I changed the article to read. Part of slut shaming is certainly about enforcing conservative styles of dress as a form of sexual control and even more often appears in the context of in-group versus out-group dynamics.GliderMaven (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fine. You're right. The problem is that the lead is sourced to those two sources that don't mention dress. On the other hand the lead shouldn't be sourced to stuff anyway. I'm not sure how to fix that problem right now anyway, and you are actually right. Thanks for clarifying the sentence, and I'm sorry for that second revert.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

I'm a bit flabberghasted to discover that an article on this topic is called "slut shaming". Is this really the best possible article title?? "Slut shaming" is a neologism, but the phenomenon is surely part of a much older tradition of denying female sexuality, and in particular disparaging conduct that would be praised or accepted in men. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzy mongoose, this was actually addressed during a couple of the recent proposals for page removal. Have a gander at them, as referenced at the top of the talk page. There were a couple of movements to merge into the overall "slut" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well merging with slut makes no sense to me - that's an article about a term, not behaviour. Maybe there is no other article that exists on the topic - there is some overlap with Female_sexuality#Historical_conceptions_of_female_sexuality and more with Female_promiscuity#Society_and_culture. I'm not sure what a better title would be; something in the direction of Conceptions of female sexuality maybe. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Heavy POV

The article presents "slut-shaming" as an established fact, instead of what it is: A recent neologism associated with radical feminist theory. It needs to be heavily edited to remove POV: The lead needs to say clearly that this is a part of feminist thinking. 69.140.83.115 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Slutshaming many feminists and women hate this because it degrades women. so edit that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.84.142 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More than one side to this

I surmise that this "slut-shaming" comes in at least two varities:

Personal vindictiveness
A philosophy of Familialism

The former would probably be objected to by nearly everyone articulate enough to write anything scholarly, but the latter can at least be argued to legitimize slut-shaming on the grounds that slutty behavior is something that a person actually should be ashamed of. --2610:E0:A040:7EFD:6D5E:5730:7B81:9DB9 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doing research. I'm pointing out that people hold different views on this subject that Misplaced Pages ought to cover. Do you want examples of such people? It's not as if they're hard to find. The only question is who would be the best to quote from. A great deal has been written critiquing the shamelessness of modern society from a perspective of Familialism. (or related views on sexual ethics) Maybe a passage from The Closing of the American Mind? In any event, clearly the one-sided nature of this article must be apparent to any objective thinker. --2610:E0:A040:7EFD:6D5E:5730:7B81:9DB9 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could argue that the familialism standing would be that of the person shaming as such and that their views are already portrayed there. I see your argument though, if I were you I would try to find a source discussing the theory of slut-shaming specifically from that viewpoint, and use that to quote from. I also wouldn't assert that it is "something that a person actually should be ashamed of" whilst trying to edit the article, editors should generally edit from a neutral point of view --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Drowninginlimbo, No original research. does not qualify on talk pages. He can do all the research he likes on the talk pages, make his case for his edits, but anything added to the article must be reliably sourced. What I would recommend you do anonymous IPv6 editor would be to find reliable sources demonstrating the edits that you wish to add to the article. Tutelary (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mate poaching is the central reason for slut shaming

Mate poaching is the central reason for slut shaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.17.58 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

Whitek67, as you are a WP:Student editor (it's best that you read that page if you have not already) and are a part of Education Program:Richard Stockton College of New Jersey/GIS 3614 Feminist Theory (Fall 2014), do you mind explaining what you are looking to add to the Slut-shaming article? As a WP:Student editor, you should be attempting to communicate with regulars editors of the article/talk page about improvements you want to make; this is partly because the more experienced Misplaced Pages editors can help appropriately guide you on that matter. As you may have seen, I am the one who reverted you here (followup notes here and here); I reverted because some of what you added was redundant, all of it was poorly sourced (as opposed to using scholarly sources and non-Al Jazeera News sources, though Psychology Today is kind of okay), and there was a lot of WP:Overlinking. In your latest edit to the article, there is more WP:Overlinking. And you cited the same source in full multiple times. There is a better way to cite the same source multiple times; see WP:REFNAME. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

AFD? Is this serious?

How has this article maintained a position here? It's some kind of strange POV piece, not a real topic. Or at any rate, it seems to push an agenda using the pretext of explaining an internet meme. Obotlig ☣ 13:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to simply be an Internet meme; it has received academic attention and it is covered in many books and news articles. The Misplaced Pages article has already survived two AFDs, the results were Keep, and Speedy Keep.GliderMaven (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a how-to manual maybe I can write one and publish it on Amazon then we will have another cite for the article. Absurd. Speedy delete and block the creator. Obotlig ☣ 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And before you jump on my case I'd like to point out I created Exploitation of women in mass media so it is not a matter of agenda or perspective. This article is really absurd and an insult to the standards of Misplaced Pages. Obotlig ☣ 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that your comment about this article smacks entirely of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and demanding that the page creator be blocked really doesn't help your case. The topic of slut-shaming is incredibly notable, and a Google search alone will very quickly provide numerous articles that actually discuss the act; The Guardian, and Al Jazeera America are two such sources on the first two pages alone, and there are more in many other sources. If you have an issue with the article's content, improve it or propose a change. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I was being sarcastic I guess. Or ironic. The questionable topic aside, the article needs massive revision to avoid its slant. I didn't want to start doing anything like that before seeing what other editors felt. Obotlig ☣ 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, any alleged 'slant' of this article does and should reflect that of the academic sources.GliderMaven (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Any approach to a topic involves certain assumptions about its meaning. This article seems to involve a lot of assumptions and a preference for certain wording and arrangement of content. Those are editorial choices, not "academic" sources which I assume means possibly tenured professors at lower end public universities and liberal arts schools. Not that there is anything wrong with either, it just looks like their output. Obotlig ☣ 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a great article, but it is definitely saveable without that much effort (relative to some things). I recommend you start making or suggesting changes rather than just going around in circles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good article at the moment-it's currently rated as start class, and I would put it between there and C class, it's very rambling but it has surprisingly decent references.GliderMaven (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slut-shaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140404050810/https://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/teenage-peta-pinup-speaks-out-205112851.html to http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/teenage-peta-pinup-speaks-out-205112851.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Mate poaching

An anon editor has twice added the vague term "mate poaching" to the lede. I removed it, and asked in the edit summary for an explanation or discussion. I has been added again. I don't want to get in to an edit war so can someone else have a look at it and comment. Thanks. --Dmol (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)--Dmol (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Women sometimes slut-shame another woman who they see as trying to take the mate of another woman which is what mate poaching is. Slut shaming is much more likely to happen in mate poaching situations than in any other situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.154.219 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed that unsourced piece, which is pretty much a slang term. You need to stop WP:Edit warring over this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Mention of prostitution in the lead

Sammy1339 (talk · contribs), regarding this, prostitution is not as commonly discussed as an aspect of slut-shaming, unless the authors are defining slut-shaming as "associating 'sluts' with 'prostitutes' and 'whores' (Ringrose & Renold, 2012:336)." I have seen some sources note that some women feel that prostitution is not degrading and is rather empowering or uplifting and therefore women should not be slut-shamed if they are a prostitute, but when it comes to what is slut-shaming, this view is not as thoroughly held as "violating accepted dress codes by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways, requesting access to birth control, having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex, or when being victim blamed for being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted." Furthermore, prostitution is currently not discussed lower in the article. This makes the prostitution aspect that you seem to want in the lead because prostitutes are, in your words, an "extremely stigmatized group" a WP:Undue weight and WP:Lead violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that this is a good source for the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And, for the record, I don't think that "requesting access to birth control," which was another addition to the lead sometime ago, should be in the lead either...since it's not discussed anywhere lower in the article. And I actually don't see it commonly mentioned as an aspect of slut-shaming either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the article mentions birth control when noting the Rush Limbaugh incident. But when Googling "access to birth control slut-shaming," a few media or news articles on regular Google come up, some mentioning the Limbaugh incident, and a few sources on Google Books comment on the birth control aspect when searching "birth control slut-shaming." Some of the Google Books sources are more reliable than others and are also commenting on the Limbaugh incident. This 2014 The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia source, from SAGE Publications, page 154, is a decent reference, and it states, "lut shaming occurs when female victims are called names for deviating from traditional gender expectations, which can include engaging in sexual behaviors, dressing in sexually provocative ways, using birth control, or even being raped or sexually assaulted." So, yeah, I'm seeing birth control mentioned as an aspect of slut-shaming more than I'm seeing prostitution mentioned as an aspect of it, but neither is mentioned as much as the "sexual behaviors, dressing in sexually provocative ways" and "victim-blaming for rape" aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why that source is no good. There are also others, such as this one, and by including news sources we have a fairly large number, such as this one which complains of the lack of sympathy for Christy Mack. The misogyny directed against sex workers is a pretty blatant example of this phenomenon, so I don't think it should be excluded just because some feminists want to feel comfortable participating in it, which is how I read your first paragraph. If we can find sources claiming that they cannot be slut-shamed, we could add that for balance. You're probably right that the body should be expanded. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes question using university sources since they are often written with a political lean to them. I pointed to the media/news sources, and it's not really many when we only consider the reliable ones. And, like I noted, a good number of them are reiterating the Rush Limbaugh incident. Although, as indicated in the Prostitution article, many feminists find prostitution degrading and harmful to women for a number of reasons, my above comments had nothing to do with feminism. I reverted the other editor because, like I stated, it was a WP:Lead violation and prostitution (whether criticism of it or the women engaging in it) is not as commonly included as an aspect of slut-shaming as the other listed aspects are. This is reflected by scholarly sources that define slut-shaming like the SAGE Publications source I listed above. If we are to include "prostitution" in the lead, the topic should at least be covered lower in the article. Per WP:Due weight (which notes that placement of a piece can also be undue weight), I also think that the prostitution aspect should either be moved to last in the "Some examples of circumstances" sentence or given its own sentence beside that one, briefly noting that prostitution can be an example of slut-shaming and how that's the case. ~~Right now, the lead only states "prostitution" for it,~~ and, given that there exists legitimate criticisms of prostitution, I don't think simply including "prostitution" helps at all. Prostitution by itself is not slut-shaming, and criticism of it is not necessarily slut-shaming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: The lead states "engaging in prostitution," not simply "prostitution." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

So are you of the opinion that prostitutes are not slut shamed? I'm pretty sure that that routinely occurs. And references seem to indicate that slut shaming is part of a process pimps use to make women engage in prostitution.GliderMaven (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not of the opinion that prostitutes are not slut-shamed. And it's not often that I rely solely on my opinion regarding how a Misplaced Pages article should be edited anyway. Many know that I dislike WP:Activism editing. I follow what the literature states and with due weight, which is exactly why I made the arguments I did above and made this edit (followup fix here) moments ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking over a number of sources (mainly scholarly sources) discussing slut-shaming, I'm still not convinced that mention of prostitution is lead material, but I'm not going to continue to object to it being in the lead as long as the matter is covered lower in the article. I will allow some time for the "Definitions and characteristics" section to be expanded with the prostitution aspect, so that the body reflects the lead on the prostitution piece. I might even expand the body with the prostitution aspect myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I thought of putting a section on this in the article, but it's really such a mess of haphazardly quoted primary sources that I'm not sure how to go about it. I'd like your opinion first.

About the point we are arguing over, it really doesn't matter whether some criticisms of prostitution are "valid" or "legitimate" (we disagree on that) but whether the term has been applied to the undeniable bigotry towards sex workers, which takes the form of ostracism from society, government-run public humiliation rituals, and feminism, and is so severe that some progressive people think its interesting to assert that prostitutes are human. In every case, people believe their own views are valid. I could provide lots more examples of this, which certainly go far beyond applying dirty names to prostitutes - moreover, to frame the problem this way dramatically misses the point. The main reason those words are dirty is because of the tremendous stigma attached to promiscuity and prostitution, to the point that "slut shaming" often takes the form of simply calling women prostitutes, as in the Rush Limbaugh case. It's also not what the source says.

That said, I'm not sure what the scope of the article should be and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Should it be about the term itself, or the whole phenomenon of suppression of women's sexuality through shame? If the latter, we have a lot more sources, including a fair number of empirical studies like this one, but if not, I wouldn't really know how to approach the subject without NPOV issues since most sources using this term are, as you noted above, political. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not on the term "slut shaming", we're not a dictionary.GliderMaven (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Synthesis, the sources should clearly be about the concept of slut-shaming. In this case, the word is important. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, synthesis is about making up facts, this is about choosing a topic. "slut shaming" is not the topic of the article, that's just the phrase you type in to find this topic.GliderMaven (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, using sources for a topic without it being explicitly clear that the sources are about that topic is WP:Synthesis. If you doubt me on that, which you clearly do, we can invite editors from the WP:Synthesis talk page to weigh in on this. Or, you know, start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Sammy1339. There's no need to ping me to this talk page since the article is clearly on my watchlist. The sources you listed are obvously not scholarly sources. I'm not sure what to think about genderacrossborders.com as a WP:Reliable source, and The Huffington Post has been criticized so much at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard (check the search archives there on it) that I am always wary of using it as a source, except for fictional topics like Lexa (The 100). I reiterate that my point is that prostitution as a form of slut-shaming is mainly cited in media/news sources (I haven't found much on it scholarly sources) and it is not as commonly cited as part of the definition of slut-shaming as those other aspects are. So WP:Due weight does, in fact, come into play here. My point is that the lead should summarize the article, not include things not already addressed lower in the article. So, again, WP:Due weight comes into play here. Regardless of whether we personally find some criticisms of prostitution valid or invalid, many reliable sources (not just feminist sources) have cited numerous problems with prostitution, including health issues and the sex trafficking of children, and we should therefore not give any indication that criticism of prostitution is automatically slut-shaming. So, yes, per WP:Neutral, I think it matters whether or not valid criticisms of prostitution have been made. As for my change to the lead, that can obviously be supported by one of the media sources. My goal was to provide an example of how prostitution can fit into the definition of slut-shaming. The lead is not for giving every example, and I've been clear that I (typically) don't think least common examples should be in the lead; I feel that way about every Misplaced Pages article.

The scope of the article should simply be about the topic. We can't limit the scope without injecting any biases we may have. We can only follow what the sources state, and with due weight. I can be fine with the mention of prostitution in the lead, with a better explanation from you of what slut-shaming involves when it comes to prostitution, but I obviously feel that the lead shouldn't state too much about it and am pushing for the lower part of the article to be expanded with information about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we are talking past each other a bit. I don't read the article as saying that any criticism of prostitution is slut-shaming; all it says is that women can be slut-shamed for engaging in prostitution. Is that controversial? And as for the scope, would my last source be appropriate in your view, even though it doesn't use the term? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The primary question is what the topic needs to be; it seems to me it needs to be everything about social shaming women for their sexuality-related wants, behaviors and needs, of whatever forms they take.GliderMaven (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's actually less clear to me, which is why I phrased it as a question. We could alternatively view this as a pop-feminism concept, which also has been used in some scholarly sources which draw on feminist theory, like this one, and make the broader topic a separate article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sammy1339, the text that you reverted to states "engaging in prostitution." Above, I argued "criticism of is not necessarily slut-shaming." Criticism of prostitution includes criticism of engaging in the act of prostitution. There are numerous reliable sources citing valid criticisms of the act, and without any mention of this being slut-shaming. With the way you have the lead, a reader can easily think that the lead is "saying that any criticism of prostitution is slut-shaming." So, for the lead, unless you have alternative wording that explains how prostitution relates to slut-shaming, I will pursue restoration of the previous sentence I added...but with a different source. I would rather this matter be settled here on the talk page without a WP:RfC or similar, especially since I'm usually very busy and gathering sources takes time. By that, I mean that, for an RfC, I usually gather a number of sources for participants to weigh what is appropriate per the literature. As for that last source, per WP:Synthesis, I don't think it's an appropriate source. As for making the broader topic a separate article, as long as it's not a WP:Content fork violation, I would be fine with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit dizzying. The article doesn't say anything about "criticism" - it says that women can be slut-shamed for engaging in prostitution. We have sources saying this. (Both academic and news sources - you first said you didn't like the first kind and would rather rely on news and media sources; then when I listed a few, you said well, they aren't scholarly sources.) We have no sources saying that the stigma applied to prostitutes is not slut-shaming because some criticisms of prostitutes are valid. That seems to be your OR, but if we can find a source for that (which I'm sure is out there somewhere) maybe that notion will deserve mention in the article.

I'm not sure how to write the other article without making it a content fork as it necessarily will discuss much the same material, but using sources that don't contain this phrase. That is, unless we establish that this article is about the phrase as it appears in feminist sources. Currently it says "in human sexuality". --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead states "engaging in prostitution" and does not explain how this relates to slut-shaming. In other words, the lead is not clear on how prostitution relates to slut-shaming. It simply states "engaging in prostitution," as though any disagreement with a person engaging in prostitution is slut-shaming. You call that my OR. I call it undoubtedly vague wording and me using common sense, after seeing wording at this site interpreted in a variety of ways for years. I stated nothing about rather preferring to rely on news and media sources; unless the topic is mostly a media topic, I barely rely on such sources when building a Misplaced Pages article. I thought I was clear that the prostitution aspect of slut-shaming is lacking because it is mostly covered by news and media sources and barely scholarly sources. The fact that it has such little scholarly attention is something that should absolutely be a factor when considering how much weight to give it. These types of articles should not be mostly based on news/media sources, and the same goes for any aspect of it unless it's an "In the media" section.

As for writing an article without making it a content fork, not all content forking on Misplaced Pages is bad. That is why I linked to WP:Content fork and stated "as long as it's not a ." If it violates that guideline, you will have editors proposing that your article is deleted and/or that some parts of it are merged with this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I take it that you think that how prostitution relates to slut-shaming is covered by "is a form of social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors." I can see that as a valid rationale, but I still think that simply stating "engaging in prostitution" and leaving it at that is problematic. The wording "violating accepted dress codes by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways" and "being victim blamed for being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted" is very clear; so is "requesting access to birth control." And because of definitions of slut, it is very obvious that the "having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex" part is an aspect of slut-shaming. Given what has been stated above, on both of our parts, about prostitution, however, I think that "engaging in prostitution" needs more elaboration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Women are shamed for engaging in prostitution, period. Any qualification of that can only make it less accurate. It's perhaps the canonical example of slut-shaming. The article says nothing about what criticisms are valid, regarding dress or anything else.

Regarding this, the copyedit introduced awkward wording and I reverted it on purpose. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

About academic sources, I must have misunderstood when you wrote "I sometimes question using university sources since they are often written with a political lean to them. I pointed to the media/news sources..." But anyway, if you want to keep arguing that some stigmatization of women for engaging in prostitution is not slut-shaming, please provide a source supporting that assertion. (Certainly there are sources which claim that the term "shaming" has been overused as a substitute for argument. Maybe you'll find something there.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You clearly are not understanding me on the prostitution aspect, but stating that "any qualification of that can only make it less accurate" is inaccurate. Slut-shaming is criticism. If one looks at the definitions of criticism, one can see that slut-shaming is criticism. It's criticism of women "who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors." Actually, that exact definition needs to be sourced, because when I look at scholarly sources for the definition of slut-shaming, like the aforementioned one, they either only mention name-calling (girls/women being called names for deviating from traditional gender expectations), or name-calling is a big part of it. Clearly, these sources are talking about one specific form of criticism or more than one. As for the Misplaced Pages article not explicitly using the word criticism, even if we were comparing criticisms, the criticism aspect for prostitution is not on the same level as the criticism aspects for "violating accepted dress codes by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways" or "having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex." Not many sources (except for different religious ones) would state that a girl is a slut or morally wrong for violating accepted dress codes by dressing in sexually provocative ways. Valid sources might note legitimate issues with a young girl dressing in sexually provocative ways, such as past sexual abuse, a troubled home life, etc., but that is not slut-shaming. The main sources criticizing girls and women for "having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex" are religious, psychological and medical ones, and many would disagree that the psychological and medical ones are slut-shaming. I see no reliable sources criticizing women for "requesting access to birth control." I see no reliable sources criticizing women for being raped (I don't count sources from men's rights groups). I see plenty of reliable sources criticizing women (and men too) for engaging in prostitution. Is that slut-shaming? Some would say yes, while others would say no, especially depending on the context...such as the varied problems that come along with prostitution. So how are readers to know if it's slut-shaming or not when the article doesn't clarify? Like I stated, the other matters are easier to discern as being a form of slut-shaming. Prostitution is a more complicated issue when it comes to the topic of slut-shaming, which is why I assume it's talked about less in sources on the topic.

And either way, the prostitution aspect currently still does not belong in the lead...per WP:Undue and WP:Lead. Even its placement is WP:Undue weight since it is the least discussed topic when it comes to slut-shaming. And yet you seem to be insisting that it stay ahead of "being victim blamed for being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted." As for this, the copyedit by GliderMaven was an improvement. The previous wording was awkward.

About academic sources, you indeed misunderstood me. Let me be clear: A university source is one type of scholarly source, and I sometimes question using university sources since they are often written with a political lean to them; this is especially the case for a topic like this one. When I stated "I pointed to the media/news sources, and it's not really many when we only consider the reliable ones.", it was because you had used media sources to make your case. I was making it clear that I had already assessed media sources on the topic of slut-shaming, such as when I relayed that "when Googling 'access to birth control slut-shaming,' a few media or news articles on regular Google", and it's mainly media sources that I saw supporting the prostitution aspect as part of the topic. And I never argued that "some stigmatization of women for engaging in prostitution is not slut-shaming." I argued that there are various reliable sources criticizing prostitution, and that criticism of prostitution includes those who engage in it. Such sources are easily found without me being of assistance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, out of curiosity, did you follow me to this article? If so, why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the article can reasonably be read as saying that all such criticism is unjustified (in fact, it doesn't even say that slut-shaming is unjustified, although one hopes reasonable people will understand that.) It also doesn't say criticism, it says stigmatization. We have sources saying that stigmatization of sex workers is slut-shaming, and no sources that say it isn't. Whenever you bring up the idea that some criticisms are "valid" or "legitimate", you are talking about your subjective opinion on a subject that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with this one.

Also, whether there are authoritative sources condemning rape victims depends upon what country you live in. However I don't think we should get into this as it really doesn't matter. Of course every stigmatized group of people will have people who think the stigma is legitimate, so saying that there are arguments to that effect can hardly be evidence that there's no stigma.

I did follow you here. I checked your contribs at one point during the bikini discussion (I can't seem to recall why) and happened to notice this edit. It's certainly not that I have anything against you. In fact I think you're a pretty good editor. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You stated, "Whenever you bring up the idea that some criticisms are 'valid' or 'legitimate', you are talking about your subjective opinion on a subject that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with this one." I disagree, and have been over why. We can deal with the lead later, though, especially since all three of us and reliable sources agree that prostitutes can be slut-shamed for being prostitutes. Right now, I think we should focus on the scope of the article and expanding the lower parts of the article. So I'll focus on the below section for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Scope

Actually I'm finding that recent papers are referring to earlier literature on suppression of female sexuality as examples of slut-shaming, so I think the article needs to be about that. For example, a conference abstract refers to this classic paper as well as the paper by Vaillancourt that I cited above as being about slut-shaming. I think this gives us a lot of sources, so if there's no objection, I'd like to start replacing the mess of primary sources we currently have. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be about what the literature states as a whole, and weighed appropriately per the WP:Due weight policy. It should not be mostly based on what recent sources state; in other words, we should not be engaging in WP:Recentism. Also, why do you think sources like this conference abstract one are good to use? And I reiterate that using a source like "Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality" for the topic of slut-shaming is WP:Synthesis. The sources need to explicitly be about slut-shaming; and, yes, that means that the sources should use the word slut-shaming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I told GliderMave above, "using sources for a topic without it being explicitly clear that the sources are about that topic is WP:Synthesis. If you doubt me on that, which you clearly do, we can invite editors from the WP:Synthesis talk page to weigh in on this. Or, you know, start a WP:RfC on the matter." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And, actually, having a RfC about what should be the scope of this article, including whether or not using certain sources to build its content is a WP:Synthesis violation, is not a bad idea. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, those papers are also described as being about this subject in NYT, as well as in a paper on slut-shaming, which we can use as a secondary source drawing on this. I also tend to agree with GliderMave that the article should be about the idea, not the word, but I'm not married to that position. I'd hate to have an RfC on an article that needs a total rewrite anyway. That sounds like a terrible waste of time, so I hope we can sort it out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's on topic, if it's on-topic, not whether it uses particular words or phraseology. The prohibition in Misplaced Pages is against making shit up, not against putting something into an article or not. I cannot emphasise enough that's not what WP:SYNTH is; synth is not about mere juxtaposition in an article.GliderMaven (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As many SYNTH cases on this site have shown, WP:SYNTH has much to do with the title of the article. How else do you think we judge what is or is not synthesis when it comes to an article's sources? We do not leave the matter open to interpretation when it comes to what an article covers; otherwise, the article will include a lot of things that are not what the topic is about. Since you don't seem to think this is the case, I will ask editors at the WP:Synthesis talk page to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories: