Revision as of 00:02, 26 November 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,363 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Misogyny/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:23, 26 November 2014 edit undoACanadianToker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,121 edits →Weasel Words in the lead: In the heat of the moment I overreacted. I have replaced some of the more mundane. {{Yo|Herostratus}}Next edit → | ||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
- A Canadian Toker (]) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | - A Canadian Toker (]) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
: |
:You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to use of the word ''many''; of yours is silly."Many" is a perfectly fine word to use on Misplaced Pages when it is supported by the WP:Reliable sources. ] and ] make that very clear. We should not state "several" when it is a "many" matter. Like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like ''some'' or ''most'' are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious ] of items with no real importance, then Misplaced Pages should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Misplaced Pages must remain vague." Your understanding of ] is off base. You clearly need to read that policy and comprehend it. Just like you need to read ] and comprehend it.{{RPA}} ] (]) 17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
:Never mind. I'm not interested in debating any of the above with you. And I am not interested in interacting with you. I will only interact with you when needed. ] (]) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | :Never mind. I'm not interested in debating any of the above with you. And I am not interested in interacting with you. I will only interact with you when needed. ] (]) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:23, 26 November 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misogyny article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This Talk:Misogyny has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Article is severely lacking NPOV - Should not stay protected
As a researcher in Islamic studies and humanities, I was interested to read the portion on Islam view, and I really got upset, as it only cites one viewpoint of the issue. I know "Many" references that are "totally opposite" to the viewpoint mentioned. How then can we contribute to the article, to make it more balanced and reflecting the diversed facts more, while the article is just: Semi-protected? Hope one of the athrs who made this decision come here and let me know how. Thanks. I will then come and sign in when page is open for edits.
Whoa whoa whoa.
Misogyny is NOT the hatred of women. That's a common misconception. It's the hatred of things that are stereotypically a woman "thing", or the ingrained feeling that women are lesser. A great example is "you throw like a girl," this gives the impression that women do not throw a ball as well as a man- that's misogyny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amschuett (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Definitions Section
Definitions section provides two sociologist opinions before the Dictionaries. I'd suggest a touch-up on the dictionaries definitions and then promote it above the leading sociologists.
58.106.160.16 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Judaism section
This section is undue. It relies on the beliefs of one relatively unknown author and points to a women in judaism page that makes no specific mention of misogyny. I've deleted it. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
"
Main article: Women in JudaismIn Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice, Jack Holland writes also of evidence of misogyny in the Old Testament story of the fall of man in the Book of Genesis. Holland characterizes the Fall of Man as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".(See also: original sin.) "
Weasel Words in the lead
I have attempted to change a word in the lead several times and it has been reverted. Many should be replaced by several as several provides a more balanced and neutral report of the sources. I do no understand why this is an issue. Many is a loaded word that should be directly quoted if it is in fact accurate. Because it is not directly quoted it is obvious that someone seeks to use 'Many' to push their pov as it is a numerically vague expression.
I would like others' input on this matter.
Misogyny can be found within many mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, manyseveral influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic
- A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to use of the word many; this tagging of yours is silly."Many" is a perfectly fine word to use on Misplaced Pages when it is supported by the WP:Reliable sources. WP:WEASEL and Template:Who make that very clear. We should not state "several" when it is a "many" matter. Like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Misplaced Pages should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Misplaced Pages must remain vague." Your understanding of WP:Neutral is off base. You clearly need to read that policy and comprehend it. Just like you need to read WP:Edit warring and comprehend it.(Personal attack removed) Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind. I'm not interested in debating any of the above with you. And I am not interested in interacting with you. I will only interact with you when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Flyer22: So.... are you okay with using several instead? If the RS say "MANY" then it should be directly attributed. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class Feminism articles
- Top-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- Unassessed Men's Issues articles
- Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press