Misplaced Pages

User talk:Loneranger4justice: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:06, 14 September 2006 editOnedayoneday~enwiki (talk | contribs)12 edits message← Previous edit Revision as of 21:09, 14 September 2006 edit undoOnedayoneday~enwiki (talk | contribs)12 editsm whereNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:


You're a sick puppy.--] 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) You're a sick puppy.--] 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::Where you go I will find you. You are not safe anywhere.--] 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:09, 14 September 2006

Hi, Loneranger4justice - I noticed some of the edits you've been making to pages like Feminazi and radical feminism, and I reverted some of them due to POV issues. Right now, the Feminazi article in particular has a lot of POV wording and unsourced material. Please work on a more neutral point of view and provide some more citations as you edit. Thanks! - Tapir Terrific 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: your message: Adding other perspectives can be great and can really add to a reader's understanding of an article, but that's not quite the same as POV. Let me be a bit more specific about my concerns:
  • your word choice often does not reflect a neutral point of view. Words and phrases like "capriciously," "perverted the justice system," "biased hate speech laws," etc. - these are all value judgments and are not very encyclopedic.
  • you haven't referenced much of what you wrote. For instance, when you say, "arranged matters so the privileged group who harmed, or even murdered, members of the target group were shown leniency - and often applauded," I honestly have no idea what that's about. Statements like that need to be backed up with statistics, verifiable examples, etc., not just to negate POV but to give the reader a clear idea of what you're talking about.
  • many of your edits seem off-topic to me. For instance, feminazism is a very specific term, and except in cases of hyperbole is usually used to refer to a very specific group of people or specific ideology. In your edits, however, you cover an extensive number of subjects under the heading of feminazism. Most of the people I know advocate one or more of the things you mentioned in your extensive list - does that make most people I know feminazis? If not, then those aspects of the article don't really help illustrate what the term means.
Anyway, I may be offline for a while and unable to reply to any comments. Thanks. - Tapir Terrific 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the feed back

for me to source all the commentary would turn this topic into a novel, I'll exclude some of the titles for now, then add then later when I dig up sources. My point is that the term 'feminazi' is widely used in the father's right's & men's rights movements, probably more so than anywhere else, but this perspective is ommited from the wikipedia page, which just seems to offer some vague and fuzzy feelings about the word or how it was used once or twice in the media. the laundry list of parrallels is used to illustrate how, in collective, the essence of 'nazism' exists in radical feminist methods and propaganda,. to illustrate the clear parrallels with the nazis & kkk who also had the 'priviledged class' vs. the 'targeted class'.


Sick

You're a sick puppy.--Onedayoneday 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Where you go I will find you. You are not safe anywhere.--Onedayoneday 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)