Talk:Agender

Development of definition

I want to put sketched definition of 'Agender' and I need help, coz changes in 'edit' section has been blocked against saving them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.110.40.196 (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you want to write? Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to put this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Agender here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.110.40.196 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, that draft is very much lacking WP:Reliable sources. Forums are not reliable sources in the least, as far as Wikipedia goes (usually anyway on Wikipedia). And I'm certain that, if you created an article like that draft, that article would be deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AfD). The Neutrois article didn't even exist until February 14, 2014; it had been deleted years back, and was recreated on that date. I don't expect it to last long on Wikipedia in its current state. Furthermore, Agender currently redirects to the Neutrois article, per this discussion, where WP:Consensus was formed to redirect it there. This is because, per WP:Content fork, we should not have articles about the same thing and should strive to keep topics that are pretty much the same thing (if not exactly the same thing) in one article, instead of causing our readers to go to more than one Wikipedia article for that material. This talk page should redirect to Talk:Neutrois. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Actually, no, since the Agender link was the topic of a WP:Redirects for discussion, its talk page should continue to exist to document that aforementioned WP:Redirects for discussion (which is listed at the top of the talk page), for as long as the Neutrois article exists. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There is just a few scientific works about agender (also neutrois), and I found mess there, mostly in understanding and classifying these concepts. While searching for informations, I've come to conclusion, that the most representative sources, concerning such 'identities', are utterances of people describing themselves in those terms. But to recognise which declarations are sensefull and logical, whether they are confusing or explaining, it's necessary to keep etymology of words. Wiki definition about Neutrois is inconsistent and contain oppositions: 'agender' and 'genderless' (identities anty/non-gendered) are determined as 'gender identity'. I've red that not every agender is neutrois, and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.110.40.196 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure what else to state to you on this matter, other than a reiteration of what I stated above or to offer advice on a few more Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. For topics such as these, Wikipedia is supposed to go by WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia also does not take kindly to neologisms, which is what the terms agender and neutrois are; see WP:Neologism. Studying these Wikipedia rules can help you understand where I am coming from on this topic and can make you a stronger Wikipedia editor, one who knows how to build articles like these once better sources are available for them, if those sources do emerge. If you have sources that pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline, you can use those to build a better Neutrois article. Per what I stated above about WP:Content fork, it would be safer for you to build upon that article concerning being genderless or gender-neutral than to create the Agender article you have in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think, that Wiki admins should reconsider rules of evaluating sources as reliable. I want to prove, in the shortest and sensible way, that in certain cases a internet forum is proper source of knowledge, and even better than specialist literature. How the term like 'agenda' shows up into scientific books. There appeared people, who refer to such identification, and then - their description got to published pages. However, their views are being expressed in process of questions given by researcher. Answers, received in such interview, are being written on 'filling card' form. There are being jotted some dates of respondent - which are important in survey, question concerning research issue, and response of interviewee. 'Filling card' has a form that we can find on some internet forums. Those cards become a base for longer or shorter depiction of phenomena, and also for formalising their less or more pertinent definition. Value of publication can be questioning, it's always some kind of interpretation of sources and those are base for every analizing. In case of term 'agender' , forum posts are being evaluated as not reliable, though those are representative, availible for internauts and also exposed for direct possibility of verification. I think your opinion makes that we waste occasion for recognition things that are going on around, and worth to look at them closer. Should we always wait for scientists, that they will take sth up ?.. I think that's not necessarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.110.40.196 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)