The Female Eunuch is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Owen, I think you know very well that, after having been reverted, you should not immediately make the same edit again, per WP:BRD. I understand why you think the passage discussing LeVay's criticism of Greer's book needs to be rewritten, but the wording you introduced ("Neuroscientist Simon LeVay has disputed Greer's claim that there are no differences between the brains of men and women with citations to subsequent scientific research") is confusing and reads poorly. I suggest that something like, "Neuroscientist Simon LeVay has argued that subsequent scientific research contradicts Greer's claim that there are no differences between the brains of men and women", would be better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that change is fine, and I've worked it into the article. Owen (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the material you added about Cordelia Fine and her book Delusions of Gender. I have searched through an online copy, and it appears that Fine does not even mention Greer, making her views irrelevant to the article. If Fine does mention Greer, could you please explain on which page of the book she does so? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the paragraph starting Greer references the loss of women's freedom with the "sudden death of communism" (1989) and the quotation that followed. Even though I did not read the book, I am pretty sure that it is impossible to talk about events happening in 1989 in a book from 1970. Also the quote the freedom I pleaded for twenty years ago seems like a good indicator that this is from "The Whole Woman", which Greer wrote about 20 years later.
You're quite wrong. The material you removed was from the revised edition of The Female Eunuch, and has nothing to do with The Whole Woman. Perhaps the material should be rewritten to make it clear that the passage was added in a revised edition of the book, but there doesn't seem to be any reason why it should be simply removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. As said, it was an assumption based on the fact that a 1970 book cannot refer 1989, while "The whole Woman", written after 1989, could. I had not expected there to be a revision 20 years later, at the same time the follow-up book was released. But here are a few more important things to consider:
If someone deletes a passage and gives their reason, do not simply revert it. Check the reason given and then act upon it. In this case, the least you ought to do is give a proper citation to prove it. Reverting is lazy.
Also, if you use a passage that is not in the original work, you ought to ask yourself whether it can represent the original work.
Now I am not being polite in explaining this, I know. But don't worry, I will not continue this. Whatever you go with is what will stay here. I have had these discussions for way over a decade on WP. Every few years I feel the need to explain them. But only once.
The material you said was not in The Female Eunuch is part of the foreword to the Paladin 21st anniversary edition. So I had a perfectly good reason to revert your edit - which I am sure was made in good faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why the reversion under "Critical Reception"?[edit]
The very first link explicitly states There are no “true” “male” and “female” brains out there to discover, and yet the reverting author insists that the original author of this edit does not understand the source material and is synthesising facts that are not explicitly stated in the source. They also provided a few more pages, perhaps a little overkill but they repeat the same point fairly precisely. Can I am One of Many please elaborate on the reason for their revert? 116.212.253.43 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, you are using primary sources and interpreting them. Also, while I agree that within the population of humans, there are probably no brain structures that are strictly male or female, it's not just nurture but a complex ontogenetic interplay between nature and nurture. We can also wait and see what others have to say. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that these sources can be interpreted differently? I'm not trying to discern what you agree with, but how your interpretation makes the reverted statement invalid. 116.212.253.43 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=small}
