Talk:Mansplaining/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 ^{talk to me} 22:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholars decide what's a Social phenomenon

According to EvengreenFir [1], 'The people who "decide" [a word]'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..",[2] 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[3]. 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)

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 Wikipedia editors. We can't write essays on Wikipedia. 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)

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^(talk) 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 ^{talk to me} 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^{talk to me} 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 ^{talk to me} 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 - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cultural Marxism. Contentious is right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 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 ^{talk to me} 02:54, 22 January 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 ^{talk to me} 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)

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 ^{talk to me} 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 ^{talk to me} 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)

Why Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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 ^{talk to me} 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)

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 Wikipedia 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.[7] 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 [4], 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: [5] and [6]. 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: Wikipedia 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)

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^(talk) 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 ^{talk to me} 08:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia does not create terms. It covers notable neologisms described in published sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 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.

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)

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 ^{talk to me} 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)

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 ^{talk to me} 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.

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: [7] [8]?
4. Yes, material in the lead should be moved into the body.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 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)

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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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.[9] 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Regarding the article, the concept of 'mansplaining' is notable by Wikipedia 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)

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 ^{talk to me} 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. [10] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 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)

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?