Talk:Cottagecore

Critiques section

I'm bringing this topic back up so we can discuss the section here, rather than by making repeated edits. I'd like to reiterate that, in order to avoid an edit war, I sought a third opinion, and they agreed that the Vox source was suitable if not perfect. @Nerd271 I'm not sure why you have started removing cited content from the critiques section.

On another note, I don't think the introductory section should include content reiterated in the critiques section; it would be better to keep it all in one place. Becsh (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also adding that, to assuage previous discussion of undue personal opinion/bias, we should avoid phrases like 'some critics' and 'a critic'; make it clear that the source is an opinion piece if applicable. Becsh (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Becsh: It seems that we now have more than just a third opinion. On Vox, we do have a some notes on them at WP:RSPVOX. See WP:RSPS for a good list of what the Wikipedian community considers to be perennial sources and reliable sources. Anyway, let's invite Mightymagyar, Toobigtokale, and any other interested parties over for a chat. Specifying "a critic" sounds good to me.

@Toobigtokale: Please remember that we should stick to reliable sources, which do not include student newspapers or partisan publications. Nerd271 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add in the Vox source, it was already there.

Also why not include the critique in the lead as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? toobigtokale (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Reading over the article and The Michigan Daily page indicate that it is certainly a reputable source. Remember that the point of a critiques section is not to try and offer conclusions but to provide an overview of critiques, which is why I encourage highlighting that these sources are generally opinion pieces. Becsh (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the Vox piece, the page linked states that it is reliable.Becsh (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read carefully.

Some editors say that Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics.

I do not have a problem with briefly mentioning the criticisms. But there is no need to reiterate everything. It is the introduction. I will repeat. The Michigan Daily is a student newspaper, not a mainstream publication. We should avoid such sources, unless it pertains to something involving university students, a niche group. Nerd271 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

More or less agreed with @Nerd271. I agree the student publication and partisan paper aren't reliable; my mistake on not scoping them out further. As long as the info isn't removed from the lead altogether I'm fine. toobigtokale (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale: There is a brief line at the end of the introduction. I think as far as the "criticisms" are concerns, the page is alright as it is. We specify who says what and leave it as that. Nerd271 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup saw, seems fine toobigtokale (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazi flag

I do not edit in Wikipedia as I am unsure how, but someone has vandalized this page with a giant Nazi flag at the top. Can someone please edit this off of the page and report the vandal? 2601:8C1:C100:52F0:38A7:2FBF:BD3:5554 (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Alt-right association

Could a section be added on it's connection with alt-right and/or far-right associations? Potentially also links to misogynistic and patriarchal ideas of family structure and organisation?

Finton the magical salmon (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)