Talk:Postgenderism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m clarify
Gdvorsky (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 16: Line 16:


:::::If worst comes to worst and the article is eventually deleted, please don't take this personally either. There are many places for original work on the Internet. But I am still a bit doubtful that Wikipedia is the right place for this one. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 03:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::If worst comes to worst and the article is eventually deleted, please don't take this personally either. There are many places for original work on the Internet. But I am still a bit doubtful that Wikipedia is the right place for this one. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 03:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

::::::You do what you feel you have to do. I'll be more than happy to subject this to broader scrutiny. [[User:gdvorsky|gdvorsky]] 22:45, 9 February 2006 (EST)

Revision as of 03:46, 10 February 2006

Is this perhaps an unencyclopedic neologism? Only 26 Google hits, some of them Wikipedia itself. The article has only one significant contributor. Andrewa 05:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of Postgender reveals more hits, including referrences to academic conferences, as well as cultural and religious aspects. I will suggest that this entry be given more time to attract more attention and other contributors. Moreover, in the context of it being a potential neologism, I wonder if you can suggest another term that enscapsulates this sentiment and burgeoning cultural tendency? gdvorsky 09:42, 9 February 2006 (EST)
That sounds to me like a yes as to whether it is a neologism. Are you the inventor of the term? Or did you get it from somewhere else? Where? I'm sorry if this sounds confrontational, but both of the external links currently cited in the article are broken. Andrewa 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I fixed the external links. A quick peak at the URLs would have revealed syntax errors. I would advise that you read those links, particularly the second one, which shows the term being used in context. As for the origin of the term, "postgender" has been used for decades, both in the feminist movement and in the futurist context; that it is advocated by some groups, namely transhumanists, indicate to me that it's fair and appropriate to infer a cultural imperative, i.e. that the "ism" is valid. Moreover, it's a term used in academia, regardless of what Google says. I hardly think that a Google search justifies whether or not a term should be defined in Wikipedia. gdvorsky 16:05, 9 February 2006 (EST)
The syntax errors were not obvious to me. Thank you for correcting them.
Neither of the corrected link targets appears to mention postgenderism by name. Have you any better links? I suppose I could try to find some among the Google hits, but I really think that (as with the link syntax) you are in a better position to provide this information than I am.
Again, above you have answered the question I didn't ask. It appears to me that, in this sense at least, "postgenderism" is a term that you have coined, forming it from "postgender" as you describe. I wish I didn't have to guess! But it still seems to me that this is a neologism.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the article should be deleted, but an AfD nomination is now looking a distinct possibility. Please don't take this suggestion personally. AfD is just part of the process by which the community here discusses doubtful cases for inclusion.
If worst comes to worst and the article is eventually deleted, please don't take this personally either. There are many places for original work on the Internet. But I am still a bit doubtful that Wikipedia is the right place for this one. Andrewa 03:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do what you feel you have to do. I'll be more than happy to subject this to broader scrutiny. gdvorsky 22:45, 9 February 2006 (EST)