Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:41, 30 August 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mansplaining 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 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. Gender studies Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 Mid‑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 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. Men's Issues Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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)

In my opinion the article seems to be objectiv. The article is based on facts from turstworthy sources. -- R3focus (Diskussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3focus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 8 May 2017 (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)

One of the main problems with the article is the repeated political censorship of attempts to introduce a discussion of the similarities between the term "mansplaining" and other derogatory terms that only apply to a particular race or sex, intended to disempower, silence, side-line and belittle opinions based mainly on the fact that the person stating the opinion is of a particular group. MathewMunro MathewMunro (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2017 (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)

"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." - How utterly ridiculous. It fits the description of a pejorative perfectly. Do you need a "reliable source" to verify that a banana is yellow and an orange is orange! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Cathy_Young has an article where she calls it a pejorative term. AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 22 January 2015 (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)

I notice that the quote "a pejorative for supposedly obtuse and arrogant male arguments on gender, apparently now also applied to female dissent" has been added to the article. Maybe it is me, but what does it mean ? Perhaps it should be written in more lucid language, maybe paraphrase it rather that using the quote.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2015 (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)

Of course, it's also impossible to know how far it actually happened the way Ms Solnit retold the Muybridge book incident. Exaggerating, fixing up and streamlining a story to make it into a good meme are the bread and butter of that kind of talky column writing. Discussing social and gender strategies from this term and from its ballooning use within a few limited bands of people, that's a bit like constructing models of sociological and language analysis out of something that happened in a few episodes of South Park. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2015 (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)

So fix the obvious. I rephrased. I am going to remove the tag. That said, we don't need to let this disintegrate into some sort of a men's rights discussion, either. Montanabw 23:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Drama averted, article improved. Good job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it Montanabw. Don't know why I have to say this, but I'm female and not a "men's rights" editor. I just don't like gross inaccuracy in articles, so it's intimated that I'm disintegrating the article into "men's rights discussion"?

This is the state of the article when I first came across it:in October 2014 I fixed many things, and some editors agreed with my comments on the talk page and fixed others. But reversions of some of my edits by EvergreenFir, and after her reversion of valid comments on the talk page by an IP, I decided to put the POV tag on the page as a last resort.

I have removed much uncited info, but EvergreenFir reverted Category:Pejorative terms for people. EChastain (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You just need to locate a source that calls it a pejorative term. It's original research to label terms pejorative without a source. I did a few Google searches, and I didn't see anything offhand. I can try again later. Maybe I can dig something up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also revert adding perjorative terms as a category, it isn't a noun, it's a verb. I apologize if I implied that anyone here is a MRM advocate, I've just been a little gunshy after being on the fringes of the GGTF arbcom thing and also seeing my name added to an off-wiki "enemies list" for posting one comment related to GamerGate. (Sigh) I have absolutely zero patience with trolls these days. Having just been subjected to "mansplaining" less than a week ago, I hope to continue lurking here and commenting if there arises further disputes. I have too many irons in the fire in other areas to give this issue tons of my time, but I will at least lurk. Montanabw 03:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, like NinjaRobotPirate, I don't know why I have to explain this but I've stated that I'm female and not a "men's rights" editor. Just because I have views that don't comport with yours and EvergreenFir's some other female editors, please don't assume that I'm male and a "men's rights" supporter. I just want an article that that's accurate and is supported by RS and NPOV. When I first came across the article, this was it's state. EChastain (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is a joke anyway. Two totally biased people quoting one another does not make them unbiased. You ought to be able to make a statement of fact without having to hide behind a quotation. A fact is a fact, regardless of whether you are the first to utter it, if you are quoting someone who said it before you. MathewMunro (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a blogging platform. That means that we write our articles based on what reliable sources say, not what we believe. If you want to tell the world what you think, there are other websites you can use. Many people misunderstand Misplaced Pages's policy of NPOV. It doesn't mean that articles must present every point of view equally, and it doesn't mean that the sources used must be unbiased. Instead, we need to summarize the views provided by the available sources using neutral prose. We write the articles based on how the sources treat the subject: if they say that astrology is pseudoscience, our article treats it as such – but using neutral terms. If the majority of sources treat this term as pejorative, like the sources do for many other words, the article will present it that way. What we don't do, however, is slant the article a certain way simply because editors feel it would make the article more neutral. We have to follow the sources. The easiest way to fix an article you think is biased is to present sources that show it in a different light. If you're not sure where to start, I would suggest The Wall Street Journal. It's a fairly conservative newspaper, and it may comment upon the term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Untitled IP comment

Where is womensplaining? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.151.211 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen that term ever used by reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DFTT applies. Not even worth a discussion. Montanabw 00:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course. And do you can just explain me why women couldn´t have this attitude? Realy belive this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.87.247 (talk)

Don't know, don't care. See WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN 08:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just create this term like with mansplaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.87.247 (talk)

Misplaced Pages does not create terms. It covers notable neologisms described in published sources. --NeilN 08:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

it don't exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.97.219 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

no less than mansplaining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.87.247 (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The term is the same regardless of gender. I'd have thought that was obvious.

Other portmanteaus

Should this article be used to mention other portmanteau's that the term "mansplaining" has influenced? Notably, Manslamming and Manspreading? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There's an article about this in The Boston Globe, but I think it might belong in a different article. This topic is bigger than mansplaining, which is only one of the many gender-specific neologisms created. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I disfavor it. These things turn into endless laundry lists. Someone could create a list of these things and then have ONE link here to that list. Montanabw 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A list would be pointless at this stage. There aren't that many to warrant a list of their own. Also these new terms do stem off of the popularity of mansplaining. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Does this need its own article?

Does an obscure neologism only used by fringe movements really warrant its own article? Akesgeroth (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

'...and in 2010, The New York Times named mansplainer as one of its "Words of the Year."' Obscure? --NeilN 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NeilN. Notability clearly established. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, obscure. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/weekinreview/19sifton.html is the article in question. It contains dozens of neologisms, almost none of which are mentioned on Misplaced Pages. Those which are mentioned don't have their own article either. Never mind that it isn't "The New York Times' words of the year", it's a blog, which are not considered reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. Akesgeroth (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Akesgeroth - I'd be happy to add more sources if you like. A quick google search brought up the term being used by Salon, Politico, and The Atlantic. And that was without trying. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir It's been established in previous cases that the number of sources is not relevant to the notability of a term. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Its widespread use can be demonstrated, especially if those sources take time to define the neologism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Akesgeroth, links to these previous cases please? --NeilN 03:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir The Cultural Marxism article was merged into the Frankfurt School article after a lengthy discussion determined that despite numerous sources, including academic ones, the concept was not notable enough to warrant its own article. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That move was ridiculous. Anyway, I'm done here. This is becoming tedious. If you would like to suggest concrete improvements to the article, feel free. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That merge touched off a shitstorm of controversy which still isn't resolved and had nothing to do with the number of sources. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. --NeilN 03:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that the matter was still contentious, my apologies. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It was at WP:AN, multiple topics on Jimbo's page, recreated and worked on as a draft, and the draft was put up for deletion - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cultural Marxism. Contentious is right. --NeilN 03:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the notability tag. There are 25 citations in this article. The next step would be nominating it for deletion at WP:AFD, which I believe will probably just result in a quick consensus to keep the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I still believe it would be preferable to have a single article about neologisms produced by sociolinguistics rather than an article for each word. Akesgeroth (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get consensus for that. --NeilN 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why Misplaced Pages rather than Wiktionary?

I'm not hugely familiar with how the whole Wikimedia project works, but it seems to me that this article would be better suited for Wiktionary than Misplaced Pages, if it deserves a place on Wikimedia at all. YM Industries (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

See the section directly above. The notability of the term and the concept it represents has been established. Wiktionary describes definitions. Misplaced Pages describes ideas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wiktionary is strictly a dictionary. It will not contain any history, social impact, controversies, etc. Compare Dude to Dude. --NeilN 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Wiktionary's entries for mansplain and mansplainer are simply definitions. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Amused mastery

Actually, "Mansplaining" appears to be application of an interactive technique between men and women called "amused mastery." (Google the term) From a man's perspective it is "amused mastery" to respond to women's criticism or the feminine imperative with this type of psychological approach. It follows that some would classify it pejoratively as "mansplaining" as it if was patronizing and misogynist. FWIW. Cla68 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Googling it, I find that you seem to be referring to some pick-up artist lingo. But mansplaining is not a narrow phenomenon confined to lounge lizards, but far more widespread. Mansplaining isn't typically a response to women's criticism (often it involves a man interjecting himself into women's conversations to explain to them things they already know), and some mansplainers seem selectively deaf to any objections women raise. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

what's it like to hate women every waking (perhaps even sleeping too) moment of your life? that must be something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.97.219 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary

Regarding this: Know Your Meme is probably not a reliable source and the insertion makes it seem the Urban Dictionary entry garnered widespread media attention. The second half is a redundant definition. --NeilN 20:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary and Know Your Meme are not reliable sources. I'm ambivalent about quoting the NYT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't complain how sexists is this article

I won't complain how sexists is this article, Also, i won't complain how its POV (and citing articles with personal viewpoint is still POV) but how it suits perfectly with wikipedia : editors (not only men) that are clueless in the matter giving over-lenghty explanation usually in a patronizing manner even when they are clueless. For example, let's check a wikientry about medicine, you will find several "experts" writing in those articles that aren't neither chemical engineer nor doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.200.196 (talk • contribs)

i'm not sure how you think this article sexists is? what makes sexists is this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.97.219 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

Is there some reason that this article from New York is not a reliable source? This is a published magazine, not a blog. I don't understand where Padenton is coming from. I guess we could go to WP:RSN over this, but let's see what a discussion on the page results in. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPN is actually the proper venue, this is regarding a source being used solely to make a claim about a WP:BLP. The following arguments are not exclusive to Paul Ryan, they likely apply to some of the other sources as well, this just seemed egregious when I looked at. I removed it because:

1. per WP:RSCONTEXT: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." nymag being a reliable source on a normal basis doesn't make it a reliable source for every statement or context.
2. per WP:NEWSBLOG: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call 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...")." I'm not quite sure if the author qualifies as a "professional journalist" given she wrote and published an article about someone's tumblr account. But I suppose that's a subjective evaluation on my part.
3. per WP:BLPGOSSIP:
   1. "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The source on the image is , the article is using a random tumblr account for the majority of the article's content. It is also using weasel words when the author makes her claim that Paul Ryan is mansplaining.
   2. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."
4. per WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is (...) unsourced or poorly sourced;" as stated above.
5. This is also a bit of a WP:COATRACK, as well as WP:UNDUE. Is including negative opinion editorials on a selected group of politicians something that really belongs in nearly every controversial article?

Finally, regardless of this discussion:

1. per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: all the individual claims about someone 'mansplaining' should to have in-text attribution to the author of that claim. I'll do this bit later when I have more time, unless someone else wants to do it.

I think that's enough to start the discussion off with. Let me know if/why you still disagree and we can continue here or go elsewhere. ― Padenton|✉   23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of those apply. How is this not a reliable source in this context? Why do you think this is a newsblog? There's no gossip that I can see. Gossip is "so-and-so did such-and-such! Isn't that naughty?" Not "Paul Ryan engaged in mansplaining." Coatrack? No, I don't see that, either. At absolute worst, it's undue, but not a coatrack. So, no, I haven't changed my opinion, and I don't see how you've established that this is unreliable. New York magazine said he engaged in mansplaining, and it's a reliable source. What do others think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gossip is "so-and-so did such-and-such! Isn't that naughty?" That's an accurate description of what is said in the 'source'. ― Padenton|✉   20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• @NinjaRobotPirate and Padenton: The removed source is obviously reliable and the claim that Ryan may have explained something condescendingly is not a BLP violation. --SonicY (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sonicyouth86: The source is a tumblr account. Also, should I wait for you to comment on all of the talk discussions I'm involved in in retaliation for asking you to calm down at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Revert ? ― Padenton|✉   11:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The source is the New York magazine. And you know it. --SonicY (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:OPINION. Now, shall we go back to the other talk discussion or do you wish to examine every edit I've ever made? ― Padenton|✉   11:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The New York mag article is obviously a secondary source and satisfies WP:Opinion. --SonicY (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinions of the writer of an article are always primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. ― Padenton|✉   12:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

All RS are written by human beings who express their opinions. If you believe an "opinion" to be contentious, you're welcome to attribute it, but you had not reason to remove it. At least now we've put the myth of the BLP violation to rest. Progress. --SonicY (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection to attributing it to the author, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as I said above. BLP violation is not a myth. Failing to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is a failure to follow BLP. Not that I think NinjaRobotPirate is responsible for it or that whoever is meant to do so, nor that whoever is responsible should be blocked, warned, whatever. Just looking to fix the issue. ― Padenton|✉   12:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, attribute it, but do not remove it. Since the NY mag isn't less reliable than the other references, go ahead and attribute all other claims to their respective writers as well. See of that improves the article. If I have time I'll add more RS to the Ryan sentence and then ping you so that you can attribute it if you absolutely must. --SonicY (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Attributing it is OK, but I still don't understand why it was challenged in the first place. It's obviously not a BLP violation or unreliable source. I'm hoping we can avoid any bureaucratic noticeboards and just reach consensus here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is already attributed to "journalists" (Since 2010, journalists have described people including ... then-vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan...). Two additional sources: and . If Padenton feels compelled to list the names of the journalists, ok sure. I agree that it's obviously not a BLP violation or unreliable source(s). --SonicY (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and Padenton: Alright, so I've restored the content with two additional sources. Padenton, you're welcome to attribute the opinion to the three authors if you must. --SonicY (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Those "additional sources" are garbage. A blog and a page that might as well be on clickhole, certainly not an article of any sort. Arkon (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

These additional sources have the same exact issues as the others did. I must admit your repeated attempts to use this article to retaliate against me are entertaining though. This discussion could really use more eyes than the 4 of us. ― Padenton|✉   22:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

By "issues" you mean their status as reliable sources? You're welcome to check the RS noticeboard archives if you have reason to believe that the NY mag is an unreliable source, especially when its supported by Mother Jones and The Huffington Post. First you invented a BLP violation, now you claim that the three refs have mystery issues. Do not take it personally if another editor reverts your removal of sourced content. Nobody wants to "retaliate" against you, nobody is conspiring to harm you. In general, try to avoid commenting on users and personalizing content disputes. --SonicY (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with this edit. These sources are fine and so is the proposed text. Why don't you guys stop edit-warring. We're supposed to be adding information to articles, not taking it away. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  I hope you forgot the "/s". Arkon (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we follow WP:BLP and therefore avoid applying non-neutral labels to Living people. Especially when the only sources are opinion articles that use as their sole source the author's opinion (WP:PRIMARY comes in here) and a Tumblr account run by some random person on the internet. ― Padenton|✉   22:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, like you're doing, is a form of mansplaining. Just because I'm male doesn't mean that I'm immune to micro-aggressions like having things mansplained to me like you're doing. The sources are fine. I've used them before during my nine years of editing WP. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Providing policies and guidelines in support of a discussion is not WP:WIKILAWYERING It seems in your 9 years of editing you've forgotten that arguments in discussions should be supported by policy, and they are. They aren't only supported by the letter of the policies/guidelines I've linked above, but also by the spirit and the reasons those policies were made. (edit conflict)"I've used them before during my nine years of editing WP" these specific sources? You've used opinion articles by random people who use as their sole explanation of their claim that Paul Ryan is mansplaining, the existence of a Tumblr account by a random anonymous person on the internet? And you use these sources to attack subjects of WP:BLP articles? Or that you've used a factual news article from HuffPost by a journalist with editorial oversight to support a statement of fact? ― Padenton|✉   23:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to see Cla from a distance, and I'm pretty sure he's just having a giggle. Otherwise I'd be worried about a compromised account. Arkon (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New Stuff

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/fifield-accuses-gallagher-hypocrisy-over-mansplaining-criticism/7159178 Arkon (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lemme 'splain it to you

Interesting article. I am curious: might the term have its origins in I Love Lucy? In that show her husband, Ricky Ricardo (Desi Arnaz), was famous for his line "Lemme 'splain it to you", and of course the related line "you got some 'splaining to do!" - combining his Cuban accent with his patronizing attitude toward Lucy. Has any reliable source made that connection? --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting connection, but I haven't heard it before. Merriam-Webster makes a casual link in this article, but they just liken the root of "mansplaining" to Ricardo's "'splaining". They don't attribute the behavior to him or comment on potential themes from the TV show. However, I gave up a bit quickly when my Google searches didn't seem to be turning up anything promising. Maybe someone with more patience could find a better source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

xoJane

Are there any opinions on the xoJane source that was removed in this edit? I thought it was reliable. I'd prefer we kept it in the article. Given the amount of contention over every sentence in this article, I thought it best to discuss instead of revert, though. I'm open to being convinced it's a blog, but, if I recall correctly, I've used this site as a source before without too much controversy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

xoJane's quality has dropped considerably in recent years (to the point where Time has pulled the plug on it), but it seems like it was well-regarded in 2012, when the article in question was written. I'm going to partially restore it, since the revert you pointed out resulted in a sentence fragment. clpo13_(talk) 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I didn't realize the site developed a bad reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Bias, political censorship, bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute.

One of the main problems with the article is the repeated political censorship of attempts to introduce a discussion of the similarities between the term "mansplaining" and other derogatory terms that only apply to a particular race or sex, intended to disempower, silence, side-line and belittle opinions based mainly on the fact that the person stating the opinion is of a particular group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro (talk • contribs) 11:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I redacted your other comments from this talk page because they seemed to be discussing the topic of 'mansplaining' itself rather than the article. Please note Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. Regarding the article, the concept of 'mansplaining' is notable by Misplaced Pages standards and should have an article. It is a controversial concept, and the article notes that, and includes comments from people who have criticised the term. However, we should only include criticism and other commentary from reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(And yes: I am aware of the irony that the above comment could itself be considered 'mansplaining'...) Robofish (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in definition

In the lede, the definition suggests that this is a phenomenon which is "often" or "typically" behaviour that is directed from a man to a woman.

However, the paragraph on the definition of this neologism is less ambiguous, stating that the bahaviour differs from "other forms of condescension" because it is "specifically" gender-related and that it is "rooted in a sexist assumption that a man" will be more knowledgeable.

It is either "typically" or "often", OR it is "specifically". It is not both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.92.247 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction. It's vague wording. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem item in lead

So I see something here that has problems. The sentence in the lead says "Many people consider the term to be pejorative, sexist and patronising to men", and it links to five sources. Unfortunately each of these sources has problems.

• Daily Kos is not a WP:RS.
• While the Guardian itself appears to be an RS, the "mind your language" series appears to either be a series of editorial opinion columns (which the policy seems to disallow for such a broad usage as is used here), or some other form of user-generated or user-submitted content from guest writers not tied to the same strict standards as the journalistic side.
• While the Globe and Mail appears to be an RS, the column is in "home>>opinion", and does not support the wording used claiming that "many" people take offense to the term.
• While the Australian Broadcasting Corporation appears to be an RS, the actual article is coverage of an argument between two members of the Australian government, and does not support the wording used claiming that "many" people take offense to the term.
• Similar to the Guardian source provided, while the Washington Post is an RS, the actual article is a submitted column to an opinion blog which does not fall under journalistic standards. The text in it does not support the phrasing "many people", and as an opinion column it cannot be used to support the claim made.

I'm taking it out. All of the sources are replicated in the controversy section, and at least in that area the opinion blogs and opinion columns properly attribute the view to just the writer. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have added it back in as the content is sourced and reasonably well attributed, noting criticism of the subject matter is right for a WP page. You have stated that the sources are all RS but then dismissed the content of them simply because the authors take a different viewpoint to your own opinion. WP should be balanced, it not about advocating one side of a issue and removing the opposing side. ThinkingTwice 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Some (not all) of the sources come from RS publications but from the opinion column or blog sections. If you read the WP:RS policy it is clear that opinion columns do not count for the way they have been used. See WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, nowhere in any of the 5 sources is any wording close to "Many people consider the term to be pejorative" used, so that is simply unsupported by the sources even if we set aside the fact that one is not an RS and the other four fall under WP:RSOPINION. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

On 2nd glance it does seem to be just a series of opinion columns. Perhaps the line could be rephrased and added to the Controversy section. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the content is already in the Controversy section, where it is properly attributed to authors (such as: "Author Cathy Young called it "a pejorative term...""). Morty C-137 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The information Morty C-137 keep removing talks about the many people who criticise this term, it talks about people who advocate for the term to no longer be used. The sources which are cited are reliable and correct for that viewpoint and their content backs up the detail which the paragraph discussion. If you do not like the way the paragraph is written or the sources used, feel free to reword it or find better sources but to simply remove it although is not helpful to WP. WP is filled with tens of thousands of references to peoples written work, many of them their options, where it is a journalist or an published academic's book. You only need to use a qualifier like "(Author) says..." when you are quoting from them, in this case the sources are used to prove the statement within the paragraph are correct. So when it says some people "consider the term unhelpful to feminism and advocate for its use to be stopped" it then provides sources to articles written by woman that advocate for it to be stopped. I don't see what is wrong with that. ThinkingTwice 20:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally the fact that is is a controversial term should not be lost right down at the bottom of the page, the summary section is meant to summaries the page contact which includes the fact that it is controversial and people see it as sexist and patronising. To hide that fact by removing it from the summary is POV pushing. We should return the paragraph and reword it if we feel it needs to be reworded but not blank it out.ThinkingTwice 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@ThinkingTwice: Going sentence by sentence.

• The sentence claim "Many people consider the term to be pejorative" is not supported by any of the 4 opinion columns (Daily Kos is right out as not ever being an RS), nor does that sentence attribute the claim to a particular writer.
• The sentence claim "Its use remains controversial and people who use it may find themselves categorised as sexist and a misandrist" is unsourced.
• The sentence claim "Because of this some moderate feminists consider the term unhelpful to feminism and advocate for its use to be stopped" sources back to an opinion column by Cathy Young, and to a second opinion column by Liz Cookman. However, it (a) does not attribute the claim to either author as required by WP:RSOPINION, and (b) neither Young nor Cookman's columns actually state anything about "moderate feminists" (the phrase does not even appear), nor does either author identify themselves as a "moderate feminist" in either piece. If we check Cathy Young's wikipedia page we quickly find that she is not, in fact, a "moderate feminist."

I can't see how anyone can argue to keep this in. Not only are there problems with attribution, the sources (such as they are) don't even textually back up the claims made. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, @ThinkingTwice:, you are not reading the policy. You claim "You only need to use a qualifier like "(Author) says..." when you are quoting from them" but the WP:RSOPINION policy says: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier". You cannot assert "many people consider the term to be pejorative" on the weight of a mere three opinion columns, without attributing the claim properly to at least one. Also in this case none of the three opinion columns, nor the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article about a legislative spat, actually say that "many people" consider it so. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Then as I have stated above, reword it and find better sources, don't just blank out contact which you don't like and leave the article unbalanced. This is a controversial subject and needs something in the summary to reflect it, having the current paragraph, however badly written is better than having nothing. I'm not dismissing your points I'm saying fix it, don't blank it out. If we always removed contact which was badly written or unsourced instead of fixing it then WP wouldn't exist anymore. Something about the fact that it is controversial needs to go back into the summary as it is now unbalanced and does not reflect the that some people find it patronising and sexist. ThinkingTwice 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The text is unsupported. If you think you can find valid sources and want to come up with wording, feel free to propose them here, but the blanket assertion is unsupported and has no business in the article. Oh, and the fact that there is a controversy section puts lie to your claim that the article is somehow unbalanced. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• The text was not unsupported, it just references articles and people's viewpoints you didn't like. I suggest we use something like this "The use of the term is controversial, with some commentators dismissing it as pejorative towards men and others who have actively called for its use to be stopped. There are also known instances where people have taken offence to its use." It's short and sharp and summaries the controversial aspect of the term and show that the references used are commentators opinions without going into to much detail which is not needed in a summary and which should be down the page. The fact that anything is controversial means that there are two groups of people with different opinions which should be reflected in a balanced WP article we can't dismiss sources just because they are written by people whose viewpoint you disagree with. ThinkingTwice (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Bissell, Hugh. "Use of the term "Mansplaining" is pejorative, and you should be ashamed for using it". Daily Kos. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
2. Young, Cathy (2016-07-04). "Feminists treat men badly and it's bad for feminism". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
3. Neiberg, Clover (17 April 2015). "UNPOPULAR OPINION: Can We Please Retire The Word "Mansplain"?". xojane.com. Xojane. Retrieved 6 June 2017.
4. Conifer, Dan. "Mitch Fifield accuses Katy Gallagher of sexist hypocrisy over 'mansplaining' criticism". abc.net.au. Retrieved 29 August 2016.

Skimmed the conversation, but I don't think we should be using opinion pieces as sources in the lead. If we use those, we should be ascribing the view to the author, not in Misplaced Pages's voice. Moreover, the lead should not be cited as it's to summarize the body of the article. To summarize the article, a simple "The term as been described as negative and essentialist by some commentators." would suffice as it summarizes the controversy described in the article without saying it in Misplaced Pages's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue with that is its a little washed out from the actual words commentators used in their articles (i.e. pejorative and sexist) at the least I think we should state that it is a controversial word. How about "The use of the term is controversial and has been described negatively and as essentialist by some commentators." I may have messed up the correct grammar around essentialist... ThinkingTwice 22:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am hesitant to claim it to be controversial (could be seen as WP:OR as we need secondary sources to claim it so), but this seems like a decent enough compromise to me. I am curious what Morty C-137 thinks. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The text remains unsupported. NONE of the sources - not even the Daily Kos one - support the claim that "Many people consider the term to be pejorative". Calling it "controversial" is also really pushing definitions. Evergreenfir's suggestion is maybe acceptable if there were more commentators but given a grand total of three, I think trying to push on "controversy" is adding WP:UNDUE weight. "Balanced" articles do not mean we should engage in False balance or False equivalence. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say it's not controversial, just google it you will find articles written about it and people who take great offence to it. The page itself talks about a couple of high profile times when it has been controversial. It can't be OR if there are references showing that people find it controversial. Morty to say that giving the summary balanced is somehow giving it UNDUE is wrong, your simply diminishing any viewpoint and commentators who don't fit with your own narrative and POV. ThinkingTwice 23:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

1st point: "just google it" is not a valid argument. 2nd point: "a couple of high profile times" does not equate to claiming that "many people consider the term to be pejorative". 3rd point: "It can't be OR if" - if you cannot show WP:RS sources to back up your wording, then it can't be in the article. 4th point: If you are telling others to "just google it", it means you have no sources to offer that are of any meaning, and you're hoping that people will trip on a non-RS source and not look critically at it. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Firstly I said Google it, to make a point, as that is the quickest and simplest way for you to see the truth - that people find it controversial and have written about it. This is a section which talks about the controversial nature of this term, just because in your opinion its not controversial doesn't mean its not. That the nature of controversy, it means that there are at least two viewpoints on a subject with dispute and conflicting opinions. Just because with your own POV its exceptionable doesn't mean everyone finds it so and to just blank out and remove contact because you don't like it is unacceptable. You keep going back to the original text and attacking it, did I ever say it was perfect? No, my issue was with your action of WP:Section blanking. Secondly this article is not a list, it contains "a couple of high profile times" because that's all it needs to show controversy. It would be wrong to turn it into a long list. Thirdly when a paragraph says that some commentators have a negative opinion of the term, it then rightly links to a couple of articles showing commentators having negative opinions, sorry but that is RS and to dismiss there opinions because you disagree with them is flat out POV pushing. How about this? "There has been some controversy with the use of the term. It has been described negatively and as essentialist by some commentators." ThinkingTwice 06:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"People find it controversial" is not a measure of relevance; everything is controversial to someone. The article has a section on controversy, which is the proper placement for the anti-mainsplain point of view. The lead simply introduces the subject matter, it doe snot go into excessive detail over all angles. ValarianB (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm. ThinkingTwice, maybe just maybe you should actually think twice about virtually everything you are saying.

• I said Google it, to make a point, as that is the quickest and simplest way for you to see the truth - The last time someone tried that dishonest BS with me it was an antivax tinfoil hatter. No thanks. You want to present a point? Then present your point with WP:RS sources, don't shout "google it" dishonestly at people.
• and to just blank out and remove contact - You keep using the word "contact" over and over, I do not think it means what you think it means... in fact, I am beginning to suspect that english is not your first language and that you really don't understand the article in general?
• "Section Blanking"??? I removed a mere two lines onscreen, which comprised barely three sentences. It was not even close to a full section, and all of it was unsupported by the purported references as detailed quite thoroughly above.
• it contains "a couple of high profile times" because that's all it needs to show controversy. - No, what is needed to show controversy is an actual WP:RS, or better several, stating that controversy exists.

I don't think you really understand the topic, the article, the wikipedia policies involved... and I would say it is you who is "flat out POV pushing." Morty C-137 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"Facepalm" @Morty C-137: - that’s right go ahead and smack yourself…

In the interest of WP:Consensus what about "The usefulness of the term is disputed and has been described as negative and essentialist by some commentators.". Under the WP: Lead section policy the summary is meant to summaries the page which includes the fact that it is see as controversial by some and has been criticised. To remove any reference to this fact and just blank it out is not appropriate for any article. ThinkingTwice 15:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Find some actual WP:RS sources that aren't under WP:RSOPINION that we can source that general statement to. Until then, removing the unsourced assertions is absolutely appropriate. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You don’t get to remove contact which you don’t like and then demand that others find better sources which you can’t be asked to find yourself. The line which EvergreenFir suggested above in its original or the one where I have added 7 words to it, is appropriate and summaries the data within the article. Remember if we cannot reach consensus here than in accordance with the policy WP:NOCON the article should be returned to its original position prior to your bold edit. ThinkingTwice 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is against you at this point. And no, you're still just dishonestly shouting "google it" (plus, seriously, the word is "content"). If you can find WP:RS sources saying that there is a controversy that are not encumbered by WP:RSOPINION, present them. At present, there is precious little "controversy" about the term, as evidenced by the fact that the sum total of "sources" is a mere 3 opinion columns and one news incident in which a particularly misogynist Australian politician got in a huff when called out on how he was treating a female colleague. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No sorry that's not how it works... consensus is against you because your the one who made the edit and needs to get consensus for blanking the data. I'm happy with EvergreenFir suggestion and only suggested adding a little extra to it which in the interest of Consensus will fogo. ThinkingTwice 16:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you seem to understand neither the concept of consensus nor "contact" versus "content". Neither Evergreenfir, ValarianB nor myself are on board with the wording you are trying to push, and Evergreenfir asked if I would be ok with alternate wording (which you keep trying to dishonestly reword and add to). I have already said I will only be ok with it if you can source it to WP:RS sources that are appropriate for a blanket statement (which means no, WP:RSOPINION sources do not match, nor does a single brief news coverage of a legislative spat that makes no broader statements). The consensus, of myself, ValarianB and Evergreenfir appears to be, per ValarianB's edit summary, "best to discuss its INclusion rather than exclusion first". Morty C-137 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hiya. I don't actually poke at this article much but watch it out of topical interest. Evergreenfir's suggested compromise text seems ideal to me, although I'm with Morty that we should tag it with a reliable source since the content itself has been so controversial. It is the most concise and succinct summary of the section that describes those views of the term, which is exactly the point of the lead. The more detailed wording that has been proposed by ThinkingTwice seems to brush up against potential POV problems and possibly even WP:UNDUE when included in the lead like that. State that some commentary has expressed concerns because of xyz and then back that statement up with a source or two noting said controversy. The editorial sources can be included in the body to articulate in more detail the specific issues that have been raised. Millahnna (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue with inclusion of wording at present is that no source yet presented backs up the idea of a generic or general "controversy". There are a very few opinion columns presented (which can't be used to back up a generic statement, per WP:RSOPINION) and they are already presented with the statements/opinions appropriately credited to the authors in the Controversy section, such as it is. In the absence of a WP:RS actually saying that it's controversial, we can't say it's controversial. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I was very clear. What I meant by that ramble is that I'd support Evergreenfir's text as they presented it (i.e. without the additions proposed by ThinkingTwice), upon the condition that a reliable source was provided per your (Morty's) comments. I wholeheartedly concur that opinion pieces in the lead to support the statement of controversy is inappropriate. Where they are now in the article body to back up the statements of individual commentary is fine. So basically, I completely agree with you. I just wanted to drop in another voice in the name of consensus since it seemed everyone was going round in circles. Not sure if there are any wiki projects with this article in their purview. In the film and tv projects, I often drop notes on the project talk pages if I spot a heated debate that could use extra eyeballs to help establish consensus. Millahnna (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about it, if ThinkTwice can't find any RS to back up their claim that there is a broader-sense "controversy" about the term, that section should probably be renamed Criticism. What do you think? Morty C-137 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That would track with how I've seen similar issues addressed in other articles. If there are policies or guidelines that would indicate a need for an exception in this case, I'm unaware of them. For that matter, the sentences under debate in the lead would more accurately summarize the relevant section with a similar rephrase: The term has received criticism for blah blah and blah where the "blahs" would be brief statements that reflect the common themes in our sources down in Controversy. Am I making any sense? I mostly edit film articles and it strikes me that there is a similarity in how we write critical reception sections there and how controversy/criticism sections like this work. Millahnna (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

The mention of different views in the lead used to be short. Over time people changed it. A short mention of a substantially different view regarded the matter, pointed out by numerous critics is a Misplaced Pages standard, as seen at Political Correctness. I'll cut out the unneeded, keep it a short sentence very alike that of Political Correctness that will say: "Some critics consider the term to be pejorative and sexist towards men". I also found three more sources supporting this statement. If you disagree, in your argument also point out why the mention at Political Correctness is wrong. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want it in, you have to present Reliable Sources that support the language you are looking for. Also, hey look over there is a fallacious argument unworthy of bothering with, so I'm not bothering with your specious secondary demand. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Going by the above discussion, consensus appears to be against inclusion. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Also I did a quick check: no wording such as "some critics consider..." currently appears at Political Correctness. Kindly don't make garbage up and then dishonestly ask people to answer "questions" based on a clear falsehood. By my count, every sentence in that lede has at least one source and a couple as many as seven, ranging from reliable news publications to scholarly books and journals. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2017 (U

Indeed, we do not base Misplaced Pages edits on what is in another article, if there is a problem with that article then it should be discussed there. I have also taken the liberty of reverting an edit by "Attack Helicopter", an account created 2 days ago, 1st edit is to restore Magoo/Barker's preferred text. Quite tempted to file a sock puppet investigation request, but unfortunately I will be away from all technology for 2-3 days, beginning in about 2 minutes. ValarianB (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Given similarity in behavior of "Attack Helicopter" I've added a note on that to an open SPI in progress. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding sockpuppets, this is what was written there about you: "Morty is a 4 month old account with grudges. If there are any accounts that scream "sockpuppet", it's Morty. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)" Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all sources we have are some sort of opinion posts. Anything else is a dictionary reference. But as you know, Misplaced Pages is not meant to be a dictionary. Besides these dictionary links, we have nothing usable if you are that tight with accepting anything as a source. In my opinion, it's blatant hypocrisy judging what you disagree with as not usable and then turn a blind eye to the quality of what you agree with.

In addition, all criticism of the sources was met with the new short sentence. All of the sources support the current form. You have offered zero criticism but just a general beckoning that the sources are not usable which is again clearly false and of utmost hypocrisy. Concensus over a day without any arguments is just tag-team edit-warring and not concensus. If there is any concensus, it is the standard shown at Political Correctness. Additionally numerous editors have argued for its inclusion and you have edit-warred against them to remove it. I will let this discussion run its course but at the end I'll just call up an RfC as usual and get editors other than who fervantly operate from a radical viewpoint to have their say. As of now, I'll return it until you have an actual argument to offer and not just reverts. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You are the one proposing new text that is not supported by consensus, so while it is under discussion, it shall remain out. Obviously those who are the subject of mansplaining accusations are going to holler back, but it doesn't necessarily make their criticism notable for inclusion, especially in the lede. TheValeyard (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What concensus? You disregard anyone who disagrees with you as a sockpuppet. Any source he above disagrees with is unusable even though being less reliable than all the other sources combined. This is again just tag-team edit-warring. Again, you offered zero arguments. I will have it stay until someone bothers to offer an argument and not just "votes". Misplaced Pages is not decided by votes but by arguments. Concensus is not voting. I'll let the discussion run for a while until I call for the RfC and larger attention and at that point we'll let "votes" show us the concensus. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The preceding discussion before your addition (Section title: Problem item in lead) shows a consensus that this material should not be in place, User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker. Please stop trying to reinsert it until you can show that consensus has changed. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a guideline for this kind of "concensus" argument. It is discouraged and it's pointless. Arguing that there is concensus without offering any other argument is completely moot. It boils down to edit-warring.

I mentioned how the other sources used that you have no problem with are in fact less reliable. I took a look at them. The article uses heavily as a primary source Rebella Solnit's essay Men Explain Things To Me and unreliable pop news sites quoting it. It was originally published at TomDispatch.com but sites like LA Times republished it as one of their opinion posts. It's categorized under "opinion" in the url. Then we have the author's new article used as a source: titled "Men Still Explain Things To Me", categorized under "Activism" at TheNation.com. Then we have articles like the one from The Atlantic by a freelance writer. Categorized under "Sexes". Begins with a meme image from Someecards.

These are the main sources used for the article. All of it is more unreliable than actual news articles depicting politicians arguing over the term. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to suffer under some misconceptions.

1. A freelance writer, writing in a widely regarded Reliable Source, is no less reliable for the status of the writer as freelance rather than salaried staff, as the article still has to pass through the same editorial controls and fact-checking controls in place at the WP:RS either way.
2. The article you mention by Rebecca Solnit (not "Rebella" as you snidely insult her name) is by a published expert in the field and is not used in Misplaced Pages's voice but is attributed specifically to her in the text.

The content you are attempting to edit-war into existence, by contrast, does not pass WP:RS testing in any way and does not credit any specific expert's commentary to them by name but instead attempts to force in an unsupported claim of generic controversy. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Freelance writer, fringe site, not a news article but clearly as an opinion post. And how is this reliable again? How is using two different references to Solnit's same essay, multiple fringe sites quoting the same essay, and then her new essay as sources reliable? This article is basically Rebecca Solnit's own words. How is she not undue then? And regarding her "expertise", her degree is in journalism, not social studies. And it was a typo with her first name. You have offered zero arguments how the other articles aren't reliable. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Laying low for a few days then jamming your preferred version in isn't exactly a winning strategy here. That a conservative columnist disagrees with the term is hardly notable, and certainly not worth mentioning in the article lede, there is sufficient coverage of the opposing point of view in the Criticism section. TheValeyard (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I can only participate at Misplaced Pages at a specific time of the day for a short period. And you have clearly made no effort to jam your version multiple times without responding to me at talk before. It was the only way I could make you participate at talk. Mind you, all this time, I'm trying to return the article to pretty much the stable version it existed in for over a year with the mention in the lead. And I already pointed out that we mention Lily Rothman and Rebecca Solnit in the lead. Why? Why is Cathy Young different then? And it is not just Cathy Young. It is what 6 different commentators? How are they not notable together? You're offering no explanation for any of this I've already talked about before. And if there is sufficient criticism, then why is it not shortly mentioned in the lead like in other articles that are in highly similar situations and have gone through years of discussions and RfCs to arrive at those forms they exist in today? Again, what is the difference? To me it seems the difference is there aren't enough editors participating here but just a select few participants who target this kind of articles. Their editing results in a flopsided "truth" not generally agreed upon by the general Misplaced Pages editorship. I also pointed out the problems with the other sources in the article. This criticism was barely responded to, only some parts defended. That is another issue but even that is being generally ignored. If I were to edit that, I'd be tag-team reverted. "Concensus". Again, there is a policy against this kind of concensus that doesn't use words. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

What time periods you have permission to be on the Internet is not our concern. Many of us have discussed this issue on the talk page, you continue to be the lone voice in support of your point of view. We all talk, it goes quiet for a few days, then the first edit on your "return" is to edit-war. Talk, absence, edit-war, reappearance, edit-war, talk, absence, and on and on you go. TheValeyard (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

He's not a lone voice as stated below and above when Morty-C first blacked the data. I also support making the heading more balanced and bring it in line with policy. As per WP:Lead it should be a summary of everything written within the article, including the fact that it has been criticised and is controversial. The blanking out of any reference to criticism in the opening section stops a casual reader from understanding a proper summary of the contents of the full article and therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supporters of the term and does not reflect a balanced and WP:NEUTRAL summary of all sides. This being that Lily Rothman's and Rebecca Solnit's POV WP:Opinions have been allowed to continue yet the counter viewpoint has been removed. ThinkingTwice 13:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you calling me a child now? Your modus operandi seems to be as disruptive as possible to simply make others give up. You weren't participating at talk and responding to my arguments whatsoever but just removing my addition. Again, we can clearly see you came to this section to insult me but didn't bother to respond to the bottom section with the very noticiable and large suggestion. Don't bother to pretend like you have actually attempted to discuss. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

May want to calm down a bit and have some WP:TEA, this isn't life or death. You insist on inserting undue criticism into the lead of the article when there is a Criticism sub-section that already suffices. Not much more to it than that. TheValeyard (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling undue without explaining specifically why and comparing with other material and sources in the article is a weasel argument. There is so much criticism it overwhelms the sources that aren't criticism. Other articles in a similar situation like Political Correctness mention the criticism shortly in the lead. And the form they arrived at was talked at length in RfCs. It can be called the standard. And you're still avoiding the bottom section. This is a farce now. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Hello. On June 22, 2017, a sourced addition of mine was reverted. I would welcome a more detailed explanation than "reverting a plain example of someone mansplaining on the mansplain article. Irony!" Thanks. 79.180.91.199 (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is regarding this edit. The added content included editorializing language ("hardly", "owe a debt", and "central but contentious feminist concepts") which are incompatible with WP:NPOV and WP:FORMAL. A conference paper is a WP:PRIMARY source of limited value for such a broad, ambiguous statement, also. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I see. I guess that could be fixed. Earlier, my inclusion of the article into Category:Feminist terminology was reverted, and I didn't really have any basis to challenge the revert on because the article did not make any mention of the word "feminism" or "feminist," so I didn't re-include the article into the category until adding a source that emphasized the feminist roots of the term. Might you have any suggestions? 79.180.91.199 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

More eyes, please

There's been quite an uptick in vandalism on this article lately, we need a bit more vigilance from regular editors. Thanks. TheValeyard (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I can help. One of the editors trying to POV push here (who appears now to be edit warring trying to put back text that ThinkingTwice was pushing and that has no consensus) is actually a person who WP:WIKIHOUNDed me to this page. They're doing it for the express purpose of trying to goad me and it takes quite a bit of restraint not to engage with them. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe @Millahnna: can help somewhat, since the current person edit warring misrepresented their edit claiming to be inserting "compromise text" even though Millahnna's comment is clear that their proposed text would only be valid if a fully WP:RS source that didn't fall into the single-person WP:RSOPINION op-ed category could be found to back it?

Cathy Young - WP:UNDUE for this article?

Given that Cathy Young seems to be rather WP:FRINGE, it seems odd to rest almost half the criticism section on her views. How bad would it be if we skipped the Washington Post article? Morty C-137 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cathy Young is more famous than any of the other journalists in this article. But your reasoning really seems to be removing those you disagree with and including those you agree with. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

How famous she is has nothing to do with this. "Some critics" is WP:WEASELish, and there are other problems as well. I know it's frustrating, but edit warring is still edit warring even if people aren't engaging with you on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Some critics was changed to "Some controversy around the term exists". Did you miss that? That's the core part. It's as polite and succinct as I could think of. The afterword about Cathy Young is nigh meaningless and it is there only to mention someone in specific. I didn't care to list the Australian politician or the other commentators, but if that is needed then I'll do that too. But it should be a very short mention, that's the point. I took example of the mentions of Lily Rothman and Rebecca Solnit in the lead already. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

And what do you think about "Some controversy around the term exists"? Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Some controversy around the term exists" is functionally no different from "Some critics...". They both impart the same negative connotations without providing any context at all. Succinct is good, but this is not truly polite, it's merely formal. As a starting point, explain here on talk, succinctly, exactly what this controversy is. If we can summarize this in neutral language, we can use this to expand the lede to reflect the criticism section of the body. This isn't necessarily the end goal, however, since WP:CSECTIONs have their own set of problems. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But that starting point has already been met, it was the "pejorative" and "sexist" part. How do we make "sexist" neutral? Gender-biased? If we add in that it has been described pejorative or gender-biased, is that good? Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As in "Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators describing the term as pejorative or gender-biased." How's that? Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like this hinges on how much WP:WEIGHT the "critics" have. What sources are we trying to hang this on, exactly? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the first edit you have made at this article, old friend. I hope you didn't WP:WIKIHOUND me here. WP:WEIGHT is a fairly weasely argument. Pretty much all of the article is based upon opinion articles like I have already pointed out, but it seems when one is in agreement with the sources the credibility is of no matter. To begin questioning the numerous sources the edit had, the likes of which the Australian politics debate and the description by the Australian politician, is just silly. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, WP:AGF much? How could I be wikihounding when we haven't interacted in months. Maybe more than year even - (I assume the "old friend" part is a tacit acknowledgement of that?). And WEIGHT isn't a "weasely argument" it's policy. I looked at the sources that were removed, they look pretty poor in terms of weight tbh. Not opposed to including criticism but we should pick the best sources & most prominent critics, and it should be properly attributed and worded - vague stuff like "controversy exists" really is weasely. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one to have brought up wikifounding first, remember? So that's why I felt it suitable and casual enough. Weight is weasely when you don't explain why and compare it with other material in the article. If the sources aren't good enough, explain why. If the weight is undue, explain in comparison with the other sources and material. For I have already pointed out the exact same problem the other sources have. This is an article for which there are no better articles that opinion articles and essays by authors, really. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming this suggestion is not to find better references and add more to expand the criticism section, but simply to try and get a consensus for removing half the section, presumably as a steppingstone for it's entire removal in the future. Cathy Young is not WP:Fringe, the only reason someone would think so is that they only look at a specific viewpoint and read only articles written which support that one POV. For example only 7% of UK woman identify themselves as a Feminist and when asked those that don't generally hold simpler view to Cathy Young. In fact with films like The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye being published more people are starting to question feminist ideology - just as Cathy Young does. ThinkingTwice 14:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Mention at the lead

Like already talked about, the stable version of over a year had a mention of the controversy at the end of the lead. It had grown too long so it was removed recently.

My suggestion for the replacement is a short mention:

Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators describing the term as pejorative or gender-biased.

There is the Australian debate, well-covered and this is but a few of the articles on the matter:

Then there is Cathy Young:

Then there is Kinzel:

Cookman:

MPR:

Controversy in Sweden:

Even Globe supports the new language:

All of the sources really support this language. Suggestions and improvements are welcome. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Ireland, Judith (11 February 2016). "'What?': Katy Gallagher explains mansplaining to Mitch Fifield during fiery estimates showdown". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 13 December 2016.
2. Conifer, Dan. "Mitch Fifield accuses Katy Gallagher of sexist hypocrisy over 'mansplaining' criticism". abc.net.au. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
3. Waugh, Paul (February 2, 2016). "'Mansplaining' Australian Government Minister Mitch Fifield Hits Out After Being Accused Of Patronising A Female Colleague". Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
4. Young, Cathy (29 September 2013). "Is the Patriarchy dead?". Reason.com. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
5. Young, Cathy (June 30, 2016). "Feminists treat men badly. It's bad for feminism". Washington Post. Whatever the reasons for the current cycle of misandry — yes, that's a word, derided but also adopted for ironic use by many feminists — its existence is quite real. Consider, for example, the number of neologisms that use "man" as a derogatory prefix and that have entered everyday media language: "mansplaining," "manspreading" and "manterrupting."
6. Kinzel, Lesley (16 August 2012). "Why You'll Never Hear Me Use the Term 'Mansplain'". XoJane. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
7. Cookman, Liz (12 February 2015). "Allow me to explain why we don't need words like 'mansplain'". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
8. "Do we need a different word for 'mansplaining'?". MPR News. December 19, 2016. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
9. Savage, James (November 14, 2016). "Mansplaining campaign faces backlash over 'sexism'". The Local SE. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
10. England, Charlotte (November 22, 2016). "Men call Sweden's mansplaining hotline to mansplain why they don't like it". Independent. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
11. McLaughlin, Tom; Sealy-Harrington, Joshua (15 April 2014). "Arguments should not be silenced because of their author's race or sex". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

The new language also supports articles like the Salon one. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Hart, Benjamin (20 October 2014). "RIP "mansplaining": How the Internet killed one of our most useful words". Salon. Retrieved 30 October 2014.

I'm against the removal of all and any reference to criticism in the lead section because the lead should be a summary of everything written within the article, including the fact that it has been criticised and is controversial as per WP:Lead. The blanking out of any reference to criticism in the opening section stops a casual reader from understanding a proper summary of the contents of the full article and therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supporters of the term and does not reflect a balanced and WP:NEUTRAL summary of all sides. This being that Lily Rothman's and Rebecca Solnit's POV WP:Opinions have been allowed to continue yet the counter viewpoint has been removed. I would therefore support your suggestion as it’s accurate and concise. I would also include this BBC reference (link) which I just remembered watching recently, although short, it does reflect the fact that some see the term as “sexist” and it describes it as “labelled with a term which divides people just as much as it highlights inequity in society”. ThinkingTwice 09:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Listing every example of criticism in a footnote is an interesting idea, and not totally without any precedent, but the execution of this was deeply flawed. By listing them in very broad terms, without any commonality or outside source to summarize the controversy, this is implying that all of these sources are saying something similar, which is blatently false. Further, they are not equal or proportional. This isn't representing the consensus of sources, this is a fairly carefully curated set of criticisms. It's not remotely neutral to imply that's a mainstream view of the term. The lead should summarize the controversy according to reliable, independent sources, not just list off every source which is vaguely negative on the term as though they all say the same thing. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Magoo, it was highly disengenuous of you to restore this with an edit summary claiming that it has unanimous support when it obviously doesn't. Myself, grayfell and the valeyard are all on record as opposing it.

To be clear, my problem is not with "mention in the lede," it's with the wording and the sources used in the edit you keep trying to restore. Phrasing like "controversy exists" and "some commentators" is way too vague. We should pick the criticisms (and critics) that have the most weight and can be sourced well, then attribute the specific criticisms to them. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither of you have bothered to comment on this before even though you have clearly seen this. Fyddlestix has now appeared here at this article only to start reverting me without having had any edits here before. Please tell me how did you even find your way here. And why do you revert in perfect harmony with Grayfell without bothering to talk first and only then as if by agreement heading to talk together to disagree here when finally you think it's time to actually comment and not just pretend this doesn't exist? Why does the group of editors opposing this do reverts and not bother to talk in such perfect harmony? Mystery. It was concensus and unanimous because all participating editors had supported it for 10 days at talk. How you see it otherwise and instantly both revert is again mysterious.

And when it comes to the arguments, you now try to be as vague as possible. You both criticize the "wording" as vaguely as possibly without specifying any alternatives or ways around. But this kind of wording is standard and seen at articles like Political Correctness which arrived at it after lengthy talks in which you participated as well Fyddlestix. In fact the situation is eerily similar.

• Grayfell, you have agreed with it being in the lede before but you claim the sources aren't saying something similar. All of the sources support one of the two descriptions being given by critics, either pejorative or gender-biased in some form. Please, suggest an alternative.
• Grayfell, you state it's not neutral to imply it's a mainstream view. That's why it specifies some commentators. Suggest an alternative, please.
• Fyddlestix, you agree with it being in the lede but have a problem with the wording. I had it more specific before but it was complained about. One can't be specific in the lede. That's an oxymoron. Ledes are for abstract definitions, not specifics. Do you have an alternative? Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how watchlists work? This kind of rapid fire editing thing is extremely common, especially in politically contentious areas, and your insinuations would be a lot more insulting if they weren't so absurd. If you're just going to assume this is sock-puppetry just come out and say it, but you're going to have to do a lot more work than that. Otherwise, don't cast aspersions.

The sources you lumped together do not say the same thing at all. By lumping them together, you are implying that they all support a similar viewpoint, which, as I've already said, is blatantly false. Do I really need to go line-by-line through them all?

As one brief example, the Benjamin Hart op-ed specifically characterizes the word as having been extremely useful and widely applicable before it was applied too broadly and fizzled-out. Calling this "controversial" or "pejorative" is so simplistic it's grossly misleading.

The Independent source only says that the term is 'sexist' according to Facebook posts. Is that it? Is that why this was included? The article itself describes mansplaining as very common phenomenon and a useful term worth discussing and addressing. Using this as part of a list of criticisms is flat-out wrong.

As one more example, summarizing the Australian thing as a 'controversy' is similarly reductive to the point of meaninglessness. The person who is implying that it's "gender-biased" in this situation is doing so in reaction to being directly called a mansplainer. Fifield is neither a neutral party, nor reliable as an expert in language/social-issues/sexism. Using specific political hot air to inflate the status of the term as generally "controversial" is misleading at best. Also, it's intended to be somewhat pejorative, isn't it? Why would that, by itself, have anything to do with 'controversy existing', to use your phrasing?

I think that's enough that you can reasonably see why this isn't a productive change, so it needed to be reverted. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry? No, I just believe he found the article through my edit history. If he had the article on his "watchlist", he sure never bothered to edit or talk at it before. This kind of behavior is called WP:HOUNDING and he was one to accuse me of it in the past so it's only fitting it fits both ways.

I'll go line by line through the articles below this post. It'll take a while. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I also support inclusion of some reference to criticism in the lead for the same core reason as ThinkingTwice: the lead should reflect the contents of the article and there's a section dedicated to criticism of the word. I agree with Greyfell's concern about the text not reflecting the sources. It will be useful to examine what the contents of the above sources are: 1. Ireland, Judith: Quotes Fifield's criticism of the word as invoking gender 2. Conifer, Dan: same as above. 3. Waugh, Paul: same as above. 4. Young, Cathy: Young criticises the term as being gender-based and describes it as pejorative. 5. Young, Cathy: Young criticises the term as being gender-based. 6. Kinzel, Lesley: Kinzel criticises the term as being gender-based. 7. Cookman, Liz: Cookman describes the term as taking on pejorative meanings and criticises it as being gender-based. 8. MPR News: Solnit criticises the term as being gender-based, Huang describes it as offensive. 9. Savage, James: quotes general criticism on facebook, including a description of the term as a 'negative invective' 10. facebook comments as above, one calling it sexist. 11. Authors describe it as dismissive and sexist. 1(a). Hart, Benjamin: Describes the term as inflaming the gender wars and calls it a put-down.

From my reading of the sources (taking into account the fact that some sources are repeated or unreliable), the best sourced wording would remove the 'pejorative' element and retain the 'gender-biased' element. However, I think the term 'gender-biased' is just a euphemism for 'sexist' so we should instead be direct and say that. As such, my suggested wording is "Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators describing the term as sexist." Cjhard (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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