Talk:Mansplaining

Article quality

I notice that any attempts by previous editors to improve the quality of the article appear to be reverted by this user. Is there a conflict of interests present? Most of claims on this article are baseless - e.g. it lacks any kind of empirical evidence to back claims on how often this is reported etc - but this user seems to automatically revert any changes.

Actually if I'm honest, the article reads a lot like a subjective blog. Perhaps it could be nominated for deletion instead?

(BTW-- IP address should show that the majority of people operating from this area hold a PhD --- just mentioning this as I see many editors automatically undo changes from people who have not signed up to an account). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.252.71 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A glance at the edit history and what I've reverted shows your claims are pretty laughable. Your PhD statement is pretty amusing too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A glance at you changing edits to an article on animal models is pretty amusing too. Have much experience with animal models of psychiatric disorders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.132.163 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I know how not not to draw conclusions based on synthesis. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the article seems to be objectiv. The article is based on facts from turstworthy sources. -- R3focus (Diskussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3focus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem item in lead

So I see something here that has problems. The sentence in the lead says "Many people consider the term to be pejorative, sexist and patronising to men", and it links to five sources. Unfortunately each of these sources has problems.

• Daily Kos is not a WP:RS.
• While the Guardian itself appears to be an RS, the "mind your language" series appears to either be a series of editorial opinion columns (which the policy seems to disallow for such a broad usage as is used here), or some other form of user-generated or user-submitted content from guest writers not tied to the same strict standards as the journalistic side.
• While the Globe and Mail appears to be an RS, the column is in "home>>opinion", and does not support the wording used claiming that "many" people take offense to the term.
• While the Australian Broadcasting Corporation appears to be an RS, the actual article is coverage of an argument between two members of the Australian government, and does not support the wording used claiming that "many" people take offense to the term.
• Similar to the Guardian source provided, while the Washington Post is an RS, the actual article is a submitted column to an opinion blog which does not fall under journalistic standards. The text in it does not support the phrasing "many people", and as an opinion column it cannot be used to support the claim made.

I'm taking it out. All of the sources are replicated in the controversy section, and at least in that area the opinion blogs and opinion columns properly attribute the view to just the writer. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have added it back in as the content is sourced and reasonably well attributed, noting criticism of the subject matter is right for a WP page. You have stated that the sources are all RS but then dismissed the content of them simply because the authors take a different viewpoint to your own opinion. WP should be balanced, it not about advocating one side of a issue and removing the opposing side. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Some (not all) of the sources come from RS publications but from the opinion column or blog sections. If you read the WP:RS policy it is clear that opinion columns do not count for the way they have been used. See WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, nowhere in any of the 5 sources is any wording close to "Many people consider the term to be pejorative" used, so that is simply unsupported by the sources even if we set aside the fact that one is not an RS and the other four fall under WP:RSOPINION. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

On 2nd glance it does seem to be just a series of opinion columns. Perhaps the line could be rephrased and added to the Controversy section. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the content is already in the Controversy section, where it is properly attributed to authors (such as: "Author Cathy Young called it "a pejorative term...""). Morty C-137 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The information Morty C-137 keep removing talks about the many people who criticise this term, it talks about people who advocate for the term to no longer be used. The sources which are cited are reliable and correct for that viewpoint and their content backs up the detail which the paragraph discussion. If you do not like the way the paragraph is written or the sources used, feel free to reword it or find better sources but to simply remove it although is not helpful to WP. WP is filled with tens of thousands of references to peoples written work, many of them their options, where it is a journalist or an published academic's book. You only need to use a qualifier like "(Author) says..." when you are quoting from them, in this case the sources are used to prove the statement within the paragraph are correct. So when it says some people "consider the term unhelpful to feminism and advocate for its use to be stopped" it then provides sources to articles written by woman that advocate for it to be stopped. I don't see what is wrong with that. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally the fact that is is a controversial term should not be lost right down at the bottom of the page, the summary section is meant to summaries the page contact which includes the fact that it is controversial and people see it as sexist and patronising. To hide that fact by removing it from the summary is POV pushing. We should return the paragraph and reword it if we feel it needs to be reworded but not blank it out.ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@ThinkingTwice: Going sentence by sentence.

• The sentence claim "Many people consider the term to be pejorative" is not supported by any of the 4 opinion columns (Daily Kos is right out as not ever being an RS), nor does that sentence attribute the claim to a particular writer.
• The sentence claim "Its use remains controversial and people who use it may find themselves categorised as sexist and a misandrist" is unsourced.
• The sentence claim "Because of this some moderate feminists consider the term unhelpful to feminism and advocate for its use to be stopped" sources back to an opinion column by Cathy Young, and to a second opinion column by Liz Cookman. However, it (a) does not attribute the claim to either author as required by WP:RSOPINION, and (b) neither Young nor Cookman's columns actually state anything about "moderate feminists" (the phrase does not even appear), nor does either author identify themselves as a "moderate feminist" in either piece. If we check Cathy Young's wikipedia page we quickly find that she is not, in fact, a "moderate feminist."

I can't see how anyone can argue to keep this in. Not only are there problems with attribution, the sources (such as they are) don't even textually back up the claims made. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, @ThinkingTwice:, you are not reading the policy. You claim "You only need to use a qualifier like "(Author) says..." when you are quoting from them" but the WP:RSOPINION policy says: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier". You cannot assert "many people consider the term to be pejorative" on the weight of a mere three opinion columns, without attributing the claim properly to at least one. Also in this case none of the three opinion columns, nor the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article about a legislative spat, actually say that "many people" consider it so. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Then as I have stated above, reword it and find better sources, don't just blank out contact which you don't like and leave the article unbalanced. This is a controversial subject and needs something in the summary to reflect it, having the current paragraph, however badly written is better than having nothing. I'm not dismissing your points I'm saying fix it, don't blank it out. If we always removed contact which was badly written or unsourced instead of fixing it then WP wouldn't exist anymore. Something about the fact that it is controversial needs to go back into the summary as it is now unbalanced and does not reflect the that some people find it patronising and sexist. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The text is unsupported. If you think you can find valid sources and want to come up with wording, feel free to propose them here, but the blanket assertion is unsupported and has no business in the article. Oh, and the fact that there is a controversy section puts lie to your claim that the article is somehow unbalanced. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• The text was not unsupported, it just references articles and people's viewpoints you didn't like. I suggest we use something like this "The use of the term is controversial, with some commentators dismissing it as pejorative towards men and others who have actively called for its use to be stopped. There are also known instances where people have taken offence to its use." It's short and sharp and summaries the controversial aspect of the term and show that the references used are commentators opinions without going into to much detail which is not needed in a summary and which should be down the page. The fact that anything is controversial means that there are two groups of people with different opinions which should be reflected in a balanced WP article we can't dismiss sources just because they are written by people whose viewpoint you disagree with. ThinkingTwice (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Skimmed the conversation, but I don't think we should be using opinion pieces as sources in the lead. If we use those, we should be ascribing the view to the author, not in Wikipedia's voice. Moreover, the lead should not be cited as it's to summarize the body of the article. To summarize the article, a simple "The term as been described as negative and essentialist by some commentators." would suffice as it summarizes the controversy described in the article without saying it in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue with that is its a little washed out from the actual words commentators used in their articles (i.e. pejorative and sexist) at the least I think we should state that it is a controversial word. How about "The use of the term is controversial and has been described negatively and as essentialist by some commentators." I may have messed up the correct grammar around essentialist... ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 22:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am hesitant to claim it to be controversial (could be seen as WP:OR as we need secondary sources to claim it so), but this seems like a decent enough compromise to me. I am curious what Morty C-137 thinks. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The text remains unsupported. NONE of the sources - not even the Daily Kos one - support the claim that "Many people consider the term to be pejorative". Calling it "controversial" is also really pushing definitions. Evergreenfir's suggestion is maybe acceptable if there were more commentators but given a grand total of three, I think trying to push on "controversy" is adding WP:UNDUE weight. "Balanced" articles do not mean we should engage in False balance or False equivalence. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say it's not controversial, just google it you will find articles written about it and people who take great offence to it. The page itself talks about a couple of high profile times when it has been controversial. It can't be OR if there are references showing that people find it controversial. Morty to say that giving the summary balanced is somehow giving it UNDUE is wrong, your simply diminishing any viewpoint and commentators who don't fit with your own narrative and POV. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 23:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

1st point: "just google it" is not a valid argument. 2nd point: "a couple of high profile times" does not equate to claiming that "many people consider the term to be pejorative". 3rd point: "It can't be OR if" - if you cannot show WP:RS sources to back up your wording, then it can't be in the article. 4th point: If you are telling others to "just google it", it means you have no sources to offer that are of any meaning, and you're hoping that people will trip on a non-RS source and not look critically at it. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Firstly I said Google it, to make a point, as that is the quickest and simplest way for you to see the truth - that people find it controversial and have written about it. This is a section which talks about the controversial nature of this term, just because in your opinion its not controversial doesn't mean its not. That the nature of controversy, it means that there are at least two viewpoints on a subject with dispute and conflicting opinions. Just because with your own POV its exceptionable doesn't mean everyone finds it so and to just blank out and remove contact because you don't like it is unacceptable. You keep going back to the original text and attacking it, did I ever say it was perfect? No, my issue was with your action of WP:Section blanking. Secondly this article is not a list, it contains "a couple of high profile times" because that's all it needs to show controversy. It would be wrong to turn it into a long list. Thirdly when a paragraph says that some commentators have a negative opinion of the term, it then rightly links to a couple of articles showing commentators having negative opinions, sorry but that is RS and to dismiss there opinions because you disagree with them is flat out POV pushing. How about this? "There has been some controversy with the use of the term. It has been described negatively and as essentialist by some commentators." ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 06:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"People find it controversial" is not a measure of relevance; everything is controversial to someone. The article has a section on controversy, which is the proper placement for the anti-mainsplain point of view. The lead simply introduces the subject matter, it doe snot go into excessive detail over all angles. ValarianB (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm. ThinkingTwice, maybe just maybe you should actually think twice about virtually everything you are saying.

• I said Google it, to make a point, as that is the quickest and simplest way for you to see the truth - The last time someone tried that dishonest BS with me it was an antivax tinfoil hatter. No thanks. You want to present a point? Then present your point with WP:RS sources, don't shout "google it" dishonestly at people.
• and to just blank out and remove contact - You keep using the word "contact" over and over, I do not think it means what you think it means... in fact, I am beginning to suspect that english is not your first language and that you really don't understand the article in general?
• "Section Blanking"??? I removed a mere two lines onscreen, which comprised barely three sentences. It was not even close to a full section, and all of it was unsupported by the purported references as detailed quite thoroughly above.
• it contains "a couple of high profile times" because that's all it needs to show controversy. - No, what is needed to show controversy is an actual WP:RS, or better several, stating that controversy exists.

I don't think you really understand the topic, the article, the wikipedia policies involved... and I would say it is you who is "flat out POV pushing." Morty C-137 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"Facepalm" @Morty C-137: - that’s right go ahead and smack yourself…

In the interest of WP:Consensus what about "The usefulness of the term is disputed and has been described as negative and essentialist by some commentators.". Under the WP: Lead section policy the summary is meant to summaries the page which includes the fact that it is see as controversial by some and has been criticised. To remove any reference to this fact and just blank it out is not appropriate for any article. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 15:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Find some actual WP:RS sources that aren't under WP:RSOPINION that we can source that general statement to. Until then, removing the unsourced assertions is absolutely appropriate. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You don’t get to remove contact which you don’t like and then demand that others find better sources which you can’t be asked to find yourself. The line which EvergreenFir suggested above in its original or the one where I have added 7 words to it, is appropriate and summaries the data within the article. Remember if we cannot reach consensus here than in accordance with the policy WP:NOCON the article should be returned to its original position prior to your bold edit. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is against you at this point. And no, you're still just dishonestly shouting "google it" (plus, seriously, the word is "content"). If you can find WP:RS sources saying that there is a controversy that are not encumbered by WP:RSOPINION, present them. At present, there is precious little "controversy" about the term, as evidenced by the fact that the sum total of "sources" is a mere 3 opinion columns and one news incident in which a particularly misogynist Australian politician got in a huff when called out on how he was treating a female colleague. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No sorry that's not how it works... consensus is against you because your the one who made the edit and needs to get consensus for blanking the data. I'm happy with EvergreenFir suggestion and only suggested adding a little extra to it which in the interest of Consensus will fogo. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 16:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you seem to understand neither the concept of consensus nor "contact" versus "content". Neither Evergreenfir, ValarianB nor myself are on board with the wording you are trying to push, and Evergreenfir asked if I would be ok with alternate wording (which you keep trying to dishonestly reword and add to). I have already said I will only be ok with it if you can source it to WP:RS sources that are appropriate for a blanket statement (which means no, WP:RSOPINION sources do not match, nor does a single brief news coverage of a legislative spat that makes no broader statements). The consensus, of myself, ValarianB and Evergreenfir appears to be, per ValarianB's edit summary, "best to discuss its INclusion rather than exclusion first". Morty C-137 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hiya. I don't actually poke at this article much but watch it out of topical interest. Evergreenfir's suggested compromise text seems ideal to me, although I'm with Morty that we should tag it with a reliable source since the content itself has been so controversial. It is the most concise and succinct summary of the section that describes those views of the term, which is exactly the point of the lead. The more detailed wording that has been proposed by ThinkingTwice seems to brush up against potential POV problems and possibly even WP:UNDUE when included in the lead like that. State that some commentary has expressed concerns because of xyz and then back that statement up with a source or two noting said controversy. The editorial sources can be included in the body to articulate in more detail the specific issues that have been raised. Millahnna (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue with inclusion of wording at present is that no source yet presented backs up the idea of a generic or general "controversy". There are a very few opinion columns presented (which can't be used to back up a generic statement, per WP:RSOPINION) and they are already presented with the statements/opinions appropriately credited to the authors in the Controversy section, such as it is. In the absence of a WP:RS actually saying that it's controversial, we can't say it's controversial. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I was very clear. What I meant by that ramble is that I'd support Evergreenfir's text as they presented it (i.e. without the additions proposed by ThinkingTwice), upon the condition that a reliable source was provided per your (Morty's) comments. I wholeheartedly concur that opinion pieces in the lead to support the statement of controversy is inappropriate. Where they are now in the article body to back up the statements of individual commentary is fine. So basically, I completely agree with you. I just wanted to drop in another voice in the name of consensus since it seemed everyone was going round in circles. Not sure if there are any wiki projects with this article in their purview. In the film and tv projects, I often drop notes on the project talk pages if I spot a heated debate that could use extra eyeballs to help establish consensus. Millahnna (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about it, if ThinkTwice can't find any RS to back up their claim that there is a broader-sense "controversy" about the term, that section should probably be renamed Criticism. What do you think? Morty C-137 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That would track with how I've seen similar issues addressed in other articles. If there are policies or guidelines that would indicate a need for an exception in this case, I'm unaware of them. For that matter, the sentences under debate in the lead would more accurately summarize the relevant section with a similar rephrase: The term has received criticism for blah blah and blah where the "blahs" would be brief statements that reflect the common themes in our sources down in Controversy. Am I making any sense? I mostly edit film articles and it strikes me that there is a similarity in how we write critical reception sections there and how controversy/criticism sections like this work. Millahnna (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

The mention of different views in the lead used to be short. Over time people changed it. A short mention of a substantially different view regarded the matter, pointed out by numerous critics is a Wikipedia standard, as seen at Political Correctness. I'll cut out the unneeded, keep it a short sentence very alike that of Political Correctness that will say: "Some critics consider the term to be pejorative and sexist towards men". I also found three more sources supporting this statement. If you disagree, in your argument also point out why the mention at Political Correctness is wrong. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want it in, you have to present Reliable Sources that support the language you are looking for. Also, hey look over there is a fallacious argument unworthy of bothering with, so I'm not bothering with your specious secondary demand. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Going by the above discussion, consensus appears to be against inclusion. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Also I did a quick check: no wording such as "some critics consider..." currently appears at Political Correctness. Kindly don't make garbage up and then dishonestly ask people to answer "questions" based on a clear falsehood. By my count, every sentence in that lede has at least one source and a couple as many as seven, ranging from reliable news publications to scholarly books and journals. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2017 (U

Indeed, we do not base Wikipedia edits on what is in another article, if there is a problem with that article then it should be discussed there. I have also taken the liberty of reverting an edit by "Attack Helicopter", an account created 2 days ago, 1st edit is to restore Magoo/Barker's preferred text. Quite tempted to file a sock puppet investigation request, but unfortunately I will be away from all technology for 2-3 days, beginning in about 2 minutes. ValarianB (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Given similarity in behavior of "Attack Helicopter" I've added a note on that to an open SPI in progress. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding sockpuppets, this is what was written there about you: "Morty is a 4 month old account with grudges. If there are any accounts that scream "sockpuppet", it's Morty. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)" Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all sources we have are some sort of opinion posts. Anything else is a dictionary reference. But as you know, Wikipedia is not meant to be a dictionary. Besides these dictionary links, we have nothing usable if you are that tight with accepting anything as a source. In my opinion, it's blatant hypocrisy judging what you disagree with as not usable and then turn a blind eye to the quality of what you agree with.

In addition, all criticism of the sources was met with the new short sentence. All of the sources support the current form. You have offered zero criticism but just a general beckoning that the sources are not usable which is again clearly false and of utmost hypocrisy. Concensus over a day without any arguments is just tag-team edit-warring and not concensus. If there is any concensus, it is the standard shown at Political Correctness. Additionally numerous editors have argued for its inclusion and you have edit-warred against them to remove it. I will let this discussion run its course but at the end I'll just call up an RfC as usual and get editors other than who fervantly operate from a radical viewpoint to have their say. As of now, I'll return it until you have an actual argument to offer and not just reverts. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You are the one proposing new text that is not supported by consensus, so while it is under discussion, it shall remain out. Obviously those who are the subject of mansplaining accusations are going to holler back, but it doesn't necessarily make their criticism notable for inclusion, especially in the lede. TheValeyard (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What concensus? You disregard anyone who disagrees with you as a sockpuppet. Any source he above disagrees with is unusable even though being less reliable than all the other sources combined. This is again just tag-team edit-warring. Again, you offered zero arguments. I will have it stay until someone bothers to offer an argument and not just "votes". Wikipedia is not decided by votes but by arguments. Concensus is not voting. I'll let the discussion run for a while until I call for the RfC and larger attention and at that point we'll let "votes" show us the concensus. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The preceding discussion before your addition (Section title: Problem item in lead) shows a consensus that this material should not be in place, User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker. Please stop trying to reinsert it until you can show that consensus has changed. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a guideline for this kind of "concensus" argument. It is discouraged and it's pointless. Arguing that there is concensus without offering any other argument is completely moot. It boils down to edit-warring.

I mentioned how the other sources used that you have no problem with are in fact less reliable. I took a look at them. The article uses heavily as a primary source Rebella Solnit's essay Men Explain Things To Me and unreliable pop news sites quoting it. It was originally published at TomDispatch.com but sites like LA Times republished it as one of their opinion posts. It's categorized under "opinion" in the url. Then we have the author's new article used as a source: titled "Men Still Explain Things To Me", categorized under "Activism" at TheNation.com. Then we have articles like the one from The Atlantic by a freelance writer. Categorized under "Sexes". Begins with a meme image from Someecards.

These are the main sources used for the article. All of it is more unreliable than actual news articles depicting politicians arguing over the term. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to suffer under some misconceptions.

1. A freelance writer, writing in a widely regarded Reliable Source, is no less reliable for the status of the writer as freelance rather than salaried staff, as the article still has to pass through the same editorial controls and fact-checking controls in place at the WP:RS either way.
2. The article you mention by Rebecca Solnit (not "Rebella" as you snidely insult her name) is by a published expert in the field and is not used in Wikipedia's voice but is attributed specifically to her in the text.

The content you are attempting to edit-war into existence, by contrast, does not pass WP:RS testing in any way and does not credit any specific expert's commentary to them by name but instead attempts to force in an unsupported claim of generic controversy. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Freelance writer, fringe site, not a news article but clearly as an opinion post. And how is this reliable again? How is using two different references to Solnit's same essay, multiple fringe sites quoting the same essay, and then her new essay as sources reliable? This article is basically Rebecca Solnit's own words. How is she not undue then? And regarding her "expertise", her degree is in journalism, not social studies. And it was a typo with her first name. You have offered zero arguments how the other articles aren't reliable. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Laying low for a few days then jamming your preferred version in isn't exactly a winning strategy here. That a conservative columnist disagrees with the term is hardly notable, and certainly not worth mentioning in the article lede, there is sufficient coverage of the opposing point of view in the Criticism section. TheValeyard (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I can only participate at Wikipedia at a specific time of the day for a short period. And you have clearly made no effort to jam your version multiple times without responding to me at talk before. It was the only way I could make you participate at talk. Mind you, all this time, I'm trying to return the article to pretty much the stable version it existed in for over a year with the mention in the lead. And I already pointed out that we mention Lily Rothman and Rebecca Solnit in the lead. Why? Why is Cathy Young different then? And it is not just Cathy Young. It is what 6 different commentators? How are they not notable together? You're offering no explanation for any of this I've already talked about before. And if there is sufficient criticism, then why is it not shortly mentioned in the lead like in other articles that are in highly similar situations and have gone through years of discussions and RfCs to arrive at those forms they exist in today? Again, what is the difference? To me it seems the difference is there aren't enough editors participating here but just a select few participants who target this kind of articles. Their editing results in a flopsided "truth" not generally agreed upon by the general Wikipedia editorship. I also pointed out the problems with the other sources in the article. This criticism was barely responded to, only some parts defended. That is another issue but even that is being generally ignored. If I were to edit that, I'd be tag-team reverted. "Concensus". Again, there is a policy against this kind of concensus that doesn't use words. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

What time periods you have permission to be on the Internet is not our concern. Many of us have discussed this issue on the talk page, you continue to be the lone voice in support of your point of view. We all talk, it goes quiet for a few days, then the first edit on your "return" is to edit-war. Talk, absence, edit-war, reappearance, edit-war, talk, absence, and on and on you go. TheValeyard (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

He's not a lone voice as stated below and above when Morty-C first blacked the data. I also support making the heading more balanced and bring it in line with policy. As per WP:Lead it should be a summary of everything written within the article, including the fact that it has been criticised and is controversial. The blanking out of any reference to criticism in the opening section stops a casual reader from understanding a proper summary of the contents of the full article and therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supporters of the term and does not reflect a balanced and WP:NEUTRAL summary of all sides. This being that Lily Rothman's and Rebecca Solnit's POV WP:Opinions have been allowed to continue yet the counter viewpoint has been removed. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 13:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you calling me a child now? Your modus operandi seems to be as disruptive as possible to simply make others give up. You weren't participating at talk and responding to my arguments whatsoever but just removing my addition. Again, we can clearly see you came to this section to insult me but didn't bother to respond to the bottom section with the very noticiable and large suggestion. Don't bother to pretend like you have actually attempted to discuss. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

May want to calm down a bit and have some WP:TEA, this isn't life or death. You insist on inserting undue criticism into the lead of the article when there is a Criticism sub-section that already suffices. Not much more to it than that. TheValeyard (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling undue without explaining specifically why and comparing with other material and sources in the article is a weasel argument. There is so much criticism it overwhelms the sources that aren't criticism. Other articles in a similar situation like Political Correctness mention the criticism shortly in the lead. And the form they arrived at was talked at length in RfCs. It can be called the standard. And you're still avoiding the bottom section. This is a farce now. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Hello. On June 22, 2017, a sourced addition of mine was reverted. I would welcome a more detailed explanation than "reverting a plain example of someone mansplaining on the mansplain article. Irony!" Thanks. 79.180.91.199 (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is regarding this edit. The added content included editorializing language ("hardly", "owe a debt", and "central but contentious feminist concepts") which are incompatible with WP:NPOV and WP:FORMAL. A conference paper is a WP:PRIMARY source of limited value for such a broad, ambiguous statement, also. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I see. I guess that could be fixed. Earlier, my inclusion of the article into Category:Feminist terminology was reverted, and I didn't really have any basis to challenge the revert on because the article did not make any mention of the word "feminism" or "feminist," so I didn't re-include the article into the category until adding a source that emphasized the feminist roots of the term. Might you have any suggestions? 79.180.91.199 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

More eyes, please

There's been quite an uptick in vandalism on this article lately, we need a bit more vigilance from regular editors. Thanks. TheValeyard (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I can help. One of the editors trying to POV push here (who appears now to be edit warring trying to put back text that ThinkingTwice was pushing and that has no consensus) is actually a person who WP:WIKIHOUNDed me to this page. They're doing it for the express purpose of trying to goad me and it takes quite a bit of restraint not to engage with them. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe @Millahnna: can help somewhat, since the current person edit warring misrepresented their edit claiming to be inserting "compromise text" even though Millahnna's comment is clear that their proposed text would only be valid if a fully WP:RS source that didn't fall into the single-person WP:RSOPINION op-ed category could be found to back it?

Cathy Young - WP:UNDUE for this article?

Given that Cathy Young seems to be rather WP:FRINGE, it seems odd to rest almost half the criticism section on her views. How bad would it be if we skipped the Washington Post article? Morty C-137 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cathy Young is more famous than any of the other journalists in this article. But your reasoning really seems to be removing those you disagree with and including those you agree with. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

How famous she is has nothing to do with this. "Some critics" is WP:WEASELish, and there are other problems as well. I know it's frustrating, but edit warring is still edit warring even if people aren't engaging with you on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Some critics was changed to "Some controversy around the term exists". Did you miss that? That's the core part. It's as polite and succinct as I could think of. The afterword about Cathy Young is nigh meaningless and it is there only to mention someone in specific. I didn't care to list the Australian politician or the other commentators, but if that is needed then I'll do that too. But it should be a very short mention, that's the point. I took example of the mentions of Lily Rothman and Rebecca Solnit in the lead already. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

And what do you think about "Some controversy around the term exists"? Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Some controversy around the term exists" is functionally no different from "Some critics...". They both impart the same negative connotations without providing any context at all. Succinct is good, but this is not truly polite, it's merely formal. As a starting point, explain here on talk, succinctly, exactly what this controversy is. If we can summarize this in neutral language, we can use this to expand the lede to reflect the criticism section of the body. This isn't necessarily the end goal, however, since WP:CSECTIONs have their own set of problems. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But that starting point has already been met, it was the "pejorative" and "sexist" part. How do we make "sexist" neutral? Gender-biased? If we add in that it has been described pejorative or gender-biased, is that good? Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As in "Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators[reflist] describing the term as pejorative or gender-biased." How's that? Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like this hinges on how much WP:WEIGHT the "critics" have. What sources are we trying to hang this on, exactly? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the first edit you have made at this article, old friend. I hope you didn't WP:WIKIHOUND me here. WP:WEIGHT is a fairly weasely argument. Pretty much all of the article is based upon opinion articles like I have already pointed out, but it seems when one is in agreement with the sources the credibility is of no matter. To begin questioning the numerous sources the edit had, the likes of which the Australian politics debate and the description by the Australian politician, is just silly. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, WP:AGF much? How could I be wikihounding when we haven't interacted in months. Maybe more than year even - (I assume the "old friend" part is a tacit acknowledgement of that?). And WEIGHT isn't a "weasely argument" it's policy. I looked at the sources that were removed, they look pretty poor in terms of weight tbh. Not opposed to including criticism but we should pick the best sources & most prominent critics, and it should be properly attributed and worded - vague stuff like "controversy exists" really is weasely. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one to have brought up wikifounding first, remember? So that's why I felt it suitable and casual enough. Weight is weasely when you don't explain why and compare it with other material in the article. If the sources aren't good enough, explain why. If the weight is undue, explain in comparison with the other sources and material. For I have already pointed out the exact same problem the other sources have. This is an article for which there are no better articles that opinion articles and essays by authors, really. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming this suggestion is not to find better references and add more to expand the criticism section, but simply to try and get a consensus for removing half the section, presumably as a steppingstone for it's entire removal in the future. Cathy Young is not WP:Fringe, the only reason someone would think so is that they only look at a specific viewpoint and read only articles written which support that one POV. For example only 7% of UK woman identify themselves as a Feminist and when asked those that don't generally hold simpler view to Cathy Young. In fact with films like The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye being published more people are starting to question feminist ideology - just as Cathy Young does. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 14:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The article currently cites two separate op-eds by Cathy Young, both with quotations. First, is she noteworthy and qualified enough for us to cite her twice? I think once is sufficient, since they're both op-eds and therefore their purpose here is to note her opinion rather than to imply a statement of fact (ie. she opposes the term for these reasons.) Second, if we do cite both, should they be condensed in one place, or presented as two separate paragraphs? Young is a journalist and commentator, not an academic, so I'm unsure why we're giving so much weight to what she thinks. Beyond that, I feel that there's a risk of the page turning into a WP:QUOTEFARM; it might be better to paraphrase one or both quotes. (On reflection, after considering both quotes, I think the first one is actually the one we should drop, since it's not really saying much that isn't said in more pointed terms in the second one.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mention at the lead

Like already talked about, the stable version of over a year had a mention of the controversy at the end of the lead. It had grown too long so it was removed recently.

My suggestion for the replacement is a short mention:

Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators[reflist] describing the term as pejorative or gender-biased.

There is the Australian debate, well-covered and this is but a few of the articles on the matter:

Then there is Cathy Young:

Then there is Kinzel:

Cookman:

MPR:

Controversy in Sweden:

Even Globe supports the new language:

All of the sources really support this language. Suggestions and improvements are welcome. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

The new language also supports articles like the Salon one. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm against the removal of all and any reference to criticism in the lead section because the lead should be a summary of everything written within the article, including the fact that it has been criticised and is controversial as per WP:Lead. The blanking out of any reference to criticism in the opening section stops a casual reader from understanding a proper summary of the contents of the full article and therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supporters of the term and does not reflect a balanced and WP:NEUTRAL summary of all sides. This being that Lily Rothman's and Rebecca Solnit's POV WP:Opinions have been allowed to continue yet the counter viewpoint has been removed. I would therefore support your suggestion as it’s accurate and concise. I would also include this BBC reference (link) which I just remembered watching recently, although short, it does reflect the fact that some see the term as “sexist” and it describes it as “labelled with a term which divides people just as much as it highlights inequity in society”. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 09:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Listing every example of criticism in a footnote is an interesting idea, and not totally without any precedent, but the execution of this was deeply flawed. By listing them in very broad terms, without any commonality or outside source to summarize the controversy, this is implying that all of these sources are saying something similar, which is blatently false. Further, they are not equal or proportional. This isn't representing the consensus of sources, this is a fairly carefully curated set of criticisms. It's not remotely neutral to imply that's a mainstream view of the term. The lead should summarize the controversy according to reliable, independent sources, not just list off every source which is vaguely negative on the term as though they all say the same thing. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Magoo, it was highly disengenuous of you to restore this with an edit summary claiming that it has unanimous support when it obviously doesn't. Myself, grayfell and the valeyard are all on record as opposing it.

To be clear, my problem is not with "mention in the lede," it's with the wording and the sources used in the edit you keep trying to restore. Phrasing like "controversy exists" and "some commentators" is way too vague. We should pick the criticisms (and critics) that have the most weight and can be sourced well, then attribute the specific criticisms to them. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither of you have bothered to comment on this before even though you have clearly seen this. Fyddlestix has now appeared here at this article only to start reverting me without having had any edits here before. Please tell me how did you even find your way here. And why do you revert in perfect harmony with Grayfell without bothering to talk first and only then as if by agreement heading to talk together to disagree here when finally you think it's time to actually comment and not just pretend this doesn't exist? Why does the group of editors opposing this do reverts and not bother to talk in such perfect harmony? Mystery. It was concensus and unanimous because all participating editors had supported it for 10 days at talk. How you see it otherwise and instantly both revert is again mysterious.

And when it comes to the arguments, you now try to be as vague as possible. You both criticize the "wording" as vaguely as possibly without specifying any alternatives or ways around. But this kind of wording is standard and seen at articles like Political Correctness which arrived at it after lengthy talks in which you participated as well Fyddlestix. In fact the situation is eerily similar.

• Grayfell, you have agreed with it being in the lede before but you claim the sources aren't saying something similar. All of the sources support one of the two descriptions being given by critics, either pejorative or gender-biased in some form. Please, suggest an alternative.
• Grayfell, you state it's not neutral to imply it's a mainstream view. That's why it specifies some commentators. Suggest an alternative, please.
• Fyddlestix, you agree with it being in the lede but have a problem with the wording. I had it more specific before but it was complained about. One can't be specific in the lede. That's an oxymoron. Ledes are for abstract definitions, not specifics. Do you have an alternative? Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how watchlists work? This kind of rapid fire editing thing is extremely common, especially in politically contentious areas, and your insinuations would be a lot more insulting if they weren't so absurd. If you're just going to assume this is sock-puppetry just come out and say it, but you're going to have to do a lot more work than that. Otherwise, don't cast aspersions.

The sources you lumped together do not say the same thing at all. By lumping them together, you are implying that they all support a similar viewpoint, which, as I've already said, is blatantly false. Do I really need to go line-by-line through them all?

As one brief example, the Benjamin Hart op-ed specifically characterizes the word as having been extremely useful and widely applicable before it was applied too broadly and fizzled-out. Calling this "controversial" or "pejorative" is so simplistic it's grossly misleading.

The Independent source only says that the term is 'sexist' according to Facebook posts. Is that it? Is that why this was included? The article itself describes mansplaining as very common phenomenon and a useful term worth discussing and addressing. Using this as part of a list of criticisms is flat-out wrong.

As one more example, summarizing the Australian thing as a 'controversy' is similarly reductive to the point of meaninglessness. The person who is implying that it's "gender-biased" in this situation is doing so in reaction to being directly called a mansplainer. Fifield is neither a neutral party, nor reliable as an expert in language/social-issues/sexism. Using specific political hot air to inflate the status of the term as generally "controversial" is misleading at best. Also, it's intended to be somewhat pejorative, isn't it? Why would that, by itself, have anything to do with 'controversy existing', to use your phrasing?

I think that's enough that you can reasonably see why this isn't a productive change, so it needed to be reverted. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry? No, I just believe he found the article through my edit history. If he had the article on his "watchlist", he sure never bothered to edit or talk at it before. This kind of behavior is called WP:HOUNDING and he was one to accuse me of it in the past so it's only fitting it fits both ways.

I'll go line by line through the articles below this post. It'll take a while. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, there are a grand total of four articles where our editing could be construed as overlapping-See? Please stop making silly accusations like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So, here is what Hart says about the criticism faced by the term:

"Perhaps the word’s goofy clunkiness is part of the problem. “Mansplain” is not the most graceful coinage — Alexandra Petri at the Washington Post recently called it a “horrible chimera with the head of a goat and the tail of a serpent and wings” — and the ridiculousness of its construction makes it into a kind of insta-punch line, something people want to say just for the sake of saying it.[...]

But I think the core issue is that any word whose etymology encompasses half of all humanity is begging, by nature, to be misappropriated. It’s far easier to tar someone with a charged, one-size-fits-all putdown than to engage with the point they’re trying to make. Am I mansplaining mansplaining? At this point, I don’t even know."

We are not stating Hart himself specifically disagrees with the term. The quote of Petri is pretty much exactly describing that of a simple pejorative. Do you disagree? Afterwards, Hart seems to opine something similar.

You are quoting the Independent article wrong. It stated that people called the hotline to voice their grievances about the "scheme" as described by the article. I don't even know how you only got Facebook posts from that.

The criticism you direct at the Australian case is strange. You don't think the politician is credible enough to be listed at all? And we have no experts in language and what not in our article. As noted before, the inventor of the term whom we quote throughout the article has a degree in journalism. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I also support inclusion of some reference to criticism in the lead for the same core reason as ThinkingTwice: the lead should reflect the contents of the article and there's a section dedicated to criticism of the word. I agree with Greyfell's concern about the text not reflecting the sources. It will be useful to examine what the contents of the above sources are:

1. Ireland, Judith: Quotes Fifield's criticism of the word as invoking gender

2. Conifer, Dan: same as above.

3. Waugh, Paul: same as above.

4. Young, Cathy: Young criticises the term as being gender-based and describes it as pejorative.

5. Young, Cathy: Young criticises the term as being gender-based.

6. Kinzel, Lesley: Kinzel criticises the term as being gender-based.

7. Cookman, Liz: Cookman describes the term as taking on pejorative meanings and criticises it as being gender-based.

8. MPR News: Solnit criticises the term as being gender-based, Huang describes it as offensive.

9. Savage, James: quotes general criticism on facebook, including a description of the term as a 'negative invective'

10. facebook comments as above, one calling it sexist.

11. Authors describe it as dismissive and sexist.

1(a). Hart, Benjamin: Describes the term as inflaming the gender wars and calls it a put-down.

From my reading of the sources (taking into account the fact that some sources are repeated or unreliable), the best sourced wording would remove the 'pejorative' element and retain the 'gender-biased' element. However, I think the term 'gender-biased' is just a euphemism for 'sexist' so we should instead be direct and say that. As such, my suggested wording is "Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators describing the term as sexist." Cjhard (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy exists" is still hopelessly vague and WP:WEASELY, though. It serves no purpose here. Cutting that and starting with "Some commentators..." would be a step in the right direction, but still weasely. Using 'term' twice in a sentence like that is also kind of a problem, and not just as a minor flow issue. Some of these sources specifically go out of their way to support that the phenomenon itself exists, but challenge how the term is used. This is fundamentally different from criticizing the entire concept (which some sources also do). If we fail to articulate this, by combining them we're giving more weight to the hardliners who dismiss the entire concept. I think we can do better. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It fits because it eases in the following view that it's also viewed sexist. Otherwise just stating it's viewed as sexist would be too abrupt. And how is controversy existing weasely? We have an entire section for it. It's the opposite of weasely and it's like stating the sun rises tomorrow. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping the 'controversial' element, as I don't believe we have a reliable source making that claim. You raise an interesting point about the distinction between the word and how its used, but from my reading only Hart makes this distinction, with Kinzel describing it as inherently biased, and Young describing the use of the word getting worse, but without saying the word was good in the first place. The Cookman article reflects a more subtle distinction: understanding why the word exists while maintaining criticism that it's sexist. Of course, this may be more detail than is required for the lead. Taking your suggestions into account, I'm happy with "Some commentators have described the term as sexist." as a starting point. Do you have any proposals to add to or improve upon this? Cjhard (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your right, it is too abrupt, but that's a problem with the statement, not with the arrangement. If this is just about arrangement, that supports my point that it's empty filler. Being factual has nothing to do with being weaseley. It is about introducing something contentious without establishing context. There is no functional difference between 'controversy exists' and 'some people think it's controversial'. We need to provide a way to explain who thinks this is controversial, and why they think it's controversial. This hasn't been done yet. As I said below, this is just one of many problems with this phrasing. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a problem with how you introduce the statement. If one says "people die", it's odd, out of place. If one says it at a coroners' convention, it makes more sense. Context of course matters. And the statement that it's viewed as sexist by some commentators is exactly what you're asking for, description of why it's controversial. What more do you want? Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that context is important. My problem is that 'controversy exists' isn't actually context, it's just filler where context should go. It strongly implies something without really saying it. Neither with nor without works by itself, but one is simpler and slightly less leading, so it's slightly better. That's all I'm saying. What does "people die" have to do with this? Comparing this to an example of a blunt phrase is drifting too far into the abstract to be helpful, but I think it supports my point. If the only options available are 'far too blunt' or 'far too non-neutral', we need to think harder. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's part of a single sentence and the reason for the controversy is only separated from it by a comma. But let's have it your way then once again for a compromise, let's go with Cjhard's form of "Some commentators have described the term as sexist." Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to coincide with ThinkingTwice's view. I aimed for a compromise with gender-biased. I agree with commentators describing it sexist in general, so that version suits me fine. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, there are many problems, and it's hard to know where to start. Setting aside the difference between term and concept for a bit, this doesn't actually address the major issues with misread sources and extreme vagueness. Journalists reporting on a subject as journalists are generally considered reliable, while journalists giving opinions are judged by a different standard. The Independent source only ever quotes anonymous Facebook users as saying it's "sexist", and only quotes anonymous Swedish phone-line callers as saying it's a "bad term to use". This is absolutely too weak to use for a general 'described as sexist' phrase, and the rest will need to be evaluated in a similar way. If we do not have a reliable source saying that the term has received substantial criticism for being "sexist" we shouldn't use the term sexist. I'm assuming that we do have a source like that. So what, exactly, are non-opinion sources saying about the sexism of this term? Grayfell (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned numerous times before, all the articles we have for any stance regarding the term are just journalists' opinions posted in opinion sections. Only faulting criticism for it is bias. If we remove all opinion sources we have nothing but dictionary links. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as you know. And now you acknowledge Independent also referring to calls to the hotline, but for some reason even though that is actually being reported as news by the Local as well, it's not enough for you. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

News articles often cover significant opinions on things. Experts get cited in news articles. Do we have any of those saying this is sexist? The Independent article is not an opinion. If you wanted to use that to support the point that anonymous Swedish men sometimes described the term as discriminatory, that would be... technically accurate, but would still be misrepresenting the bulk of the source in several ways. This would almost surely not belong in the lede, right? This is the problem, here. If reliable sources aren't saying it's sexist, we need to explain why unreliable sources are being mentioned, or at least explain who these unreliable sources are. Presenting this as a general "controversy" is unacceptably loaded, leading, and open-ended. Just saying that it's been described as sexist is... pretty much exactly the same. That's the problem. If we're going to do this in the lede, we need to be more specific while also not giving due weight to obscure op-eds or unreliable sources.

I also think we should be trimming op-eds from the body of the article, for similar reasons. They should, at very least, be integrated into the body of the article per WP:CSECTION. There's no rush, and this should be discussed elsewhere in the talk page, but this would change the lede, obviously. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Now you oppose being specific even though earlier you complained of vagueness. Cjhard offered the complaints as stating "sexist" to be more specific. We have Mitch Fifield calling it sexist, MPR discussing whether it is sexist with participant agreeing, Local quoting people by name who call it sexist and a bunch of commentators calling it sexist with synonyms. What you instead demand is "experts" which is weasely to the maximum. On top of that again we have no experts from the other side either. You're demanding experts in a case about "mansplaining". And you say we should "trim" something but again it's all of the sources besides the dictionaries. That isn't trimming, trimming is belittling it. Things must be weighed and all the sources for any stance are the same and you are being silly demanding extreme rigorousness from critics. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also unimpressed with the shifting goal posts. I think we take the point that Grayfell is opposed to the inclusion of references to controversy or criticism of the word in the lead. That they are now advocating for the references to criticism of the term as being sexist is a separate discussion entirely. The lead should reflect the article, and as the article currently is, it should reflect the criticism of the term as being perceived as sexist. Excising references to this criticism muddies the waters of this conversation, and should be discussed separately. Cjhard (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be only one editor who returns after long absences to revert-war, and may eventually find himself under sanction for repeated edit-warring. I've have expressed in the past opposition to including borderline fringe opinion columns in the lede of the article, and that opinion still stands now. Leave it to a Criticism section to explain the critics point-of-view, and move on. ValarianB (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB just because you don't agree with the opposing viewpoint doesn't make their argument fringe, especially when you have RS references like the BBC clearly summarising the contentious nature of the term as "divides people just as much as it highlights inequity in society" - well that's definitely not fringe. In reality the term itself is fringe, which is why we get the media falling over themselves to report random uses and the article even has a section called "Usage" which list out the several times its actually been used.

Now we need to follow WP policy and properly write the WP:lead to summaries the article. we need to agree what the actual wording is going to be. I agree with both Cjhard and Mr. Magoo, the moving of the goal posts is unhelpful. I suggest we look to get a WP:consensus agreement, remember "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" as the policy clearly says, it also says that consensus "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" so therefore we need to follow the WP:lead and WP:NPOV policies, which means the fact that it has been criticised needs to be mentioned in the lead. So instead of working for a unanimous agreement which I have come to the conclusion will never happen, we should work for a majority agreement of a set of words, close this debate and then update the page accordingly otherwise this will just drag. It has wasted enough of my time already.

To this end and assuming that we are keeping Lily Rothman and Rebecca Solnit POV opinions as they are, I suggest the following words should be added "Other commentators have questioned its usefulness describing the term as pejorative, essentialist and gender-biased." ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 14:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't really work that way, sorry, if there's no support for including criticism in the lead then there's really no point in hashing out what you'd like this purported lead addition to say. Feminism's lede does not include a critique from the Men's rights movement, for example, not every criticism is as noteworthy as the topic it is criticizing, be thankful there's even a sub-section. Also note that I initially opposed the removal of the lede material way up in Talk:Mansplaining#Problem_item_in_lead, but then came around to the arguments laid out by others, so keep your observations about editor's personal likes or dislikes to yourself, if you would. ValarianB (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly consensus does actually work that way, it does not have to be unanimous and it shouldn't overwrite policy. That's why WP:Dispute resolution exists, WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard exists and others to allow editors to challenge local decisions, get a new opinions, moderated discussion etc.

Secondly I think you will find that the Feminism article does actually have the fact that feminism have been criticised clearly written in the lead! ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 16:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I am well aware of how the word consensus is defined. It is indeed not a numerical tally but you still need more than 2-3 voices when there has been opposition from at least a half-dozen others. Secondly, you're arguing against something I did not say. I said that the feminism article does not contain MRA criticism, i.e. the perceived opposing side. Also, the criticism mentioned in the opening of the feminism article is about the notion that it doesn't go far enough, that it lacked voices from non-Western societies. Entirely different framework from what we're discussing here.

To add a "thirdly", and this is addressed to this page generally, not to you...it is mighty suspicious that an ip-address user showed up just now to restore the content in contention. I hope there are no shenanigans going on here. ValarianB (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that's not partially helpful as it just infuriates people which means there is less likely a change of reaching a consensus. I know of banned user that use to do that just to ensure his own side didn't back down. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you appeared after an absence of no less than 19 days and not bothering to talk before. And what do you do right after you returned? Revert. If anything, some specific editors opposing this only appear to revert and at talk only briefly to say no without contributing much else. Something like that is being disruptive to simply tire opposition out instead of constructively arguing. The only one who has bothered to argue in detail is Grayfell. And like mentioned before, the goalposts keep shifting. It's now heavily supported by sources and editors. You say 2-3 but every single editor other than you supports there being at least some form a mention of it in the lead. All other similar articles like mentioned before have criticism mentioned briefly in the lead and arrived in those forms after lengthy talks, as in it's a Wikipedia standard. This article has IP and new editors constantly trying to return the removed part of the stable edition because it's only logical to be mentioned and it's only opposed for really bizarre reasons. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed that Grayfell had originally reverted the removal of the stable version's mention of criticism, stating "Content is sourced and reasonably well attributed".[2] What has changed? Does he prefer that version the best? ValarianB likewise originally reverted the removal of it, stating: "Restore: there is nothing wrong with the sources. If one feels otherwise, take it to the talk page top gain consensus first, pls".[3] He took it out again, stating "Hm, never mind. May be best to discuss its INclusion rather than exclusion first, given the controversial nature of the claim, re: "pejorative", but little discussion happened. Later he repeated the removal, opposing the description pejorative: "The position that "mansplain" is itself a pejorative seems to be at best a fringe opinion." So to you, it seems pejorative is the problem? Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that as a group of editors here we are all (excluding ValarianB) in agreement that something needs to be added. Now we just need to agree what. As stated above I'm happy to support Mr. Magoo original wording on 19th August or Cjhard wording on 30th August, they are both good and summaries the section correctly and it appears to be only specific words which is why consensus has not yet happened. I think the wording I suggested yesterday is a compromise between what has been said but happy to support the group decision on wording. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 08:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has objected. Why not hold a formal Request for Comment on the matter, which will attract a wider audience to weigh in? ValarianB (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No objection, but I strongly suggest we come to an agreement on a proposed wording (or several options) before anyone takes that step. It's clear that the text that's been added/removed a few times does not have consensus, but we need a clear draft/proposal before starting an rfc. I will try to find some time to suggest what I think is appropriate today. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A clear draft/proposal before an RfC? We've progressed to that point already and also that's what they are for. I'll just start it myself like I've said from the beginning that I'll will after enough discussion first. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Mention in the lede

Editors reached an agreement to close this RfC early and start a new RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A short mention in the lede of the talked-about criticism is agreed upon by nigh all, but the exact shape of it is disagreed upon. What should it say? Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Some explanations

The version that stood on in at the end of 2016:

"Due to its gender-specific reference to "man", this term has been referred to by some critics as sexist, and as a way for women to trivialize men's opinions."[4]

The shape of it in June:

"Many people consider the term to be pejorative, sexist and patronising to men."[5]

ValarianB for example noted that pejorative wasn't supported enough.[6]

My recent suggestion was:

"Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators[reflist] describing the term as pejorative or gender-biased. "[7][8]

It still had pejorative in it.

CJhard's suggestion was:

"Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators describing the term as sexist."[9]

Grayfell for example called it too vague, so the next suggestion by Cjhard was:

"Some commentators have described the term as sexist."[10]

Some articles have been in similar situations, like Political Correctness that was discussed at length in RfCs. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• I for one have actually taken a liking to the oldest version best. It has only deteriorated from that point in my opinion. And I prefer it with the first two clauses only. That's the way it actually stood like at the beginning of December: [11]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not exactly off to a strong start when the RfC statement is written in a biased and non-neutral manner, i.e. presuming that a mention in the lead is a done deal. The point of an rfc is to draw in other opinions, this is why it was suggested above that a measured approach to this, not a jump-the-gun one, would be best. Abort this and try again. ValarianB (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're the only one opposing it altogether. Why act like that... Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment RFC statements are supposed to be neutral and easy for someone who is unfamiliar with the issue to understand. This one is very poorly drafted, it should be closed and we should try again with an intelligible (and neutral) question. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Point out exactly what part of this wasn't neutral. A repeating motif seems to be that people here oppose things without suggesting any alternatives. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rfc statement assumes a entry is the lead is a fait accompli, for starters, and then the section of cherry-picked objections and provided your own rebuttals. Seriously, withdraw this, read a bit at WP:RFC, and let's start over. TheValeyard (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

But there is one person opposing it altogether? It's Cjhard, ThinkingTwice, Me, Grayfell, Fyddlestix and Millahnna and NinjaRobotPirate from before supporting at least some sort of mention in the lede, considering we have a large section for it. On top of that, Valarian has in the past supported a mention in the lede but opposed the term pejorative. Next, what objections were cherry-picked and what rebuttals are there? I didn't offer any rebuttals... Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand the point of a request for comment, bro. We're looking for input from beyond the 6-8 people who have participate thus far. Editors who have never been to the talk page and have not participated here. Maybe some new faces would oppose any mention in the lead. Maybe new faces would overwhelmingly support a mention in the lead. We don't know, so the rfc should put all options on the table, neutrally and not pre-suppose the debate. TheValeyard (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to start bro-izing me. I believe it perfectly encapsulates the situation and the dilemma. I mean we could also talk about the aforementioned side-matter of trimming in the same RfC, but that's just burgeoning past the crossroads we're actually at. The question we're having isn't about whether it belongs at all because that matter has already convincingly reached a consensus of 7 vs 1. The disagreement is over the form, and thus the RfC is about the form. An RfC about whether it belongs or not would be a complete waste of time and I believe bringing it up is only some sort of tactic to delegitimize me personally, same with the whole bro-ing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is only one editor against reference to criticism in the lead, against overwhelming consensus for the inclusion, and against WP:LEAD, I don't think an RfC is required to assuage that one person's concerns. Honestly, it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Leads should summarise the article and there's a pretty prominent section dedicated to the criticism. If editors don't like it, attack that section, not the one sentence summary of that section in the lead. Cjhard (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there are issues with this RfC (phrase the question succinctly and neutrally), and I believe some of the editors who've been listed as supporting inclusion in some form probably don't (let's not forget the shifting goalposts) so I suppose while we're going to go through the RfC process, there's no harm in confirming that we should adhere to the Manual of Style. Cjhard (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree but there always are. An RfC can never be objectively neutral according to all people. But they aren't pointing out what went wrong besides pointing out the one person opposing inclusion altogether. That's it? A lot of adjectives but zero specifics besides that. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure I'm not the only one who has reverted your attempted changes to the article, so the two of you may wish to reconsider this line of attack as it begins to cross into WP:NPA grounds... TheValeyard (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Valeyard, nothing I have said could be construed as approaching a personal attack.

Magoo, the commentary needs to be gone from the question. Something along the lines of: "Should there be a reference to criticism of the word "mansplaining" in the lead section? If so, should that include a reference to it being "controversial", "pejorative", "sexist", "gender-biased" and/or "patronising to men"?" The second part of that question could instead be along the lines of "Option A: "Due to its gender-specific reference to "man", this term has been referred to by some critics as sexist, and as a way for women to trivialize men's opinions." Option B: "Many people consider the term to be pejorative, sexist and patronising to men." etc". Cjhard (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you just agree with me on that first question being pointless, having referenced WP:LEAD as well? And honestly, your version sounds a lot less neutral using all of those terms. And only giving a few options is not too neutral either. I can only imagine if I had gone through that route the criticism facing me would've been twice as worse. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is an uncontroversial issue. I feel like it is obvious that it should be included. If we weren't going to have an RfC anyway, I wouldn't advocate for an RfC on it. But like I said above, we are having an RfC, and based on the discussions we've had here, there's more objection to it's inclusion in the lead than is immediately obvious. In short, yes, I think it's a trivial question with an obvious answer straight out of the text book manual of style, but it's not up to me. Include the question. No wording will be included in the lead until the RfC is resolved anyway. If you're right you get the answer you want, if not, you won't.

As to your objections to my suggestions for the RfC. I don't know what to tell you, that's how RfCs work. There are different elements of the lead ("controversial", "pejorative", "sexist") which require consensus. (Ah, I just realised you may have misread what I said. What I meant was, the RfC should seek consensus on each of those elements, not all of them together.) I'm not sure how the multiple option approach could be considered 'not neutral'. You can provide all the options if you wish. Also worth remembering is that RfCs are not votes, people responding don't have to choose one of the options, they may comment on the options, suggesting combinations or alterations. It is from these comments that consensus can be found. Cjhard (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

After all of that the original statement would have been five lines long. I get your point as well but the first thing they tell you about RfCs is that the statement should be short. If anything thus is the problem it is the little historic I gave that didn't cover every little thing that has happened. Of course, one can always just scroll or even just glance up. It's not part of the original RfC as evident at the RfC listings pages, and it was originally just another comment until I thought it looked better in a subsection of its own. Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you be comfortable closing this and allowing me to start a new one? I don't think this one is going to go anywhere. Cjhard (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, go ahead, take your turn at the wheel. Try to keep it short then. But I don't think most editors browsing through RfC listings would really mind one way or another from what I've experienced, as they make their own judgments by looking into what has happened in the past. Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about criticism in the lead

Should the lead section contain a reference to the criticism the word has received? If so, what should it say?

• Option A - "Controversy around the term exists, with some commentators describing the term as pejorative or gender-biased. "
• Option B - "Some commentators have described the term as sexist."

Cjhard (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, 2016 December version I like this version the best: "Due to its gender-specific reference to "man", this term has been referred to by some critics as sexist."[12] Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion and Option B - there is a significant proportion of the article dedicated to criticism of the word. There are a number of reasons for inclusion found in MOS:LEAD, which is summarised by the 'page in a nutshell': "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." I support including the claim that it has been described as sexist as that claim is excellently sourced and is the common theme of criticism across the sources. I support the wording of "sexist" over "gender-biased" as "gender-biased" is just a euphemism for "sexist". I am somewhat opposed to the reference to controversy, as it seems like a weaselly way to call the word controversial, which we don't have RSs for. I'm neutral as to the reference to the term as being "pejorative" in Option A, as the word appears to be intended to be pejorative, but that doesn't mean that it can't be described as such. Cjhard (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a mention in the lede of a fringe criticism. ValarianB (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion I will support whatever the consensus wording is to include, and if necessary I'll be back to put my support to a specific wording to help reach consensus. As mention above (for anyone new) criticism of this term is not fringe, especially when you have RS references like the BBC clearly summarising the contentious nature of the term as "divides people just as much as it highlights inequity in society". Under WP:lead the lead should summaries the article, including the fact that it has been criticised and is controversial. The removal of criticism in the opening section stops a casual reader from understanding a proper summary of the contents of the full article and therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supporters of the term and does not reflect a balanced and WP:NEUTRAL summary of all sides. This being that Lily Rothman's and Rebecca Solnit's POV WP:Opinions have been allowed to continue yet the counter viewpoint has been blanked. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 06:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support option A Criticism is not fringe, and it is often used as an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both as written' - "controversy exists" is hopelessly vague (what is the controversy?) and "some commentators" has the same issue (who?). I have no problem with a sentence about criticism in the lede but it needs to be a well constructed one, and it needs to accurately summarize what the criticisms of the term (and I mean those that have DUEWEIGHT, and can be reliably sourced) are. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per WP:LEAD. Support option A as it's more detailed and explanatory.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both current options - While I wouldn't mind including mention of criticism in the lead, the 2 current options are kind of silly. "Mansplaining" is quite obviously pejorative, gender-biased, and sexist. The criticism of the term is mostly about it being gender essentialist and over-used. Are there any other options? Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm warming to the idea of possibly mentioning something in the opening section, but not the pearl-clutching options currently presented. TheValeyard (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion in the lead gives too much undue weight to minor, relatively obscure criticism compared to the widespread adoption and acceptance of the term. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Neither option is good, since neither addresses the many problems already raised. This could be explained, but this is far too vague and far too heavily weighed towards a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option B (with small modification) The debate is not whether the term is gender-based or pejorative (it is both by definition), it's whether it's sexist. For that reason I oppose Option A. I would include B but simplify the language by replacing Some commentators with Critics:

Critics have described the term as sexist.

James J. Lambden (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Current options are not the best in terms of wording and I am uncertain this warrants inclusion in the lede. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As written, per Fyddlestix, this is vague to the point of being unhelpful. Support criticism in lead in principle. Pincrete (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As written, per Fyddlestix, this is vague to the point of being unhelpful. Further, it looks like someone is trying to interject their opinion into the wikipedia voice. Sources, sources, sources. Trackinfo (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons mentioned above; I'd also suggest breaking up the criticism section, per WP:CSECTION and my own comments below, since I think that's the root of the problem here. "It has been criticized" is not useful; if we want to cover this in the lead, we need to go into at least some more detail on who is saying what, which also requires finding sources covering the general debate from a bit more of a distance (so we have sources characterizing the broad 'sides') and generally structuring the article to cover the term with critical viewpoints integrated into the text as a whole rather than confined to a single wall of angry op-eds. Dumping a bunch of opinion pieces into a section and then putting it in the lead isn't an appropriate way to cover controversial topics. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The idea was to suggest your own in that case. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not my job. TheValeyard (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you here to contribute at all? And why throw this here when people comment on survey choices all the time, as it would be terribly messy if all comments on individual survey choices were only here and not under the specific survey choices themselves. Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's really not too hard to figure out why there's 2 sections, "Survey" and "Threaded discussion". One is where editors give their opinions in a simple format where it will be easy to gauge where we're at, the other is where we have...it's crazy, but hang on...threaded discussions. So the survey section isn't cluttered with back-and-forths. It's not your place to question what I or anyone else is "here for", you have no higher editing rights than I do, longevity and edit counts do not confer status. Curious that you seemed to zero in on my entry and ignore others that also oppose your preferred version. Why is that? TheValeyard (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue is that framing your opposition to inclusion in terms of "I'd support it, if it was worded better" but refusing to proffer any suggestions at improved wording isn't particularly contributive, and this whole exercise would have been a lot easier, with better results, had those framing their opposition in this way made some positive suggestions as to what wording would be acceptable. Cjhard (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I count 4 opposes, varying between outright and conditional. Don't single me out, is the point. TheValeyard (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I did caution Magoo against launching an rfc because we needed further discussion and an agreement on what options should be presented. Next time don't be so hasty (see WP:NODEADLINE). I am still trying to find time to come up with suggested wording of my own - work & life come first though, sorry. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It would have never come. You'd say say that we need to wait and wait. Weeks, months would pass. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two sections but it's not an optimal system. If you look at what actually happens in practice, it's exactly like I described. And I'm not questioning what you're "here for" but why you and a select clique of editors are refusing to tell us what you actually want the lead to say, considering WP:LEAD dictates it should say something and you acknowledge that. You're seemingly trying to force some sort of WP:LEAD-breaking limbo state where nothing gets added, without literally declaring that you're against WP:LEAD. And I responded to you because you were the latest comment. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And I have to say if that kind of behavior is actually happening, it's clearly straight out of the cookbook of how to troll Wikipedia. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm still mostly of a mind that it should not contain any mention of a fringe criticism...the idea that calling out sexist language in men is itself sexist is remarkably ridiculous Men's Rights dogma...at all, but am open to possibilities. If I'm going to be attacked when I'm at 100% opposed or at 80% opposed, though, that's not a great incentive to listen to what you have to say. TheValeyard (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you're describing your own opinion on the matter instead of what the sources represent. And I've tried to talk but you're not willing to offer any suggestions of your own. All you do is shoot everything down. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

When all you offer are bad ideas, that's what we call a "target rich environment". TheValeyard (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Took you three days to come up with that one. Again, if mine are so bad offer your own. Anything should be better, right? For some bizarre reason you're 100% refusing to do that. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been aware of this conversation, but have been busy this weekend...lots of Fall yard sales around here, got some pretty good deals. You aren't my center of attention, bro. If I feel that there should be no mention in the lead at all, I don't plan on offering "my own". That's kinda how it works. TheValeyard (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The onus is still on you, same as always. Arbitrary expectations for when people should respond says more about you than anyone else. Right now, the article is better off without the changes you've proposed. Change isn't the main goal or the default outcome of an RFC. As far as I can see, you haven't acknowledged our concerns in any depth, although you've brushed them off as gaming the system. That's not a lot to work with. Grayfell (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not, because I have offered many alternatives and explained my stance. Where as you have supported much stronger language less than a year ago and especially written that the sources support that language but now you're strangely refusing to give any opinion besides extremely vague resistance and shifting goal posts as described by Cj. What concerns? Please explain in detail because you haven't before. You try your best at keeping your concerns supremely vague and impossible to answer to. First things are too vague and next they are too specific. And you and the others have a habit of ceasing to respond when someone asks any of you to explain something in detail. Why is the group of you so seemingly in unison about everything? Do you all discuss things beforehand on Twitter or something? Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You're adversarial attitude doesn't assume good faith. Again, you are brushing this off as gaming the system, and now also you're insinuating conspiracy theories. How's that working for you?

I have already explained my position. I was initially willing to tolerate a mention in the lede, but on closer inspection, I don't think that's an improvement. Just because you do not understand my concerns doesn't make them vague, it just means you don't understand my concerns. To reiterate, yet again, the csection is a diffused set of criticisms gathered from all-over the internet. Some are weaker than others, but all of them are Wikipedia editor-selected exampled of criticism. None are supported, explained, or emphasized by WP:SECONDARY sources. Further, there are no sources summarizing this debate/discussion/controversy/whatever. Expecting Wikipedia editors to summarize all of this Google-dump of random criticisms is unrealistic. I original thought it might be doable, but I was wrong. To present this in the lede without clearly explaining that these "critiques" are a small subset of total commentary would be misrepresenting the encyclopedic significance of the hodgepodge of sources. Saying that "criticism exists" is far, far too vague, and implies that this is a shared perspective. That's not true, as even a cursory reading shows that critics do not share the same critisicms or perspective at all. Citing Young or any other specific viewpoint in the lede would be far, far too detailed, because it would be implying that this one view was is in some way representative of a larger discussion, which, again, is way too subjective and not supported by these sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You weren't originally just "willing to tolerate a mention" in the lede. You originally reverted a removal of the mention that was part of the stable version for a year and wrote: "Content is sourced and reasonably well attributed".[13] Again, what has changed? What kind of an explanation can you come up with for this complete reversal? To me it does seem like an attempt to game the system and be against the rules of WP:LEAD, especially considering you're now seemingly in revert tag-team formation with editors exhibiting the exact same bizarre behavior.

And now you have actually bothered to attempt an argument but you start off by giving obvious falsehoods.

To reiterate, yet again, the csection is a diffused set of criticisms gathered from all-over the internet. Some are weaker than others, but all of them are Wikipedia editor-selected exampled of criticism. None are supported, explained, or emphasized by WP:SECONDARY sources.

Obviously false. What do you think news articles about a politician calling the term sexist is? A primary source? What do you think a news article referring to people calling a hotline to state it's sexist is? A primary source?

On top of the secondary sourcings, all of the sources we use "in favor" of the term are as mentioned many times before, opinion essays. I'll quote myself from before, only fixing the typo: "The article uses heavily as a primary source Rebecca Solnit's essay Men Explain Things To Me and unreliable pop news sites quoting it. It was originally published at TomDispatch.com but sites like LA Times republished it as one of their opinion posts. It's categorized under "opinion" in the url. Then we have the author's new article used as a source: titled "Men Still Explain Things To Me", categorized under "Activism" at TheNation.com. Then we have articles like the one from The Atlantic by a freelance writer. Categorized under "Sexes". Begins with a meme image from Someecards."

Further, there are no sources summarizing this debate/discussion/controversy/whatever.

False. Most if not all of the sources attempt at summaries of the use and the controversy surrounding the term.

Expecting Wikipedia editors to summarize all of this Google-dump of random criticisms is unrealistic. I original thought it might be doable, but I was wrong. To present this in the lede without clearly explaining that these "critiques" are a small subset of total commentary would be misrepresenting the encyclopedic significance of the hodgepodge of sources. Saying that "criticism exists" is far, far too vague, and implies that this is a shared perspective. That's not true, as even a cursory reading shows that critics do not share the same critisicms or perspective at all. Citing Young or any other specific viewpoint in the lede would be far, far too detailed, because it would be implying that this one view was is in some way representative of a larger discussion, which, again, is way too subjective and not supported by these sources.

Now you criticize it being vague again even though to anyone just stumbling here the criticism is so obviously easy to summarize and not vague whatsoever. All of the critics say the same thing using synonyms. And at the end you also disallow being specific to top it all off.

You offer no suggestions of your own, once again. No one from the reverters is willing to offer any suggestions. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have offered a solution, and that solution is to leave it out of the lede. This demand that others offer "suggestions" which meet your personal standard is insulting. I am not part of any off-site conspiracy, and by explaining that I've demeaned us both. You're obsession with me having changed my mind serves no productive purpose. If you are not also at least open to changing your mind, this discussion is a dead end.

Again, your failure to understand my point doesn't invalidate it, and again, there are so many problems it's hard to know where to start. This RFC risks fossilizing a summary that has multiple flaws.

Yes, some sources summarizes these criticisms, but these are not actually being used for anything substantial in this article. This doesn't belong in the lede until it's tidied up in the body, because that would be non-neutral. One specific source worth mentioning is the Minnesota Public Radio one. That source is painfully misused, though. It summarizes the problem in a very, very different way from the tangle of op-eds making up the bulk of the rest of the section. Including it in the beginning of the section implies that it's comparable, or part of the same criticism, which I strongly contest. You, obviously, disagree, and feel that these sources are saying something similar. That highlights why independent sources should be used for these op-eds to avoid cherry-picking and WP:SYNTH. The MPR source very specifically mentions that the phenomenon described by the term is legitimate and worthy of discussion, even if the term itself may not be helpful. This point is repeated by other reliable sources which mention this aspect. So why is that completely glossed-over, while Young's op-eds get two low-info mentions?

If we drastically cut-out all op-eds without independent sources establishing significance (which I would love to see across the entire article), how would the remaining sources be summarized? It would not be similar to your proposal, so that proposal is a form of original research which relies on questionably reliable sources. I don't want to overstate that, because it's a reasonable approach based on what's here, but it's still OR, and it's still not going to work.

This is a recurring problem with neologisms which is so much deeper than the criticism section. Adding this to the lede is making things worse, not better. Listing every example of undefined usage (in a puff-piece about Matt Damon, for example) adds pop-culture bloat to what is supposed to be a long-view encyclopedia article. We have no coherent standard for what's included and what isn't. This makes any attempt at a neutral summary a minefield, and this is even worse for the criticism section. It isn't a neutral approach to find those sources (some of which are disposable gossip) which mention sexism and then compiling those into their own section. It supports a specific POV about the term which is detached from the larger context. It's exactly what WP:CSECTION warns against. If so many of these sources already used are critical of the term, why isn't this content integrated into the article as a whole? If that happened, the summary of the criticisms would be dramatically different.

We could discuss what that summary would look like, but that's premature. It also seems unlikely to be productive if it's preemptively dismissed as trolling/off-site-canvassing/whatever. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You only now began stating that because I kept asking for a suggestion for the mention in the lede, after you kept shooting down all my suggestions. Before this you were vaguely supporting a mention for months and like pointed out supported much stronger language in just last December, stating that you have checked the sources and that they support the language. You state you don't need to explain why you keep changing your mind, but that leaves open questions about the merit of your current stance then. What changed from December?

You write a large paragraph about MPR not being given enough attention. As you may recall you were one of the editors who kept reverting my addition of sources as well. I tried adding sources like the MPR one to the criticism section but they kept getting removed. I have prepared text for the Swedish case as well (sourced by the likes of BBC) but I'm awaiting my time between each edits because if I edit a big lump I'll instantly get reverted by the revert team. I can only edit the article in small portions anymore that do not trigger the alarm of the revert team. And MPR is not there to state the term is naturally bad or something as you have somehow understood the criticism section. As explained by most of the criticism sources, there exists controversy around the way the term is built, from gender-specific parts.

The point is not to cut out all op-ed articles because such a thing is impossible for something as silly as an article for recent pop culture slang. Do you expect there to be academic sources for "man bod" as well? I pointed out the hypocrisy in demanding rigorousness from critics but not from others. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And there we go, I tried adding the Swedish case and I instantly got reverted by you. Let's recap. You call things too vague and then you call them too specific. You say there isn't enough sourcing or descriptions and then you remove sourcings and descriptions. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Only now stating what? I don't understand what you think I'm now stating, and I'm not sure why it matters. The point is to get the article into better shape. If that means content lacking quality sources is removed, so be it. That absolutely includes non-critical sources. The only specific example I cited was a non-critical usage which seems gossipy and superfluous. If you want to call me a hypocrite, so be it, you'll still need to neutrally summarize reliable sources. If that means cutting out some of the many op-eds and pop-culture puff, I don't see a problem. Your assumption that there are no "academic" sources is an assumption, and 'academic' is not the only standard here. If reliable sources discuss this in depth, it's noteworthy enough for an article. So we need to summarize those sources. Lumping all the critical commentary together in one section isn't neutral. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have little interest in removing any of the flimsy primary sources supporting the term besides the Matt Damon one. To me it doesn't seem like you really care about proper sourcing, but simply your own opinion about the term. Do you want the sources and the text to reflect your opinion, and not the other way around? That would explain your flip-flops, it's not about the sources but your opinion about the term changing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

How about you start answering my points instead of fixating on my behavior. We both know damn well it would be WP:POINTy as hell to start striping content from the article in the middle of an RFC. Your edit had the exact same problem I've already repeated multiple times already. It introduces extremely vague wording without any context at all. "The hotline received complaints concerning the term mansplain." Selects one factoid and strips it of all surrounding detail. This heinously misrepresents the larger body of sources. Sources specifically say that the hotline received praise and positive feedback from the women who were supposed to be the ones calling it in the first place. It also calls into question whether or not it was a stunt specifically to prompt conversations. That's pretty much what they cop to in the sources you added for the 'complaints' line. You didn't add that part, though, did you? The "complaints" are the only part you've chosen to emphasize, which is a demonstrable example of you making the article reflect your personal opinion of the term. Grayfell (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

How is that vague but stating that "launched a phone hotline for reporting mansplaining" isn't? You seem to have various definitions for being vague and it all depends on whether the text is against or for the term. And to add to that, the praise didn't get numerous headlines about it. The complaints did. You have a problem with something the many headlines mentioned but also have a problem not mentioning something on line 60 at some article. And you just complained that specifics parts of the article don't have enough meat to them. The RfC is about the lead, not the body. Are you suggesting no one edit the article while the RfC about the lead mention goes on? Then again why only remove part of the edit and not the entirety. Because you liked the supporting part and not the criticism? The pattern just keeps repeating. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assumptions about my beliefs, correct or not, still don't matter. Who is making these complaints and why are these complaints noteworthy? Why do the complaints of a totally unknown quantity of unidentified people matter at all? This isn't just about repeating headlines, this is about imparting useful information. Establish this in a neutral way, from reliable sources, in proportion to due weight. That's not really asking for all that much. Simply saying "complaints were made" is dictionary definition vague: it lacks enough detail to be informative. In other words, it is imprecise and not clearly expressed. If the only reason you added the hotline section was as a prelude to including bad things about the term as a form of balance, than it makes sens that you also removed it. I don't think that kind of balance is productive or neutral, however. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I made no assumption but pointed out plain behavior. Of course your biasness matters. And you asked for more details and sources about who has complained (especially secondary sources) so that's why I added it. And the articles refer to people by name who made complaints the articles quote. If I had added the specific criticisms people threw you would have removed it more than surely. If I had formed some sort of original summary of what the criticisms are you would have removed it surely. The only option left was to only extremely politely state there were complaints. But you removed that as well. You exercise complete control over the article now, in unison with the rest of the tag-team. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Magoo, your insistence on assuming bad faith is getting really tiresome. Has it occurred to you that your dismissive, accusatory responses to any disagreement with you might be one reason why this rfc is not getting more input? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And there comes another member of the team to the rescue. Tell me for you keep avoiding that question, how did you find your way here? You had no edits at this talk or the main article before. The RfC hadn't even been discussed yet. And this RfC has gotten more input in the amount of time it's been up than comparable ones regarding difficult matters. Only thing is some editors who were all here before the RfC oppose WP:LEAD and refuse to suggest any forms of mentions of their own so obviously we're being bogged down by them. That kind of behavior is gaming the system. Also, it seems to be another repeating pattern than whenever the two us meet, you are part of a revert team opposing some compromise-seeking edit of mine and we have to go through an RfC where it's found that yes, my edit was reasonable enough. Why don't you ever seek a compromise with me? Why is it always either-or. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is system-gaming afoot, it is certainly coming from either a supportive-of-criticism-section participant who logs out to conceal identity, a collection of interested parties who organize offsite, or the like. Whenever the semi-protection expires, the IP editors pounce, sometimes within minutes. ValarianB (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That looks like the same person and judging by how little they understand Wikipedia and how detrimental their behavior is I doubt they are logging out from any veteran account. I first thought it was someone false flagging. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to note that people who are opposing based on WP:FRINGE are not making an argument against inclusion in the WP:LEAD, but an argument for exclusion from the article entirely. If it is fringe, it shouldn't be in the article. But the criticism section exists, so you would need to start a new RfC to have it excluded in its entirety. And since it exists, arguing fringe is not an argument against inclusion in the lead. And Fyddlestix, the answer to your questions can be found within the criticism section itself. The lead is not meant to provide all the details that have been covered in the main section, but to give a summary. WP:LEAD's nutshell is The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. One sentence mentioning criticism exists is not WP:UNDUE.--Terrorist96 (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the relevant argument and the conclusion is straightforward: the lede summarizes the body. The article has 4 sections one of which is criticism. It would be misleading not to include a mention in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

• "Criticism" shouldn't be in its own section. Combine it with "Usage" or otherwise expand the "Criticism" to also include why its proponents find it useful. Once that balance is rectified, it would be easily to create a single sentence for the lede that balances what proponents and detractors say, weighted proportionately to the coverage of those perspectives in reliable sources. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with this, at least. Criticism sections are rarely helpful, and this one in particular looks like it's turned into a dumping ground for random opinion pieces (including multiple pieces by the same author, which feels WP:UNDUE to me). That's one of the reasons why we don't have criticism sections, as a general rule. Moving some of it into origins, some into usage, and possibly turning the rest into a new section on whether the term is useful would be a far better way of arranging it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The whole article is based on opinion pieces by people who support the term. The original article coining the term is an opinion piece and so is the follow-up of it by the same author. I have stated this numerous times.

I also knew with 100% certainty you were going to show up to troll and disrupt following Fyddlestix. I didn't want to make it easier by stating it out loud. The RfC made it very easy to explain your appearance so after that I was just waiting. Fyddlestix still hasn't explained how he found his way to this article and he's avoiding the matter as best as he can. I was also surprised to see Pincrete appear just days before you too. The three who opposed the neutral description at Political Correctness against me and lost show up here as well... Wasn't there some decision that you three should avoid editing the same articles as me? Wasn't that part of the hounding decision? Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)