Talk:Herstory

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Deletion

Since no one seems to be able to come up with a source for this and it appears to be non-notable, I'm proposing it for deletion. --Xombie 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not Delete. It is not that "no one" is able - 'No One" has tried. I am a linguist and I have spent the past week emailing a number of my older lingiust mentors in search of the definitive origins and usage of this word. It is used widely by Lesbian authors to differentiate their history from that of the general population. This article is not currently NPOV but I will strive to bring it up to date and into line with standards. I would like to be given at least a month to rewrite this. Deleting this before then would serve no useful purpose. Thanks Lisapollison 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added as many citations and details as I felt necessary. Another kind editor or editors had already laid the perfect groundwork for me. Many thanks. I believe this article is now NPOV and informative to standards. however, if anyone wishes more citations or work, please state what you'd like done here and I will do my best to comply. Lisapollison 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of the two "external references". These are just links to "Women's history" (and woman's self-esteem) references. This doesn't have much to do with herstory per se, does it? They don't use the term far as I can see (but one site is German, which I don't read). What is the relevance? Phiwum 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the two "external references", since I still don't see how they pertain to an article on "Herstory". If I missed some relevance, please feel free to replace them — and explain what I overlooked. Thanks. Phiwum 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This still appears to be nothing more than a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedic article. I fail to see why this word is deserving of its own article, even if it is commonly used. The type of article that it is now (definition, usage, etymology, etc), I could copy-paste and make for any random word in the dictionary. Simple definitions are non-encyclopedic. If this were a new article I would agree that it has potential, but the article has existed for several years and has yet to be fleshed out, it is well past due for it to be merged into another article on feminism or historical revisionism. --Xombie 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Name

Wouldn't Hertory be a better name, since History-His-=-tory, Her-+-tory=Hertory?

Principally yes. But the usual word-play interprets "history" as "his story" (it sounds like "his story if spoken) and so they invented the term "her story" or "herstory" respectively.

I have added an explanation of the false etymology of the word to the article. I believe that any questions you may have about the term can now be answered by the text.

I keep posting Women in Cuba (Herstory) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba#Women_in_Cuba_.28Herstory.29 and some idiots keep deleting it. Go see it while it lasts. El Jigue 1/19/06

The usage in Sisterhood is Powerful quoted in the article appears to be a portmanteau of heresy and history. Шизомби 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

reverts that gut the meaning

I am saddened by the reverts of my recent edits which gut the meaning of the article. The term is NOT a pun. It is an example of false etymology or faux amis. If you don't know the difference between a pun and those temrs, take the time to acquaint yourself with them. Taking those details out and further gutting my edit will only help strengthen the argument for deletion since they muddy the origin of the term. I know some people are dearly attached to the idea that the word is a [pun]] but it is NOT and none of the sources I could find of actual linguists refer to it as such. It is innapropriate and misleading to keep reverting to the description of the word as a pun. I put considerable time and effort into updating this article to save it from deletion. I respectfully request that my last edit on etymology be reverted. Lisapollison 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any citation for saying that the word is a pun? If there isn't we shouldn't be putting it in the article. --Xombie 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Xombie - there is no credible citation that I can find but there is one User who is bound and determined to keep the word in the definition and reverts every edit that takes it out. See the history of the edits for more info. I believe that this stems from either a stubborn misunderstanding of what a 'pun' actually is or, from a determined attempt to undermine the crediblity of the term by reducing it to a joke. Herstory is a Neologism and NOT a Pun. The terms are not interchangeable and are not even similar in meaning. if you want to take up the good fight to get the word 'pun' out of this article - more power to you. it will only continue to be reverted. The constant re-insertion of the word 'pun' into this article should be viewed as vandalism IMO Lisapollison 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the term derived from a pun? Reading the word history as his story is a homophonic pun, is it not? Not sure what my point is, but I just thought I'd mention it! :) Martin 14:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Heralaya

Himalaya is also gender biased - it suggests that only men can climb mountains. Oh, you don't think so? Then delete this moronic article. Haizum 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny point about Himalaya, but I don't think this a moronic article at all. You may feel how some people use the term to be ridiculous, but the point of the article is to explain the concept and its use. It's not a defense of its use. As a matter of fact, the word is often used in hit-and-run vandalism to replace the word 'history' in Wikipedia. Twalls 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary this sucker. Haizum 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

Herstory is a term which originated as a neologism. – that sounds quite tautological, on a first read. After all, aren't all terms new when they are created? However, I suppose the idea is to say that it is a constructed term, as opposed to something that slowly grew to use. Is there a better way to word this? /skagedal^... 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems completely one sided, since it presents absolutely no critical views of the term (it was, after all, invented by someone who completely misunderstood the etymology of the word "history," making it pointless). Would anyone like to start a criticism section? --HarmonicFeather 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nay, that would make too much sense; this is Wikipedia. Tyranny of the minority, don't you know? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the disputed tag btw. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence at all that the first user of the term "herstory" really believed that "history" derives from "his story"? More than likely, the term was adapted because it was a simple way to emphasize feminine history and not as a silly mistake about etymology. But I'm just guessing here, too.

Anyway, the article does mention the possibility of mistaken etymology right there in the introduction. It also explicitly says that "history" does not derive from "his story". So what exactly is the issue? What information would you like to add? What bias do you see in the article? (Note: I personally hate the term "herstory". But I see no particular bias in the article.)

Note also that "Criticisms" sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Critical comments should occur in the existing sections.Phiwum 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe in some of the supporting literature, the term "herstory" is presented in opposition to the "sexist" term "'his'tory," as the intro to the article intimates. The biases I see stem from the fact that the article cites the history of the term, claims that it was intended to be used seriously, helped to change school curriculum, and continues to be used in published works. Aside from the introduction, one would think that there was almost no controversy to its usage. --HarmonicFeather 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's examine these one at a time.

• The term was intended to be used seriously (as well as humorously). The article gives a reference.
• The term helped change school curricula. Uncited, so I added a tag.
• Continues to be used in published works. Clear citation proving this point.

(Note: I have not checked the references, so I can't vouch for them.) The article also suggests that some scholars find the term divisive and gives a reference. Aside from the introduction, the article consists of a report on how the term is used. This seems perfectly neutral to me. I don't see any particular bias in the article, so I ask again: How would you like it to be changed? What new information should be included? Phiwum 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Those questioning the neutrality of the article should provide some sources to support their criticism. Just don't liking the term isn't enough to call the article biased. I don't like it either, but neither do I think the article should take some sort of stance against the term. I've removed the neutrality tag until someone provides more than just personal opinions.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

HELP THE BREEDERS ARE MINIMIZING US

There has been in my experience a movement to minimize and delete articles of LGBT interest. My documentation of our subculture in such things as look alike contests have been called "silly" "unimportant" and "not worthy". THESE things are part of our Herstory and we must as a community unite. Please contact me so we can have a "queer army" to help in civil discussions on talk pages with this narrow minded fellow editors. Contact me Cr8tiv 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)