Talk:Feminist technoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Feminism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Women scientists (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's History and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Metal workers[edit]

There are no ancient extant sources for metal workers other than that recorded in the Bible book of Genesis 4:22.. Tubal-Cain, a male, is recorded to be an artisan of both bronze and iron. This would have been approximately between 4000 and 6000 BC.------- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.104.41 (talkcontribs) 19:00, 31 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

The article states several opinions as facts:

  • "[women designed] tools such as the machete, hoe, or sickle,"
    • This directly conflicts with the Hoe (tool) page, which doesn't state a direct inventor or designer.
    • The Hoe article does state an inventor in Sumerian mythology, but Enlil is male.
    • The Machete page does not state an author.
    • The Sickle page indicates that the tool is from prehistory, dating as far back as before the Neolithic era. The gender of the person that invented it cannot be known with the level of certainty asserted in this article.
  • "'male machines' replaced 'female wits' as identifiers of modern technology"
    • I'm not sure what this means. It implies that modern machenery is a male invention, and that previous inventions were all female, and that modern machinery is not a good replacement for the preindustrial age. I could be entirely wrong here, but this feels like it is assuming a lot.
  • "liberal and Marxist feminist ... considered the technology as neutral and did not pay attention to the symbolic dimension of technoscience"
    • This implies that the liberal and Marxist feminists were wrong, and that technoscience is correct.
  • This list is not all-inclusive.

This article also lacks any indication of the relative prominence of opposing views. It is unclear whether it gives undue weight to the pro-feminist movement, since this article is about a feminist topic. However, many of the ideas stated in this article are not widespread, so perhaps it is worth discussing undue weight. From this page, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and spaaace. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." - Polemic Thoughts (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you coming straight to the talking page rather than editing it out yourself. However, one of the core principles of Wikipdia is to be bold in your edits. If someone disagrees, they will probably revert, and then you can make an argument for certain words' omission/addendum. You appear to be a slight overachiever in this regard, as you elaborated on your reasons before rather than after. One of the other sole principle of Wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone (under certain guidelines). You seem to be off to a great start, making sure that why you propose something is quite evident. Even though my advice is non binding, I encourage you to improve the article as you see fit and to again, BOLD, be bold. WP:BRD may also be useful as a read. Though if it does get reverted, don't fret. Make your case here once more with the conflicting editor. Ging287 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Microwave[edit]

This article claimed "the microwave was designed for men who live alone". This directly contradicts both the article on microwave ovens as well as advertisements from the time of the first home microwave ovens. removed. Please refer to "Raytheon Company: The First Sixty Years" ISBN-13: 978-0738537474 for clarification on the origin of the microwave oven.95.44.74.171 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

To those who created this page, you are the sexist pigs who claim to want equality, yet assert "Surperiority." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.69.38.164 (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ad hominem doesn't work very well, especially since there's a policy against personal attacks. Please provide constructive criticism of the article, or be bold and attempt to fix it up yourself. Ging287 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)